X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: christia@asuacad.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"christia@asuacad"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:47:00 CDT
From:         BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU
Subject:      Matt 24.

>     (a) in Isaiah 13:10, we find similar langauge applied to the
>coming destruction of Babylon by the Medes.

Actually, if you go back to verse 9 you will see that this verse in a wider
context to the "day of the Lord."

Many feel that the day of the Lord refers to a day of worldwide
or universal judgement.  The language of the passage, taken literally,
seems to confirm that. (see v. 11)  There is no warrant for taking this
passage figuratively.  When one has a preconceived idea about eschathology
(or anything else for that matter), interprets a passage in light of that
preconceived idea, then uses that interpretation to prove his/her viewpoint,
he/she is guilty of the logical fallacy of begging the question.  I submit
that preterists beg the question when they interpret cataclysmic language
as figurative in order to fit events into the destruction of Jerusalem in
70 A.D.

>In Isaish 34:4, we find similar language applied to the
>coming destruction of Edom.

Start with verse 2 of this chapter:
2. The Lord is angry with all nations; his wrath is upon all their armies.
   He will totally destroy them he will give over to slaughter.
3. Their slain will be thrown out, their dead bodies will send up a stench;
   the mountains will be soaked with their blood.
4. All of the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky will be
   rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered
   leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree. (NIV)

Again I submit the literal meaning speaks of a worldwide judgement on all
nations.  Interpreting this passage figuratively to prove the truth of
preterism is begging the question.

>(c) In Ezekial 32:7, we find similar language applied to the
>coming destruction of Egypt by Babylon.

Ez. 32:7 says, "When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens and darken
                their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the
                moon will not give its light.

Taken literally, this is not necessarily apocalyptic in nature, it can be
interpreted to mean that clouds will prevent the Egyptians from seeing the
sun, moon, and stars when they are destroyed.  Anyone who has ever been in
a severe thunderstorm (or hurricane) has seen the same thing.

>(d) In Joel 2:10, we find similar language applied to a
>catastrophe befalling Judah -- either a plague of locusts described
>under the metaphor of a foreign (Nineveh?) invasion, or a foreign
>invasion described under the metaphor of a plague of locusts.

Taken literally, v. 11 refers to the "them" in v. 10 as the Lord's army.
This is the only identifcation give to this advancing army.  Again I must
conclude that there is no warrant for taking this figuratively other than
preconceived notions about apocalyptic language.

>     (e) In Joel 3:30f, we find similar language, in a prophecy that
we are told (Acts 2:16) was fulfilled in the year of the Passion.

I'm assuming you meant Joel 2:30 here, as there is no Joel 3:30.  It reads
"And afterward I will pour out my Spirit on all people ...
"I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and
pillars of smoke ... The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord." (Joel 2:28-31)

Peter on the day of Pentecost said that the discples experience was the
fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, that in "the last days" God would pour out
his Spirit on all flesh ... etc.

The language in verses 19-20, taken literally have never been fulfilled.  I
hate to keep beating a dead horse, but there is no warrant for taking the
passage figuratively except the need to do so to make it fit into the events
of 70 A.D.


>If we take these as referring to some future
>spectacular defeat of these powers, then we can suppose that the
>references to celestial phenomena are intended literally. However,
>in that case we have to ask:
>      Does the society currently occupying the land of Egypt have
>anything in common except for location with the society ruled by the
>Pharaohs in Isaiah's time?

Who said the prophesies would be fulfilled on the current society in Egypt?
Have I missed a post somewhere along the way?

>Isaiah clearly intended his words to be a
>comfort to the people of Judah in his own time. Would they have been
>comforted by the assurance that the republic occupying the Nile
>valley more than 25 centuries after their time would be defeated by
>the country occupying Mesopotamia at that time?

Is it not comforting to know that evil and opressive nations will one
day be judged by God?  Can I not take comfort in knowing that while I
may never live to see it, it wil happen because God says it will?
I imagine there are many Jews in Israel currently who would take comfort in
knowing that God will one day judge the country currently occupying
Mesopotamia, even if that comfort consists solely in knowing that their
children will live in safety because of it.

>     When a day comes on which the sun and moon are darkened
>literally, and empires crash, will they do so under invasion by
>other empires, or by more spectacular methods? If the latter seems
>more plausible, then it makes sense to take the darkness predicted
>by Isaiah and Ezekiel to be a metaphor of catastrophe, and to apply
>the prophecies to ancient events.

The bible does predict that empires will crash by more "spectacular methods".
see Revelation 19:17-21 for the details.

>Assuming that the reference is to a future literal darkening of
>sun and moon, are we to assume one such darkening, or several?

I know of no passage of scripture that speaks of the number of darkenings of
the sun and /or moon.  Unless someone out there is aware of one I would
say that it is useless to speculate about something that God has given us
no light on.

>Supposing the answer is "one," is it plausible to suppose that the
>Medes will conquer Babylon at the same time that Babylon is
>conquering Egypt, and that someone is conquering both Edom and
>Jerusalem?

Are you referring to one of the passages of scriputure that you mentioned
above?  Which one of them says that the Medes will conquer Babylon?

Somehow we have gotten off on a tangent of talking about passages referring
to celestial bodies.  As I pointed out in an earlier post there are many
events that taken literally, were not fulfilled in 70 A.D.  The Gospel
being preached to the whole earth the abomination of desolation, etc.


Brian
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU