Bible Scholar: The New Date For Christ's Return

[ThePilgrim]

You learn something new everyday I guess. I believe the Bible and if the Word of God says it. I believe it. End of story. I'll stick with the KJV 1611. Otherwise I don't know lol.

I also read the KJV and believe every word it says, for it is the word of God.  But for me to believe that all of a persons opinions and beliefs are based only on what they read in the 1611 KJV, I must also believe that they are deaf and blind.  They must never have read or heard anything else in their life . . . . either that or remember nothing of anything else but the bible.  Is that what God demands of us?

 

But you are welcome to your opinion no matter where it comes from.  I don't ask that anybody believe a word I say or type or copy from somewhere else.

Edited February 15, 2015 by ThePilgrim

[Covenanter]

I also read the KJV and believe every word it says, for it is the word of God.  But for me to believe that all of a persons opinions and beliefs are based only on what they read in the 1611 KJV, I must also believe that they are deaf and blind.  They must never have read or heard anything else in their life . . . . either that or remember nothing of anything else but the bible.  Is that what God demands of us?
 
But you are welcome to your opinion no matter where it comes from.  I don't ask that anybody believe a word I say or type or copy from somewhere else.

I heard that when the Muslims captured Alexandria, with its vast library, they asked:
"Do these books agree with the Koran?"
Yes - they are not needed - destroy them.
No - they must be destroyed.
================
To what extent can we say that of the Holy Bible? And books today? And who judges?

What is available today are books purporting to interpret the Bible. Like the OP they make seriously wrong claims that deceive ignorant and unlearned Christians.

Who is knowledgeable and learned enough to judge? Especially as Bible believing Christians here don't always agree on what the KJV teaches.

[Steve Schwenke]

If the fulfillment of Matthew 24 was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, then there is a major prOBlem.  Matthew 24 refers to the "coming of the Son of Man" 6 times in the passage. 

 

These verses are: 27, 30, 37, 39, 42, 44.

Furthermore, the chapter ends with a parable about the return of the Lord (v. 45-51).

 

This "coming" and "return" was a VISIBLE return.

 

Inasmuch as this teaching was given at one setting, and all of the events listed in the chapter are connected, Geneva's thesis about the "near, distant, and far distant" fulfillments are mere speculation.  The chapter is ONE TEACHING about a succession of events that all culminate at the visible return of Jesus Christ to this planet.

 

If Jesus Christ did not VISIBLY return to this planet in 70 AD at the destruction of Jerusalem, then that event IS NOT THE FULFILLMENT of the passage.  End of discussion.

 

Therefore, the events listed in Matthew 24 must be pointing to something that has yet to occur in the future.  We don't know when it will happen, but it does appear that things are lining up very quickly for these events.

 

"Even so, come Lord Jesus."

[Potatochip]

I agree Covenanter. I haven't watched TV for 7 years. Just got a digital tv ant. lol. I didn't even know how they worked. I watch the local news.

The world seems to have a social "gospel". I have one book only. Written by a Christian. That seems to use reason and feeling when soulwinning. Which the Bible says don't do. The Gospel of Christ saves. I stick with that.

You can use the law to convict and then use the Gospel. However the Bible says the Gospel saves. So I don't need books and tapes with some "combo" gimick. Showing me a new way. When its clear the Gospel of Christ saves.

The social "gospel" has led to all kinds of misconcieved FEELINGS of righteouness. Playing on Christian feelings. Trying to cure a fallen world. When it is clear to me anyway. The Gospel of Christ saves.

The KJV 1611. Is the one book I can hold fast too. Know I won't be decieved. By anything or anyone. In a fallen world. Filled with sin. Where you really can't trust anyone. Not even yourself. But you can trust what God has in His word. The KJV 1611.

Which some of the changes in these other versions are shocking when compared and very confusing. Not jumping back and forth thru all these versions out of curiosity or to suit my fancy.

Now my opinion. We don't need anymore compromisers. We have enough of that. A couple of things I said up there. I got from some really good preaching straight out of the Bible. From Preachers that will not compromise the Word of God for anything. I am grateful for it too. I want the truth. Not to feel good or just "get along" no matter how unscriptural a matter might be.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Potatochip

[Invicta]

Edited February 16, 2015 by Invicta

[Covenanter]

To return to the OP.

Bible Scholar: The NEW Date for Christ's Return
 
Why one Bible scholar is arguing that Hal Lindsey's famous prediction for Christ's return wasn't so wrong
 
It's one of the most controversial parables in the Bible: the lesson of the fig tree.
 
Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth, believed he had unlocked the secrets of this passage in Matthew 24:32-33, suggesting the generation that saw the 1948 rebirth of Israel as a nation—purportedly symbolized by the fig tree—would see the return of Jesus Christ. In what became the world's best-selling nonfiction book of the 1970s, Lindsey wrote a biblical generation is "something like 40 years" and suggested that "within 40 years or so of 1948, all these things could take place."
 
But when Jesus didn't return in 1988, Lindsey's interpretation of the passage came under heavy criticism and for many years the church largely shied away from teaching Bible prophecy. Now, World Bible Society President F. Kenton "Doc" Beshore argues Lindsey's interpretation of the passage was correct, but he was wrong about the length of a biblical generation.
 
Instead of 40 years, Beshore says a biblical generation is actually 70-80 years, basing this on Psalm 90:10: "The days of our life are 70 years; and if by reason of strength they are 80 years." Based on this, the author of When?: When Will the Rapture Take Place? and The Millennium, the Apocalypse and Armageddon believes the Second Coming will occur sometime between 2018 and 2028, or 70 to 80 years after 1948. Taking into account the seven-year Tribulation period, Beshore expects the rapture to occur sometime between now and 2021.
 
"Jesus says in Matthew 24:34 that this 'born one,' or 'this generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled,'" says Beshore, 86, who holds five doctoral degrees in theology. "He pictures Israel as a Jewish boy, born May 14, 1948, that would grow up and become an old man until He comes in glory to establish His millennial kingdom. Now, how long is this generation—this 'born one'? The first meaning of 'born one' is in Psalm 90:10. If you extend that from 1948, the outside date for the millennium would be 2028. Take off seven years for the Tribulation and the outside date for the rapture would be 2021. The rapture could take place before that, but certainly by then."
 
In When? Beshore explains that Jesus during the Olivet Discourse—a special briefing for His disciples about what would take place before and during the Tribulation—used the illustration of a pregnant woman to describe what the "Church Age" would be like. Christ said it would be a long period of time, and at the end there would be two birth pangs and then a birth, Beshore writes.
"We saw almost 1,900 years pass from the start of the Church Age (33 A.D.) until the first birth pang, World War I (1914)," Beshore writes. "The second birth pain came in 1939 with the Second World War, and then the birth of the nation of Israel in 1948. The Lord will return before Israel becomes an old man by age 80 in 2028, and seven years earlier to rapture the church."
 
But Mark Hitchcock, pastor of Faith Bible Church in Edmond, Okla., and author of 2012, the Bible, and the End of the World and The Late Great United States, doesn't believe the blossoming of the fig tree in Matthew 24:32 refers to Israel.
 
"It just says the fig tree will blossom and this generation won't pass away until all those things are fulfilled," Hitchcock says. "I just think He's saying, 'Look, when you see all these things happening in the Tribulation period ... that generation won't pass away until all these things are fulfilled."
 
But Beshore says the Bible often uses the fig tree as a symbol for Israel. In Matthew 21, Jesus cursed the fig tree after driving the money-changers out of the Temple—a prophetic foreshadow of Jerusalem's destruction in 70 A.D, Beshore says. Later, in Matthew 24, Jesus speaks of the blossoming of the fig tree, adding "this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place"—a prophetic reference to the rebirth of Israel in 1948, Beshore says. And that "generation," or the Jewish boy representing Israel, will live to see the Second Coming, Beshore believes.
 
"While the Bible says we don't know the day or hour, it certainly says that we know the times and seasons (1 Thessalonians 5:1-10)," Beshore says. "This Jewish boy growing up demonstrates we are in the time and season of the Lord's return."
 
http://www.charismamag.com/spirit/spiritual-growth/15875-bible-scholar-the-new-date-for-christ-s-return

Is the Olivet prophecy intended to provide information allowing US to determine the date of our Lord's return? Clearly not - 2436. The details are clearly spelled out to warn Christians in Jerusalem when to flee the city before the destruction Jesus has prophesied. Luke's account makes that clear.

Those events relate to the "coming" Jesus spoke of in his husbandmen/vineyard parable. A coming to judge and destroy those who rejected and killed the Son of God. The events of A.D. 70 relate to that prophecy/parable which the Jewish leaders realized referred to them.

The 40 year, this generation, judgment took place exactly as prophesied, and that should be seen as a type of Jesus' coming.

There are, of course, other signs in the Olivet prophecy that are commonly understood as relating to Jesus' return, or second coming for final resurrection and judgment. These very dramatic signs culminate with the wrath falling on this generation. There is no difficulty in seeing the wars and "natural" disasters as occurring down the ages. They are NOT signs of the coming in A.D. 70, nor of Jesus' return. The OP citation has got that completely wrong.

We need to read what Scripture actually says before we attempt to say what it says.

Is the fig tree blossoming a prophecy 1948? What then are "all the trees"? Luke 21:29-30

And what were, are or will be the "2 birth pangs" cited? Reference? Why start with WWI ? What about A.D. 70, or the fall of the Roman empire, or Muslim conquest, or the crusades, or the black death, or the Reformation, or the Napoleonic wars???

Too many questions! Jesus gives the answer - We should live as faithful and wise servants, watching and praying, and hopefully ready for whenever our Lord Jesus Christ returns.

[Steve Schwenke]

We need to read what Scripture actually says before we attempt to say what it says.

 

 

Matthew 24:27  For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:30  And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 24:37  But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:39  And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:42  Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Matthew 24:44  Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Matthew 24:50  The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

 

It looks like to me that the passage of Matthew 24 is a direct reference to the personal, visible return of Jesus Christ to this earth.  I am just reading the text.

Given the fact that Matthew 24 is one continuous teaching describing events that culminate in the physical, visible return of Jesus Christ, it seems a bit of a stretch to divorce the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem from the 2nd coming of Christ.  The events of 70 AD are only a PARTIAL fulfillment of the text, and not a complete fulfillment.  Since it was not a complete fulfillment of the text, (i.e. Jesus Christ DID NOT RETURN at that time!), then the REAL fulfillment that includes all of the prophecies of the chapter must yet be future.  

Maybe those listening to Jesus at that time did not fully grasp the significance nor far reaching implications of His prophecy.  That is irrelevant.  We have the luxury of hindsight, and can see much more clearly than they could.  

[Covenanter]

Steve, is the "coming" necessarily the "return"? Jesus in his husbandmen/vineyard parable spoke of his coming to destroy the husbandmen.
Mat. 21:40-43 Mark 12:9 Luke 20:16

The chief priests and scribes understood Jesus' explicit teaching as being against THEM. With hindsight we can agree with them. A.D. 70 must therefore be understood as a "coming" for the declared purpose of judgment of those who rejected him.

I am not saying that every reference to Jesus' coming is to A.D. 70, rather than his return, but here the teaching is explicit.

There are the OBvious OBjections in Mat. 24:27-31 that could refer to his return, but as the context up to Mat. 24:34 clearly refers to the destruction, taking place before "this generation" passed he MUST be referring to A.D. 70.

What then is the reference to "coming in the clouds"? See Daniel 7:13 a reference Jesus used to his accusers and by which they condemned him. While Jerusalem and the temple stood, the Jews could claim Jesus was a false prophet, but though veiled by clouds, his coming against them was manifest. His vindication would be complete.

Jesus' prophecy moves on in Mat. 24:35 with no warning signs for the passing away of heaven and earth for that final coming.

Be faithful and wise, watch and pray.

[Steve Schwenke]

Steve, is the "coming" necessarily the "return"? Jesus in his husbandmen/vineyard parable spoke of his coming to destroy the husbandmen.
Mat. 21:40-43 Mark 12:9 Luke 20:16

 

Yes, the "coming" is His return."

I like how you complicate matters by introducing foreign elements into the text.  Matthew 24 is self-explanatory.  The other references you introduce are not necessarily parallel or related passages.  Let's deal with Matthew 24 and what it says FIRST before we move on.

 

The text is clear.  The only way you can come to your conclusion is by making it say something it does not say, with a very stretched interpretation of "clouds."  

 

In previous discussions, we have discussed "this generation."  The generation that is alive when these events begin to take place will live to see ALL EVENTS, including the coming/return of Christ.  

[Covenanter]

Steve,
Many things have to happen before Jesus returns, some of which were signs warning believers to flee Jerusalem, as detailed in Mat. 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21. So far 2,000 years.

When Jesus spoke of his coming in the clouds, his hearers knew he was quoting Daniel -that's why they accused him of blasphemy.

My points are Scripture, NOT "foreign elements."

You need to address the "coming" in the husbandmen/vineyard parable. When was it or when will it be?

[Steve Schwenke]

The "coming" in that parable is the same as the "coming" in Matthew 24.  

The Fact is that Jesus did NOT come at all in 70 AD.  Thus, He has yet to return and fulfill these prophecies.  The generation that is alive when the prophecies begin to be fulfilled, will see ALL of the prophecies fulfilled in their lifetime.  70 AD was just "batting practice."  

[Potatochip]

Ok maybe here is something you missed lol.  Monkey wrench.  lol.   The tribe of Judah.  David and his throne.  Which God established.  Now where does Judah stand in this day.  Jesus who is descended from the line of David.  The rest of Israel in relation to the tribe of Judah.  Davids throne once again.  Established by God.  David later is described as the "prince".

 

Luke 1:32King James Version (KJV)

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David

 

Can anyone say Federal reserve lol.  Rothchild? lol.  No I didn't think so.  Well we can speculate the ding dong day.  I'm just grateful no one is selling conspiricies or books and tapes here.

[Covenanter]

Steve, is the "coming" necessarily the "return"? Jesus in his husbandmen/vineyard parable spoke of his coming to destroy the husbandmen.
Mat. 21:40-43 Mark 12:9 Luke 20:16

The chief priests and scribes understood Jesus' explicit teaching as being against THEM. With hindsight we can agree with them. A.D. 70 must therefore be understood as a "coming" for the declared purpose of judgment of those who rejected him.

I am not saying that every reference to Jesus' coming is to A.D. 70, rather than his return, but here the teaching is explicit.

There are the OBvious OBjections in Mat. 24:27-31 that could refer to his return, but as the context up to Mat. 24:34 clearly refers to the destruction, taking place before "this generation" passed he MUST be referring to A.D. 70.

What then is the reference to "coming in the clouds"? See Daniel 7:13 a reference Jesus used to his accusers and by which they condemned him. While Jerusalem and the temple stood, the Jews could claim Jesus was a false prophet, but though veiled by clouds, his coming against them was manifest. His vindication would be complete.

Jesus' prophecy moves on in Mat. 24:35 with no warning signs for the passing away of heaven and earth for that final coming.

Be faithful and wise, watch and pray.

Yes, the "coming" is His return."

I like how you complicate matters by introducing foreign elements into the text.  Matthew 24 is self-explanatory.  The other references you introduce are not necessarily parallel or related passages.  Let's deal with Matthew 24 and what it says FIRST before we move on.

 

The text is clear.  The only way you can come to your conclusion is by making it say something it does not say, with a very stretched interpretation of "clouds."  

 

In previous discussions, we have discussed "this generation."  The generation that is alive when these events begin to take place will live to see ALL EVENTS, including the coming/return of Christ.  

Rather than continue this exchange with Steve, it would be instructive to see the comments of others.

 

 

[Genevanpreacher]

The text is clear.  The only way you can come to your conclusion is by making it say something it does not say, with a very stretched interpretation...

​I like how you say things that really make me look good to myself.

You say this:

 

Inasmuch as this teaching was given at one setting, and all of the events listed in the chapter are connected, Geneva's thesis about the "near, distant, and far distant" fulfillments are mere speculation.  The chapter is ONE TEACHING about a succession of events that all culminate at the visible return of Jesus Christ to this planet.

​And ignore our Lord when he is asked:

³ ...Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, AND of the end of the world?

Why is that so hard to understand, since it IS what the bible SAYS?

Doesn't look at all like a speculative kinda thing to me.

[John81]

​I like how you say things that really make me look good to myself.

You say this:

​And ignore our Lord when he is asked:

³ ...Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, AND of the end of the world?

Why is that so hard to understand, since it IS what the bible SAYS?

Doesn't look at all like a speculative kinda thing to me.

​I've heard many a good Baptist preach on the three questions and three answers aspect of this. While they all didn't always agree with one another as to which portions were answers to which specific questions, they did all agree there were three separate questions asked and Jesus answered each of the three questions specifically.

I've never yet heard a Baptist preach these three questions are all one and the same question and Jesus' response was dealing with only one thing.