Shortly Come to Pass and the Error of Preterism

Diggin...

Here are the ONLY...repeat, ONLY three scriptures in the entire N.T. that uses the two words, EN and TACHOS together in this same order. There is a reason for that.

Rom 16:20 And 1161 the God 2316 of peace 1515 shall bruise 4937 Satan 4567 under 5259 your 5216 feet 4228 shortly 1722 5034. The grace 5485 of our 2257 Lord 2962 Jesus 2424 Christ 5547 [be] with 3326 you 5216. Amen 281.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation 602 of Jesus 2424 Christ 5547, which 3739 God 2316 gave 1325 unto him 846, to shew 1166 unto his 846 servants 1401 things which 3739 must 1163 shortly 1722 5034 come to pass 1096 ; and 2532 he sent 649 and signified 4591 [it] by 1223 his 846 angel 32 unto his 846 servant 1401 John 2491:

Rev 22:6 And 2532 he said 2036 unto me 3427, These 3778 sayings 3056 [are] faithful 4103 and 2532 true 228: and 2532 the Lord 2962 God 2316 of the holy 40 prophets 4396 sent 649 his 846 angel 32 to shew 1166 unto his 846 servants 1401 the things which 3739 must 1163 shortly 1722 5034 be done 1096 .

None of them indicate that there is a rapidity of time subseqent to the mention of the event. In each and every case, the emphasis is upon the STATE of affairs as indicated by the PREPOSITION.

If the preposition was not PRESENT with "tachos," we would naturally believe that it is speaking ONLY of the rapid succesion of TIME. But, the preposition is a qualifier that indicates that when the times comes to pass, there will be a rapid change of STATE.

A rapid succession of time from the mention of the word is seen in Paul's request to Timothy that Timothy would come to him "shortly." There is no prequalifiying preposition to indicate a STATE of affairs but rather simply the quickness of time ALONE.

But, the God of Peace will elevate his people into a state by which spiritually the head of Satan will be bruised shortly. This "shortly" is qualified by the preposition "en," indicating a STATE to exist among the saints to which God will elevate them into.

What do you suppose will happen when Jesus takes away the candlestick from the midst of a church? What do you suppose will happen to a church or an individual when Jesus no longer stands at the door, knocking? There will be a RAPID succession of STATE of affairs. Jesus calls upon the churches to REPENT. To REPENT or not dictates the rapid succession of STATE in regards to the spiritual condition or STATE of the churches.

The entire book of Revelation in no way deals with those things that of PAST (preterist) history. It deals with spiritual matters, through to the end.

The word EN is indispensible to the understanding of "tachos," unless we are adamant in twisting, and perverting the word so much as to make it fit a 70AD doctrine. I am not so inclined to inflict so much terrible VIOLENCE upon the Word.

Let Bro. Blume call it mean spirited if he wishes, since that is his mantra against everyone that dares to disagree with him, but the truth remains the truth regardless if it is perceived as mean spirited.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Elder Strange you are correct and the problem with their interpetation of "shortly come to pass" is that most scholars place the writing of Revelations around 90 ad TWENTY years beyond the so-called fulfilment of this prophecy. The quote many sources to seem they have scholarship but when investigated ALL their sources are quoting one source. The MAJORITY of scholarship has the book written AFTER the event took place. So it should have read according to these folks "they have ALREADY came to pass."
Next "this generation" is speaking of the JEWISH RACE not a particular time. Jesus is simply saying the Jewish RACE will be in existance UNTIL Jesus comes.

Elder,

As you already know, there are a number of linchpins to the Preterist doctrine, that if pulled would cause the entire theory to collapse in a junk heap.

First of all, as you said, if it were anyway possible for them to prove against all odds that Revelation was written prior to 70AD, their argument would be over and lost.

The along with their misunderstanding and deliberate twisting of "shortly come to pass," "at hand," and "this geneation," they have effectively done away with major portions of the Bible, relegating it to a dust heap of archival irrelevance.

I get upset when I see such violence inflicted upon the Word of God

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Again, you avoid the obvious.

I perhaps should have enlarged on the whole of the definition of EN and TACHOS together but I really didn't think that it would have been neccessary in light of the OBVIOUS that I addressed.

Oh wow. This is something else. I cannot believe you will not admit that use of a PREPOSITION, such as "IN" is all you need to make your point. You WAFFLED and you know it.

I avoid the obvious? Please elucidate on how I have avoided the obvious by showing you that YOU CANNOT USE A PREPOSITION all by itself to prove your point.

You said EN is translated SHORTLY. EN is NOT translated "shortly" any more than "WITH" is translated "WITH CONCERN." And there is nothing OBVIOUS about removing the all important term TACHOS. Wow, again.

You consistently take things out of context and address only bits and pieces that you can twist to mislead others with.

Is everyone actually reading this?

This is unbelievable!

Saying that I am taking things out of context when I accuse you of riding on a MERE preposition and saying you are WRONG when you do not take the combination of the preposition EN and the word TACHOS to correclty ascertain what SHORTLY means.

I have never seen such stubborn refusal to accept the obvious.

It is really amazing that anyone would follow after that, even with your writing gifts.

Am I the ONLY one that can see through your ERROR? If so, I will alone continue to address it.

That is because you must be the only one who does not know what a preposition is.

The exact same words used by John in Rev. 1:1 are again used by Jesus in the very last chapter of the bible:

shortly [1722] en
(with Strongs #) [5034] tachos
be done. [1096] ginomai

"En" signifies STATE. "Tachos" signify speed. "Ginomai" signify what must happen in history.

GINOMAI is translated as PASS in Rev 1:1. It is ADDED to the term "EN TACHOS" to further clarify his point. EN TACHOS is ONE ENGLISH WORD, "shortly", while GINOMAI is translated as three, "COME TO PASS". When it is used in Rev GINOMAI is translated as "BE DONE".

This brings us into another argument altogether. It is whether or not interpreting the reference to be the coming of wrath in AD70 can be understood as correct in light of the belief that the great white throne judgment and the coming down to earth of the New City is still our future.

So which argument are you going to deal with now? The idea of whether or not SHORTLY has nothing to do with time or the argument that it does deal with time and cannot allow for elements of Rev 20 through 22 to be our future?

Do not ask me how SHORTLY can be a TIME issue by challenging whether or not it first the ide aof Rev 20 through 22 being our future, but rather FIRST SETTLLE THE MATTER OF WHETHER OR NOT SHORTLY IS A TIME ISSUE.

Once again, you said EN means SHORTLY. That is totally wrong. Shortly is not EN. It is EN TACHOS. Brother, you were totally wrong in saying a preposition means SHORTLY. Just admit it.

Your insistence on Rev. 1:1 as what follows in Revelation must then come to pass shortly must also include those things mentioned in the entirety of the book including all of Revelation 22 as well.

Still changing arguments. I wil deal with THAT issue after you deal with what you started in saying SHORTLY has nothing to do with time. And you say I avoid the OBVIOUS??????

Cease removing yourself from the glaring error you made in saying SHORTLY does NOT DEAL WITH TIME.

Rev 22:6 ¶ And he said unto me, These sayings [are] faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Your insistence upon a quick speed of time in transition of all things in regard to some parts of Revelation as you see it, i.e. Roman Armies, the old city of Jerusalem, Nero, Titus and all of that which you claim came to pass in 70AD as fulfillment of the Revelation prophecy insisting upon the idea that the "time is at hand," or "shortly come to pass," in this regard is a serious flaw in spiritual thinking, without including the literal coming of Jesus with your same definition.

Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

Can it get any plainer? Spiritual STATE is the subject of Revelation and NOT NERO, 70AD and the old NATURAL city of Jerusalem.

All your masks of descriptions of how plain your idea is and how wrong I am does not change the fact that you are wrong in using a preposition, that means IN or WITH or BY or AGAINST and saying it means SHORTLY.

Rev 22:10-12 is STILL speaking about a coming in wrath in AD70.

It is not a spiritual STATE. It is a STATE OF TIME as the term is used in every single instance of the New Testament. I listed them all. STATE OF TIME is the ONLY translation of the terms EN anc TACHOS.

Rev 22:12 ¶ And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Using your own natural reasoning, then it is obvious that everything prophesied in Revelation has already happened including Revelation 19, 20, 21 and 22.

Wrong.

Revelation was concentrating upon the issue close to John's day. The OPENNESS of the sealed book, disallowed to be sealed, in Rev 22:10 in light of Daniel's command only 400 years earlier to SEAL the book because the time was for the END proves that the events had to occur less that hundreds of years, let alone thousands. And since there is nothing wrong with referring to some implicated events that would occur thousands of years later in reflection upon the destruction of OLD Jerusalem, while maintaining the crux of the wrath was definitely to occur AT HAND. What is wrong with leaving the point of the wrath of God in the first century in destroying the OLD Jerusalem and mentioning the FATE OF THE NEW? It is like a contrast. the issue at hand was Jerusalem's demise. And God simply showed John the OTHER JERUSALEM, that is THE NEW, and noted how it will continue for eternity. It changes nothing about the main overall issue being wrath which would come to pass in the first century.

Call is stupid and all the other adjectives you seem to always muster up, but it is reasonable, anyway.

Again: Christ's coming in Rev 22:12 is speaking of the coming of destruction in AD70. The context shows the New Jerusalem completed in our future, and while mentioning this, John wrote that Jesus would come shortly in destruction from the time he wrote after simply mentioning all that would occur. He said, in effect, knowing about all the wrath of God against Israel and Jerusalem, and knowing that the NEW JERUSALEM is all that will remain, get ready and ensure you do not miss this, just as Matthew 24 warned the people of the AD70 destruction to not be left smiting one another and in drunkenness. You want to remain oustide that wrath and enjoy the UNENDING NEW JERUSALEM.

Before I get back to my proposition found in my first post, please explain how the scriptures can also use "en tachos ginomai," in Revelation 22 and then YOU state that Jesus has NOT literally returned.

Before you get back.... You would like to avoid that issue. That is the entire point of this thread topic! And you want to deal with other issues now .

And NOW you use TACHOS, finally, but have not yet admitted your error in riding upon a preposition.

I will maintain my position that the crux of the whole matter is found in the preposition "EN," which transcends the natural, carnal, material, world and its events, but is rather as "EN" indicates, a matter of SPIRITUAL STATE....

Because you are too stubborn to admit your error. The crux CAN NEVER BE A PREPOSITION. That is as silly as saying the entire crux of understanding what "IN TRUTH" means is the preoposition "IN". Meanwhile, the same meaning of the term "IN" can be used in the totally different phrase "IN CONCERN". How on earth can "IN" be the crux of the phrase "IN TRUTH" when the same preposition has nothing to do with "truth" when used in the phrase "IN CONCERN"?

For some reason, you will deny the obvious.

"For some reason..."

Bro Strange you beat all when you refuse to admit your glaring error.

Tacos are yummy.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Diggin...

Here are the ONLY...repeat, ONLY three scriptures in the entire N.T. that uses the two words, EN and TACHOS together in this same order. There is a reason for that.

That is another glaring error.

There are MORE THAN THREE.

Luk 18:8 KJV+ I tell3004 you5213 that3754 he will avenge4160, 1557 them846 speedily.1722, 5034 Nevertheless4133 when the3588 Son5207 of man444 cometh,2064 shall(687) he find2147 faith4102 on1909 the3588 earth?1093

Act 12:7 KJV+ And,2532 behold,2400 the angel32 of the Lord2962 came upon2186 him, and2532 a light5457 shined2989 in1722 the3588 prison:3612 and1161 he smote3960 Peter4074 on the3588 side,4125 and raised him up,1453, 846 saying,3004 Arise up450 quickly.1722, 5034 And2532 his846 chains254 fell off1601 from1537 his hands.5495

Act 22:18 KJV+ And2532 saw1492 him846 saying3004 unto me,3427 Make haste,4692 and2532 get1831 thee quickly1722, 5034 out of1537 Jerusalem:2419 for1360 they will not3756 receive3858 thy4675 testimony3141 concerning4012 me.1700

Act 25:4 KJV+ But3767 (3303) Festus5347 answered,611 that Paul3972 should be kept5083 at1722 Caesarea,2542 and1161 that he himself1438 would3195 depart1607 shortly1722, 5034 thither.

Rom 16:20 KJV+ And1161 the3588 God2316 of peace1515 shall bruise4937 Satan4567 under5259 your2257 feet4228 shortly.1722, 5034 The3588 grace5485 of our2257 Lord2962 Jesus2424 Christ5547 be with3326 you.5216 Amen.281


Rev 1:1 KJV+ The Revelation602 of Jesus2424 Christ,5547 which3739 God2316 gave1325 unto him,846 to show1166 unto his848 servants1401 things which3739 must1163 shortly1722, 5034 come to pass;1096 and2532 he sent649 and signified4591 it by1223 his848 angel32 unto his848 servant1401 John:2491

Rev 22:6 KJV+ And2532 he said2036 unto me,3427 These3778 sayings3056 are faithful4103 and2532 true:228 and2532 the Lord2962 God2316 of the3588 holy40 prophets4396 sent649 his848 angel32 to show1166 unto his848 servants1401 the things which3739 must1163 shortly1722, 5034 be done.1096

There are SEVEN!

None of them indicate that there is a rapidity of time for the event subseqent to the mention of the event to John. In each and every case, the emphasis is upon the STATE of affairs as indicated by the PREPOSITION.

You STILL do not know what a PREPOSITION IS.

Also, vengeance given SPEEDILY does not have to occur shortly after the thought is mentioned, but can simply mean that WHENEVER IT DOES OCCUR, soon or not, it will occur RAPIDLY. This shows that the surrounding terms restrict the idea of whether or not the event would occur soon in relation to the time of it being mentioned or not. But in the case of Rev 1:1, it is a SOON-AFTER-JOHN-HEARD-IT event to occur, because verse 3 distinctly said THE TIME IS AT HAND. It is a matter of TIME, because verse 3 qualifies those events quite explicitly!

Rev 1:1-3 KJV The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which mustshortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: (2) Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. (3) Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.


The thought of verse 1 is REPEATED to John in verse 3, PROVING it is a time issue.

"State of affairs".... wow.

The preposition simply means STATE. And the term TACHOS limits that to be a STATE ASSOCIATED WITH TIME.

Anyone can see Bro Strange's error.

If the preposition was not PRESENT with "tachos," we would naturally believe that it is speaking ONLY of the rapid succesion of TIME. But, the preposition is a qualifier that indicates that when the times comes to pass, there will be a rapid change of STATE.

No. It is a change of NOTHING. CHANGE has nothing to do with the entire phrase. "IN HASTE" is not understood as a change of state. IT IS THE ONLY STATE in which the said subject would occur.

The preposition EN simply points to WHEN the surrounding idea, which happens to EVENTS, would occur in relation to THE TIME of John's reception of this revelation. SPEED and HASTE are tied to the entire thought being related through the preposition EN. HASTE has to do with the events that will be written about, and the association HASTE has with the events is that the events will occur "IN" haste. The STATE in which the events will occur is HASTE.

It is like someone saying that someone is making a decision. How is that decision being made? In what STATE is the person's MIND when they make that decision, or is it a matter of state of time? A preposition "IN" will tie our answer to the decision. And whatever term IN prefixes, will deteremine if it is a matter of time, mind or something totally different! If the thought of "earnest" decision making is the STATE, then the decision is made "IN EARNEST". The term EARNEST is applied to the situation to explain that the issue is a STATE of SINCERITY, and not time. But when HASTE is involved as the state, then TIME is the issue.

Similarly, when TACHOS is used with "EN", IT IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE OF TIME!

A rapid succession of time from the mention of the word is seen in Paul's request to Timothy that Timothy would come to him "shortly." There is no prequalifiying preposition to indicate a STATE of affairs but rather simply the quickness of time ALONE.

That makes no sense, either. TIME ALONE is ALSO understood by using the preposition EN in conjunction with any reference to time, like TACHOS.

But, the God of Peace will elevate his people into a state by which spiritually the head of Satan will be bruised shortly. This "shortly" is qualified by the preposition "en," indicating a STATE to exist among the saints to which God will elevate them into.

I have never before seen such pretense in using grammatical terms so far out of proper use. It's like a janitor throwing around rocket science terms to explain to people about the failure of the APOLLO 12 mission, when the terms being used are not understood at all by the janitor.

Paul's reference to a certain STATE in which Satan's head being bruised is understood to be a state of TIME. It will occur SHORTLY, in the sense of time, from the time Paul wrote what he did to the Romans. Saying that SHORTLY is qualified by the term EN to mean a STATE OF POSITION is totally nonsense. It wreaks havoc of the entire concept of what "IN HASTE" means and why prepositions are used in a sentence.

The STATE Paul wished to relate to the Romans concerning the bruising of Satan's head is clearly shown to be one of TIME. That EVENT would OCCUR in a state of CLOSE TIME PROXIMITY. Satan's head will be bruised in what sort of state? SHORTLY! The event was intended to be understood as occurring at a certain TIME.

What do you suppose will happen when Jesus takes away the candlestick from the midst of a church? What do you suppose will happen to a church or an individual when Jesus no longer stands at the door, knocking? There will be a RAPID succession of STATE of affairs.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY THE RESTRICTED THOUGHT OF THE TIME ELEMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH CLOSENESS by the term EN TACHOS.

State of affairs are ONLY implications that surround the specific issue of WHAT STATE the removal of a candlestick, for example, would occur. And it is a STATE OF TIME in which that removal will take place. Speaking of a STATE OF AFFAIRS that RESULT from the removal of the candlestick is totally missing the entire point of HOW HE REMOVES!

Jesus calls upon the churches to REPENT. To REPENT or not dictates the rapid succession of STATE in regards to the spiritual condition or STATE of the churches.

Again you miss the finer detail of the reference to TIME. Rev 2:5 mentions Christ's COMING is said to occur manner, which is totally apart from whether or not he is asking them to repent when it comes to determining the purpose of the term TACHOS being used. TACHOS only refers to how He will come. It has nothing to do with repentance, other than the obvious thought that repentance would avoid that coming. When we restrict our thoughts as to the coming, TACHOS indicates the point is a matter of TIME.

The entire book of Revelation in no way deals with those things that of PAST (preterist) history. It deals with spiritual matters, through to the end.

This is all said to simply admit error.

The word EN is indispensible to the understanding of "tachos," unless we are adamant in twisting, and perverting the word so much as to make it fit a 70AD doctrine. I am not so inclined to inflict so much terrible VIOLENCE upon the Word.

This is getting more funny.

It is akin to saying "IN" is inextricably necessary to understand what "IN HASTE" means, when in reality HASTE is the more important thought that is simply TIED TO THE grammatical subject at hand by the preposition.

Let Bro. Blume call it mean spirited if he wishes, since that is his mantra against everyone that dares to disagree with him, but the truth remains the truth regardless if it is perceived as mean spirited.

Truth is never mean spirited. But the WAY truth is presented can be mean spirited. And although I do not agree at all that what you say is truth, I do insist your mean spiritedness has been evident as others have witnessed who are not the subject of your slurring.

God bless, even if you do get mean spirited at times!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

Tacos are yummy.

Yes they are! "EN TACHOS" sounds like mixing French with Spanish!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Elder Strange you are correct and the problem with their interpetation of "shortly come to pass" is that most scholars place the writing of Revelations around 90 ad TWENTY years beyond the so-called fulfilment of this prophecy. The quote many sources to seem they have scholarship but when investigated ALL their sources are quoting one source. The MAJORITY of scholarship has the book written AFTER the event took place. So it should have read according to these folks "they have ALREADY came to pass."
Next "this generation" is speaking of the JEWISH RACE not a particular time. Jesus is simply saying the Jewish RACE will be in existance UNTIL Jesus comes.

GENERATION is never used any where in the bible to denote a race. Any where. All you can do is say IN THIS ONE CASE of Matthew 24 it is. Meanwhile, you have NO other verse in which it is plainly so. SHOW ME WHERE IT USED UNDISPUTEDLY.

And concerning AD90, or 96 more correctly, all that these alleged scholars stand upon is Irenaeus' nutty time issue, who also said Jesus died at 50, which accusation Bro Strange once also tried to refute to no avail.

Of course the race will be in existence when Jesus comes! lol. Who said it would not? What news is that to the disciples standing there listening to Jesus? Who would have thought that would NOT occur? It is what is irrelevant.

Folks, ya gotta admit Bro Strange is taking a real whooping in this debate!

[Rhymis]

To the Prets the "shortly-come-to-pass" has become "it-happened-long-ago."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Rhymis

To the Prets the "shortly-come-to-pass" has become "it-happened-long-ago."

Now, how on earth does your implication of an alleged folly in my words make any sense in light of John and seven churches that existed at that time being the ones written to? John was the one to whom the words were written.

John was told "SHORTLY COME TO PASS" would be when the events would occur. Now, if I wrote you a letter you ten years ago saying that I would shortly come to visit you, and someone found the letter ten years later, today, would they be correct in saying ""shortly-come-to-pass" has become "it-happened-long-ago.""?

Of course!!!

Folks, read the Revelation with the thought in mind of TO WHOM it was first written.

Bro. Blume you sure do a lot of writing. You write and you write and you write some more, almost endlessly.

You are totally obsessed with your error. Evidently, you spend most of your waking hours proping up your false doctrine of 70AD with every clever twist and turn that you can employ. If no one else can see through it, I can.

It is obvious that you HATE the preposition "en" seeing that it exposes your error. The preposition FIXES the STATE of time to those things which FOLLOW after as depicted in the message of Jesus to the churches of all ages from Pentecost until NOW.... as a STATE, a spiritual STATE fixed in TIME depending on how the message is received by the churches.

Anyway, You have all the time in the world to type and type somre more, licking your candystick night and day. I don't have all the time as you have. So have at it. I just feel sorry for the poor souls that buy your bill of goods. They are the losers in all of this.

But what is amusing, I know that you are intelligent enough to see the point that I made very well, but you pretend that you do not, in favor of 70AD...

Anyway, I just don't have the time to devote to this discussion as is needed, since it has always been futile with you anyway. Maybe I'll get a chance to write a little more this weekend.

Meanwhile, carry everyone away that is willing, with a great flood (words) of water. I wonder how many will resist it? Rev. 12:15.