 |
|
|
Yeah, I was in Ghana just recently. We had half a million people show up, and a man was raised from the dead on the platform - that's a fact, people.
-- Benny Hinn, From a CNN Impact Expose on March 16, 1997
|
|
| |
Will God take away your share of the tree of life?
Posted on Wednesday, April 21 @ 11:08:21 PDT by John |
|
lynn submitted: "Will God take away your share of the tree of life? And will He add to you the plagues described in Revelation?
I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. (The Revelation given by God through John 22:18,19)
Adding words of prophecy and taking away words of prophecy from the Revelation and the entire Bible might be called interpretation. Is interpretation not taking away words translated by a scholar and adding words of choice for alternate meaning? Is anyone worried God will add to them the plagues or take away their part from the tree of life? Do we ignore this verse which hampers our spirit of interpretation? Why is interpretation so popular?
A future End Time/Armageddon is Bible doctrine. That it remains unfulfilled prophecy expected in our future is beyond question or doubt. Any suggestion otherwise will evoke a sleeping giant of competitive spirit, even the wrath of some. Since the doctrine of a future End Time is absolute, the entire Bible is commonly interpreted to fit this theory. Interpretation becomes a necessity to cope with inherent conflicts.
A contemporary future End Time/Armageddon is in fact theory based on unlimited interpretation of Bible prophecy.
The predictions in Revelation were written and understood by John's generation as a warning of things to come in their own immediate lives. Without regard to historical content, most who hear words of prophecy today frequently add and take away words to interpret these End Days in John's distant future, and our immediate future. Do you? John had the Revelation around A.D.69. The following verses are examples of interpretation where words are added or taken away to mold God's intent to a prophecy of choice, an End Time and war of wars called Armageddon in our future. (This means any current war might be interpreted as the beginning of the real thing.)
1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His servants, the things which must shortly take place... (Rv.1:1)
"Shortly" is taken away and "a very long time" is added by interpretation.. Shortly applies to His servants in A.D. 69. Sometimes "His servants" in A.D.69 is taken away and replaced with the current day Christian. With this interpretation Christians in all generations over hundreds of years may expect to wait and wait patiently in expectation of Armageddon.
2. ...for the time is near. (Rv.1:3)
"Near" is taken away and "far off" is added by interpretation.
3. ... He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him... (Rv.1:7)
The entire phrase must be taken away by a technique known as selective inattention. If those who pierced Him saw him coming in the clouds, a first century return would be an unavoidable conclusion. Those who don't believe in a literal return take away "every eye will see Him" and call this symbolism.
4. I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole (habitable) world, to test those who dwell upon the earth. (Rv.3:10)
"You" are His bond-servants in A.D.69 whom God showed the things which would shortly take place. "You" must be taken away. In place of "you" the current day reader is added. This enables any reader over hundreds of generations and thousands of years to feel Armageddon is right around the corner.
5. I am coming quickly... (Rv.3:11; Rv.22:7, Rev.22:12, Rv.22:20)
"Quickly" is taken away and replaced with "in a manner so slow and delayed that a hundred generations may wait for his return, all disappointed the great event did not happen in their time. This interpretation keeps the End Time always in our future.
6. Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth. (Rv.3:10)
If "you" the bond-servant in A.D.69 is replaced with "you" the current day reader, "shortly" will put Armageddon right at the doorstep. Otherwise "about to come upon the whole world" is taken away and "will come upon the world in the distant future" is added by interpretation.
7. ...for they are the spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole (habitable) world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty. (Rv.16:14)
8. And they gathered them together to the place which in Hebrew is called Har-Magedon. Rv.16:16).
"Whole habitable world." is a direct translation from Greek from the Interlinear version. "Habitable" is taken away in most Bible translations. Context in any first century book shows the habitable world was the Roman Empire. Translators have taken away this essential word of prophecy, ultimately confusing intent with implication that Armageddon threatens the entire planet in all future generations. If "habitable" was not taken away, this might read: kings of the Roman Empire gathered together in the late first century for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty, in a place called Har-Magedon. Christians are not confused that Caesar Augustus took a census of all the habitable world (Lk.2:1). The habitable world was the Roman Empire. Conflicts only arise when habitable world is used in context of prophecy, in which case "Roman Empire" must be taken away from the intent and "entire world in the 21st century" must be added.
9. ...things which must shortly take place. (Rv.22:6)
"Must shortly take place is taken away and "could happen many generations in the distant future" is added so Armageddon will be interpreted in our future.
10. ...and upon her forehead was written "Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and of the Abominations of the Earth." ( Rv.17:5) Thus will Babylon, the great city, will be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer. (Rv.18:21 See all other references to Babylon in Rv.16, 17 and 18.)
Most Christians take away the name Babylon and in it's place add Jerusalem or Rome and justify this with interpretation. The destruction of the great city Babylon, who defiled the harlot Jerusalem (Eze.23), was prophesied by Jeremiah. Babylon, who sat on the Euphrates, survived the first half of the first century, and was entirely annihilated in the latter half. Babylon, unlike Rome or Jerusalem was not to be found any longer. This destruction surely would be expected to fulfill Jeremiah's prophecies by the end of the age in the first century. Jeremiah prophesied this great city, the land on many waters, would dry up, become a desert and be desolate forever. He said Babylon was the golden cup in the hand of the Lord, intoxicating all the earth. The nations drunk her wine and were going mad. The Lord's wrath was on Babylon because of her immoralities and He would destroy this great city. He even said Babylon must fall for the slain of Israel (Jer.51:49). The destruction of Babylon described in Revelation 16,17 and 18 is in perfect keeping with Jeremiah's prophecy, which would be expected by the end of the age. Babylon, unlike Jerusalem or Rome, dried up, became a desert and desolate forever. This happened in the latter half of the first century, however recorded history of the details are lost.
For those of you who hear the words of prophecy in the Revelation, do you add and take way from Revelation? Do you take away the last warning to those who take away words of this book of Prophecy? Will God take away your share of the tree of life? And will He add to you the plagues described in Revelation?
Want more details? Want all the available documentation? You can find it in "PROPHECY PARADOX: the Case for a First Century End Time" by Lynn Schuldt. Find it at Amazon.com
and ArmageddonBooks.com
Jesus said he would return in the clouds for all to see. As Jesus was taken up into the heavens before their very eyes, He would come back in the same way they saw Him go up. (Acts 1:11)
"PROPHECY PARADOX, the
Case for a First Century End Time" is the only book that
entirely supports this literal view. All available historical documentation is
provided.
You may also visit my web site at www.NoEndAmen.com
Lynn Schuldt
"
|
| |
|
|
Average Score: 4
Votes: 1
 |
|
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Will God take away your share of the tree of life? (Score: 1)
 by Praeterbro on Wednesday, April 21 @ 17:14:14 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | The tree of life? The plagues? Invariably, the future becomes the past. God created the measure of time and it keeps rollin' on.
"I will see you in a little while." This is a future tense statement. After we see each other again, the event spoken of in the quotation would be past, even though the statement remains in future tense.
Futurist theory can NEVER come true because they take the future tense of verses in Revelation to ALWAYS be referring to the future (They have been for two millennia.) Such an interpretation's loss of credibility is the obvious outcome of completely disregarding elementary grammar.
By the same token, the whole organization we call Christianity today has taken away a commandment given in Revelation (which, incidentally, proved that the time was truly at hand for John.) After John was told that the time was near, and NOT to seal the book of that prophecy, he was also told to (and, remember, this applies to ALL who read or hear the prophecy):
let him who is unjust be unjust still, let him who is filthy be filthy still, let him who is righteous be righteous still, and him who is holy be holy still.
All evangelical efforts are in direct conflict with that verse. Even if the prophecy were still future (defying all basics of grammar); the command was not future tense. It was meant to be heeded from then on.
Just something else that reflects the immanence of the fulfillment of that prophecy...and something else taken away by "selective inattention."
- Tim.
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Lynn on Wednesday, April 21 @ 19:04:06 PDT
- by Praeterbro on Saturday, April 24 @ 12:24:50 PDT
- by Oz on Thursday, April 29 @ 16:10:58 PDT
| 
|
