The Narrow Path Ministries

Why did they never ever control all of the actual real estate that God had promised to them

Gen 15:18-21
18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
(KJV)


This area includes parts of Jordan, Syria and Iraq....However it has never been controlled by the Israelites. So did God go back on His covenant, or will it all belong to Israel in the Millinneal Kingdom?

Or is this a spiritual code that God was giving for the Church which is now Israel ?

I think we need to let the Bible speak for itself

Joshua 21
43 So the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. 44 The LORD gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the LORD handed all their enemies over to them. 45 Not one of all the LORD's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.

Are you willing to take this language literally?

mattrose wrote:I think we need to let the Bible speak for itself

Joshua 21
43 So the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. 44 The LORD gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the LORD handed all their enemies over to them. 45 Not one of all the LORD's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.

Are you willing to take this language literally?

Nah, I think I'll spiritualize it (preterist style) I think "all the land" means "most of the land" - ya know like 1000years means 2000

From what I understand didn't they not control it all? Wasn't there land that they did not destroy the enemies off of and were not able to control that part of the land?

Exactly

That is why I said...we should let the Bible speak for itself. If it says all the promises were fulfilled in Joshua's day, we have to let God mean that by His definition not ours.

So is the entire bible just a loose watery thing to you where "all" can mean "most" and 1000 can mean 2000 and it's no problem.
Must be nice, I can make "Sin shall have no more dominion over you " mean "Sin is bad, but no biggie" -

I agree, the Bible should speak for itself, and I may have been wrong in my interpretation of the reason I started this thread, but the wishy washy way of interpretation that gives way to preterism and amillinealism is not very solid at all.

The method of interpretation is actually the opposite of wishy washy

It doesn't let symbols represent anything, it makes them fall in line with the rest of Scripture and the historical context and the genre of the passage.

If you're looking for a wishy washy system, catapult all prophecies to the end of the world and let your teachers all have a unique chart of end times events. Since it hasn't happened yet, they can boldly say whatever they want. Try to find 2 identical dispensationalists.

mattrose wrote:The method of interpretation is actually the opposite of wishy washy

It doesn't let symbols represent anything, it makes them fall in line with the rest of Scripture and the historical context and the genre of the passage.

If you're looking for a wishy washy system, catapult all prophecies to the end of the world and let your teachers all have a unique chart of end times events. Since it hasn't happened yet, they can boldly say whatever they want. Try to find 2 identical dispensationalists.

I'm having a hard enough time trying to find two identical Partial (or full) preterists. I heard Steve's revelation lectures and he had a strange way of making all kinds of things symbolic for things. He had as crazy an answer as any futurist you'll find. I'm sure most preterists are the same way. It is in fact wishy washy though when you have your set theology and anything that gets in the way of it get zapped with the spiritualization gun and turned into whatever you want it to be.

I have not reached a position on some passages, I'll grant you that. I'm a partial preterist and an amillennialist because I believe those are the positions that leave the fewest passages confusing to me.

So Aaron,

God says not a word of His promise failed, and you are arguing with that statement?