In like manner...Part deux!!!

Post by **_psychohmike** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:18 am

How are we to interpret this passage. Literally or figuratively? We know it happened historicallly...But how?

Steve Gregg doesn't have to answer...I'm listening to his Isaiah teaching as I speak. I know how he answers this.

Ely especially...I would appreciate your thoughts.

Isaiah 13
Proclamation Against Babylon
1 The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw.
2 “ Lift up a banner on the high mountain,
Raise your voice to them;
Wave your hand, that they may enter the gates of the nobles.
3 I have commanded My sanctified ones;
I have also called My mighty ones for My anger—
Those who rejoice in My exaltation.”
4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains,
Like that of many people!
A tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together!
The LORD of hosts musters
The army for battle.
5 They come from a far country,
From the end of heaven—
The LORD and His weapons of indignation,
To destroy the whole land.
6 Wail, for the day of the LORD is at hand!
It will come as destruction from the Almighty.
7 Therefore all hands will be limp,
Every man’s heart will melt,
8 And they will be afraid.
Pangs and sorrows will take hold of them;
They will be in pain as a woman in childbirth;
They will be amazed at one another;
Their faces will be like flames.
9 Behold, the day of the LORD comes,
Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger,
To lay the land desolate;
And He will destroy its sinners from it.
10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not give their light;
The sun will be darkened in its going forth,
And the moon will not cause its light to shine.
11 “ I will punish the world for its evil,
And the wicked for their iniquity;
I will halt the arrogance of the proud,
And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
12 I will make a mortal more rare than fine gold,
A man more than the golden wedge of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will shake the heavens,
And the earth will move out of her place,
In the wrath of the LORD of hosts
And in the day of His fierce anger.
14 It shall be as the hunted gazelle,
And as a sheep that no man takes up;
Every man will turn to his own people,
And everyone will flee to his own land.
15 Everyone who is found will be thrust through,
And everyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
16 Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
Their houses will be plundered
And their wives ravished.
17 “ Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them,
Who will not regard silver;
And as for gold, they will not delight in it.
18 Also their bows will dash the young men to pieces,
And they will have no pity on the fruit of the womb;
Their eye will not spare children.
19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms,
The beauty of the Chaldeans’ pride,
Will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
20 It will never be inhabited,
Nor will it be settled from generation to generation;
Nor will the Arabian pitch tents there,
Nor will the shepherds make their sheepfolds there.
21 But wild beasts of the desert will lie there,
And their houses will be full of owls;
Ostriches will dwell there,
And wild goats will caper there.
22 The hyenas will howl in their citadels,
And jackals in their pleasant palaces.
Her time is near to come,
And her days will not be prolonged.”

Thanks guys, I appreciate your time

mike

Post by **_Ely** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:31 am

Good question. If we limit this passage to a historic fulfilment, then the cataclysmic global language was not meant meant to be taken literally. This point has been made over (and over) again. We know that the Medes basically just walked into Babylon almost un-opposed.

However, taking all the scriptural data into consideration, I'm still of the opinion that passages such as these have a near and far fulfilment (sorry). The topic is not only the Medes' taking of Babylon, but also the events of the end of this age. I know this answer will most likely be mocked, but it's the best I can offer right now.

Post by **_TK** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:36 am

no reason to mock you ely, because we dont know exactly how prophets like isaiah "saw" their visions. did they "see" into the future? were they given specific details as to what to write? if they "saw" into the future, perhaps it was something of a jumbled mess, which would explain how some prophecies could include both near future and far future elements. perhaps the prophet simply couldnt tell which was which.

my answer might be mocked too-- granted i am not the student of OT prophecy that I should be.

TK

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:50 am

Mike, In the OT the word for world and land was the same, "erets" and the kingdom of God was the nation of Israel therefore IMO "the world" involved nations that were fighting with Israel. In the OT there were many "Days of the Lord" and they were'nt worldwide events and they were shawdows of the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem. But in the OT the kingdom of God was Israel whereas in the NT the kingdom of God are the followers of Christ. The kingdom of God is now worldwide and the forces countering it are worldwide but by contrast in the OT the forces countering the kingdom of God were localized. So any future judgement would now be on a worldwide scale so i'll be back asap to continue to look at whether the 70AD events fulfilled all the references to Jesus returning.

Post by **_Jim from covina** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:49 am

Ely said.....

I know this answer will most likely be mocked, but it's the best I can offer right now.

Is it the best because u r trying really hard to hold on to presuppositions that u just cant let go of cuz thats how u learned the bible??

I know what you will say........but i believe thats the real answer.

I have sort of figured out some peeps here on the forum, by their answers........

peace
jimd

Post by **_psychohmike** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:26 pm

Ely wrote:Good question. If we limit this passage to a historic fulfilment, then the cataclysmic global language was not meant meant to be taken literally. This point has been made over (and over) again. We know that the Medes basically just walked into Babylon almost un-opposed.

However, taking all the scriptural data into consideration, I'm still of the opinion that passages such as these have a near and far fulfilment (sorry). The topic is not only the Medes' taking of Babylon, but also the events of the end of this age. I know this answer will most likely be mocked, but it's the best I can offer right now.

Hi Ely...Thanks for answering this.

Presupposing that prophecies have a near and far fulfillment, is it possible that Revelation could be talking about a first century event as well as one future to us?

Pmike

Post by **_Ely** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:58 pm

Jim from covina wrote:Is it the best because u r trying really hard to hold on to presuppositions that u just cant let go of cuz thats how u learned the bible??

Maybe.

Jim from covina wrote:I know what you will say........but i believe thats the real answer.

I have sort of figured out some peeps here on the forum, by their answers........

You have figured me out"? In what way? Am I a poor sheep who has unquestioningly swallowed Dispensationalist doctrine and who will accept the most ludicrous exegesis in order to ensure that the Scriptures don't get in the way of his Dispensationalism? If you are thinking anything on these lines, then I humbly suggest that you know far less about me than you think.

No, the reason I think what I do about that passage is because I think it best harmonises all the scriptural data concering the end of the age. I accept that there are problems with my interpretation, but I don't claim to have a perfect eschatology (or soteriology or any other "ology"). I'm a work in progress, if someone can convince me of a better way to interpret the text, then I'm all ears.

psychohmike wrote:Hi Ely...Thanks for answering this.

Presupposing that prophecies have a near and far fulfillment, is it possible that Revelation could be talking about a first century event as well as one future to us?

I guess so. At least some of it is definitely speaking of the first century (chapters 2 and 3) but I've been unconvinced by atempts to apply the rest of it to the first century.

Post by **_psychohmike** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:16 pm

psychohmike wrote:Hi Ely...Thanks for answering this.

Presupposing that prophecies have a near and far fulfillment, is it possible that Revelation could be talking about a first century event as well as one future to us?

I guess so. At least some of it is definitely speaking of the first century (chapters 2 and 3) but I've been unconvinced by atempts to apply the rest of it to the first century.

Thank you once again for responding.

Let me bounce this idea off of you. Is it possible that there is a preterist and a futurist understanding to be had in the book of Revelation Ch. 4-22. The idea of a near and a far fulfillment. With the future one being a fuller fulfillment.

Pmike

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:47 pm

Mike, In the OT the word for world and land was the same, "erets" and the kingdom of God was the nation of Israel therefore IMO "the world" involved nations that were fighting with Israel. In the OT there were many "Days of the Lord" and they were'nt worldwide events and they were shawdows of the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem. But in the OT the kingdom of God was Israel whereas in the NT the kingdom of God are the followers of Christ. The kingdom of God is now worldwide and the forces countering it are worldwide but by contrast in the OT the forces countering the kingdom of God were localized. So any future judgement would now be on a worldwide scale so i'll be back asap to continue to look at whether the 70AD events fulfilled all the references to Jesus returning.

Mike,Jim
True Jesus came in judgement in 70AD but he came invisibly and no one was blessed. In Acts 1 there is no mention of judgement and looking at the parallel verse in Luke 24.50 we find that as Jesus was leaving his disciples he was blessing them. Jesus left visably, blessing his disciples , lifted into heaven and the angels said he will return in like manner. That's why Paul looks forward to his return as "the blessed hope."
Luke 17 describes Jesus's return and compares it to "the days of Noah" especially for the unbeliever , for they were eating,drinking and marrying and THEY were swept away. Who are THEY? The whole world except 8 people , because if you believe the flood was worldwide and this image is used to describe Christ's second coming then how could you accept that the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled this.
Not to mention the raising of all the dead, judging the world and the lake of fire.