YHWHFollower Posted March 24, 2002 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 3 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/21/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted March 24, 2002 If shortly pass could be 2002 years because there is no time with God, then the thousand year reign could be what? 1/2 a day? Yes we need to learn to compare to scripture totallyuncommon. Then the creation could be billions of yaers, or simply seconds. What the Bible says, I will follow. You follow whatever terminology you want, and you will reap what you sow. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YHWHFollower Posted March 24, 2002 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 3 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/21/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted March 24, 2002 The LORD created the Earth, did he not? The point was the Lord made day and night, 1 day. He obviously had a sense of time there, but he did not abide by the rules of time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totallyuncommon Posted March 24, 2002 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 11 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/05/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted March 24, 2002 Don't understand your comment about me following whatever and reaping what I sow, as if I don't follow the Word of God, YHWH.Time is for the finite, why would an infinite God have to abide by the rules of time? Further, time was given to man to mark seasons, etc. God uses the vehicle of time to make himself known to man, and fulfill His divine plans and purposes.This thread is really confusing as it seems you all think the earth is much older than it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YHWHFollower Posted March 24, 2002 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 3 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/21/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted March 24, 2002 John wrote Revelations, did he not???? God made the first day, did he not???? If shortly come to pass doesn't mean shortly come to pass, the 1000 year reign could mean something entirely different! When you apply a pattern somewhere, you continue to apply that pattern until it is obvious you can't! The beast and all isn't a literal beast, but a man, so the 1000 years doesn't have to 1000 years does it?Oh, and never refer to me as YHWH. That is the original Hebrew name for God. No one knows exactly how to say it. Jehovah was a miss translation when people got some hebrew letters confused. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totallyuncommon Posted March 25, 2002 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 11 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/05/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted March 25, 2002 No, BELIEVER, the 1000 years is a literal 1000 years. I already knew what the first part of the name you chose for the board meant. I trust, since I don't know you, that you believe on Jesus for your salvation? Not trying to be mean, I'm just new here.Really, on the "shortly coming to pass" thing I think you're just being silly. What is "short" to God since He knows the end from the beginning, etc.? What is short means to us does not apply to Him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
me4him Posted April 7, 2002 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 8 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/07/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted April 7, 2002 Revelation is actually a prophecy about history. It is not just history alone...prophecy is about history period whether it is about a personal matter or a worldwide matter. It reveals before it actually happens the history of events. .... In prophecy of any kind you can't have one without the other. The History verifies the prophecy. Prophecy verifies the events and when they will happen in history. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Ernie Posted April 7, 2002 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 75 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,802 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 46 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/29/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/01/1945 Share Posted April 7, 2002 Greetings All,These 'amill' types just don't seem to get it. In the Greek there are basically two words that are interpreted 1,000. These are: 5505 chilias {khil-ee-as'} from 5507; TDNT - 9:466,1316; n f AV - thousand 23; 23 1) a thousand, the number one thousandOR 5507 chilioi {khil'-ee-oy} plural of uncertain affinity; TDNT - 9:466,1316; adj AV - thousand 11; 11 1) a thousandAND 3463 murioi {moo'-ree-oi} plural of an apparently primary word (properly, meaning very many);; adj AV - ten thousand 3; 3 1) innumerable, countless 2) ten thousandIn all cases of the NT where "chilias or chilioi" is used it is ALWAYS translated as a LITERAL 1,000.In the case of "murioi" the word can either mean 1,000 or an "indefinite" amount.All the references to the 1,000 years (LITERAL) in Peter or Revelation is either "chilias or chilioi". This does not give any latitude for "spiritualizing" the text.ALSOIf someone wants to argue about the "hour" mentioned in some texts, look at the "definition": 5610 hora {ho'-rah} apparently a primary word; TDNT - 9:675,1355; n f AV - hour 89, time 11, season 3, misc 5; 108 1) a certain definite time or season fixed by natural law and returning with the revolving year 1a) of the seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, winter 2) the daytime (bounded by the rising and setting of the sun), a day 3) a twelfth part of the day-time, an hour, (the twelve hours of the day are reckoned from the rising to the setting of the sun) 4) any definite time, point of time, momentThis word can be interpreted either as one hour, a very short time, or even a "season". Do you see the similarity to this word and "murioi"?Whenever "spiritualizing" of the text occurs you are taking the chance that it could very well be "LITERAL" and you are then charged with adding to or taking away from the Word.If using "good hermeneutics", the LITERAL interpretation methods must always come first unless the context might indicate otherwise. To be arbitrary in your interpretation always produces all sorts of "personal interpretation" of which the scriptures warn against:2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.In other words, scripture will interpret scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. One is not left with an option to interpret the scriptures according to their own whims or ideas or paradigms.Blessings,Dad Ernie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts