Re: plagues

Teresa,

Aren't we now? Anyhow, regarding that 100 years, I reacted as you did. I, however, was given this view by my own grandmother, who said it was commonly held by our early pioneers. As it is never mentioned in Adventist circles today, I was completely ignorant of it, and found it difficult to accept. I am now one of the few I know of who promotes the view. I am curious who you found it from.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I know this is off topic, GC, but it's very interesting that you say your grandmother says this view was commonly held by the pioneers. I'd like to know more about this, if that's possible. (i.e., if you have any more information regarding our early pioneers in this respect).

Teresa, regarding your point -- it's well taken. It's natural for us to resist ideas which are new, and, to a point this is good. We wouldn't want to whipping each way like the wind, so it's good that we have some resistance to new idea. Otoh, we want to open to change our minds and accept truth.

yes, i got off-topic in attempting to explain how what may be very clear to one can seem very wrong to another, having to do with this topic as well as others. but it wasnt my intention to go in that direction.

start a thread on the 100 years?

What intrigued me was GC's comment about this being a common view of the early pioneers. If there's anything more that could be said about this, other than his grandmother mentioned this to him, I'd be very interested. Especially if anyone can find something that was actually written someone during that time on the subject.

which naturally would include the 100 years of isaiah also, tom and green cochoa.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NonConformist/message/1272

i havent found reference to in my short search of the pioneer writings.

I am starting this thread based on the discussion from another thread which began with the following:


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=114274#Post114274

That statement appears to go against the interpretation of others, and can be found online HERE. (Hint: Use the search window to find the word "accursed".)

I am still unable to find sources on the view from other pioneers. Do any of you have access to the Adventist Pioneer Library (Works of the Pioneers)?

However, both Ellen White and John the Revelator speak of a certain space in time in which the devil is released from his millennial bonds and allowed to gather his troups together, fashion weapons, and ultimately make war with God and His saints in the Holy City. When one considers that this is THE last great battle, it can be more easily understood as to why it would take some time for preparations. Also, consider that every person will have opportunity to see what their life has been, in vivid detail. How long will this take? While we do not know, it obviously must not be a "real time" video, or else we would be waiting 900+ years for all the antediluvians to see their lives pass before them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

i have the cd but havent figured out the right search words.

here is the archive link

http://www.adventistarchives.org/DocArchives.asp

and that was a good point about the 900 years. i hadnt thought about that.

I'm extracting rather crudely some quotes from the pioneers, but due to my method of extracting them, I do not have much data on who is making these statements. I post them here so that perhaps someone else can find it and fill in the details:



Another one:



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here's another possible explanation of this verse (Isa.65:20)



This was the conclusion I came to in looking at the verse. I was looking around the Internet when I came across the above. I was wondering if there were any translations which translated the verse this way, and the closest I came across was the CEV:



If we change "will be" to "would be" we would have:



which language would be make sense with the suggestion above.

Tom,

To me that rendering doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense to pick and choose Bible versions just to find one you can agree with. I would respect your position a little more if you actually delved into the Hebrew and found the King James did not translate properly. But here, picking a modern version "just because" you like it better for this particular verse seems inappropriate, especially in view of the fact that those modern versions have plenty of error introduced into them based on what their translators "liked better."

I guess what I'm saying is that I do not respect those translations. The NRSV is barely better than the Never Inspired Version, and the CEV? I have yet to post on a rather important flaw in these modern versions in the KJV-NIV thread, but when I get around to it, I would welcome your input. I feel our church leaders have dropped the ball in not informing our membership of the problems with the modern versions.

The part of the verse that you cannot escape easily is this:

"...the sinner, being an hundred years old, shall be accursed."

That is future tense, and in prophetic form, not conditional form. As you said yourself, and it is obvious to all of us, there will be no curse in heaven. Therefore, those statements I presented from our pioneers would seem correct in that they believed this 100-year period would come just before the ushering in of the New Earth, while sin was still present on this earth.

Speaking as if one would actually die or be cursed in Heaven would be senseless. That is the part that I most strongly object to.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It shows that a translator thought the suggested way of translating the verse is viable, which is what I was interested in ascertaining.



I don't think this is the right way of looking at it. Thoughts from one language don't translate one to one into another language. The fact that the KJV translated is one way, and another translator translated it another way doesn't make the KJV translation "incorrect." There's more than one way to translate things.



That doesn't mean the *Hebrew* can't be understood this way. That is, that fact that *English* distinguishes between tenses in a certain way doesn't mean that Hebrew does. To be even more specific, the question is if the suggestion by Ty Gibson (that I quoted above) is a viable interpretation based on the Hebrew. My Hebrew isn't good enough to answer that question, so the best I can do is comment that the explanation he suggested is the same conclusion I came to.

This is another one of those texts to where there's a lot of different interpretations offered. I'm certainly open to change my mind if I come across an explanation which makes more sense, taking into account the context and other things written in inspiration.

I looked at some other things on-line, where it was brought out that the point of the text was not that there would be sinners in the new earth, but that there would be no premature death. This makes more sense to me than that there will be sinners in the new earth, which seems to be the alternative.

Verse 17 says:



which brings out that the context is the new earth, which is after the destruction of the wicked. So how could there be any sinners dying?

Thanks to some help back home, I now have the scans of a few pages from the book which answered the question on this 100 years verse.

In 1911, the Pacific Press published a book - Questions Answered - compiled by the editor, Milton C. Wilcox, gathered from the "Question Corner" of the Signs of the Times. The book was later updated/reprinted in 1938, and most copies existent today are likely from that second printing.

As the book is a compilation, this does not tell us who (which pioneer) might have held this particular view, and answered the question. However, it may be possible to find the material in the archives of the "Signs of the Times."

I'm attaching the scans to this post.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't know why, but it seems that the attachments have messed up with the width of page 2 of this thread.

There's no problem here, but if you see a problem, feel free to make adjustments.

(Note: I'm using Firefox 3.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Maybe it is only an IE problem, which, if so, I will see if it can be fixed on my end.

I will take a look at it with Firefox.

One hundred years, with the saved being inside the city and the wicked outside the city? Those among the wicked who died very sick and old will be raised to life bearing "the traces of disease and death" (GC 662). Yet most of them will be able to live longer after the millennium than before it! And the righteous, within the city, will behold their relatives blaspheming God during 100 years! Could there be a greater nonsense than this theory?

Rosangela,

You have exhibited very nearly my own first reaction to the hearing of this theory. The trouble is, when once you have heard the theory, everything else you see will seem to match it, and after a while, you find yourself agreeing with it, if for no other reason because you have no evidence against it. There seems to be nothing in the scriptures or Ellen White to refute it, for they, if anything, support it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

i would think, since it was in the signs, that it was a general view, but not really "taught".

whether it will literally be a hundred years or not we do know that it will take time for them to build weapons, train an army, etc.

after the flood God provided that plants and trees would immediately reclaim the earth. i havent collected the quotes referring to the second coming and the destruction yet, but they will need some kind of materials to construct weapons. i would think, after a 1000 years, everything would be pretty much decomposed.....

Isaiah says: "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; ... I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in My people; The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, Nor the voice of crying. No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed. They shall build houses and inhabit them..."
He is describing the conditions which would prevail in the new heavens and new earth. But this theory applies the passage to a time which precedes the executive judgement and, therefore, the new heavens and the new earth.

Why is Isaiah speaking of sinners and death in the new earth? This is how I see it: the new heavens and the new earth spoken of here refer to the nation of Israel and a time of glory it would enjoy before the first advent of Christ, if they had been faithful to God.

Ellen White says the following in PK 703, 704:

"In proclaiming the truths of the everlasting gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, God's church on earth today is fulfilling the ancient prophecy, [Isaiah 27:6 quoted]. ... Today, as never before, the dissemination of Bible truth by means of a consecrated church is bringing to the sons of men the benefits foreshadowed centuries ago in the promise to Abraham and to all Israel,--to God's church on earth in every age,--'I will bless thee, . . . and thou shalt be a blessing.' Genesis 12:2.
"This promise of blessing should have met fulfillment in large measure during the centuries following the return of the Israelites from the lands of their captivity. It was God's design that the whole earth be prepared for the first advent of Christ, even as today the way is preparing for His second coming. At the end of the years of humiliating exile, God graciously gave to His people Israel, through Zechariah, the assurance: 'I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the Lord of hosts the holy mountain.' And of His people He said, 'Behold, . . . I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness.' Zechariah 8:3, 7, 8.
"These promises were conditional on obedience."

Rosangela,

How could it be speaking of the Israelites before the first Advent? How would there be a "new heavens" and a "new earth" then? How is it that there would never be crying among them?

I have traveled in dozens of countries. I have lived in multiple countries, some nicer than others. Yet I have not found any place on earth without crying. I doubt a month has ever passed in my entire life without witnessing crying first hand. How do you think this would have been fulfilled for Israel?

And how is it that a child would be 100 years old? In the Bible, children are ordinarily adults at the age of 20, aren't they?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC,

I believe the expression "new heavens and new earth" just describe the new conditions of prosperity of the land of Israel. God would bless His people with exceptional health and longevity, material prosperity and superiority over all the other nations. Most of the reasons for crying would be removed, and in relation to those who died "old and full of days," there would be the hope of a soon-to-occur reunion at the coming of the Messiah, so in this sense there would be no reason for crying.
As to the sentence "for the child shall die a hundred years old," I think it becomes more difficult to explain if you apply it to the new earth after the millennium, doesn't it? JPS translates it "for the youngest shall die a hundred years old;" NIV: "he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth;" NASB: "For the youth will die at the age of one hundred."

Anyway, I'm not creating a new view. This is the position of the SDA Bible Commentary.

Ah...well, I don't buy it. The SDA Bible Commentary, with the exception of volume 7A, is not inspired, and in many cases flounders in defining a difficult passage. Take a look at their explanation of Ezekiel 4:4-6 if you want an example of what I mean by "flounder." The commentaries are usually right on the mark, but sometimes well off of it, depending on the passage.

No one is applying the 100 years here to the "New Earth," but rather to the "little space" as John the Revelator put it that would occur between the millennium and the New Earth.

I think you will have a hard time convincing me or anyone else here for that matter that if the Jews had been obedient they would have increased their lifespans to pre-flood quantities again just before Christ's first advent. That is essentially what your application of the NIV rendition would amount to, if applying this to a period of time just before the first advent.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think Ty's explanation makes sense. For convenience, repeating it:



What makes the passage difficult is that it apparently juxtaposes ideas which don't go together. Namely, it speaks of "new heavens and a new earth" and of a man dying at 100 years.

It looks like three alternatives have been suggested.

i agree with roseangela in that things were supposed to go differently in israel, God had an original plan that israel did not cooperate with, but i believe there would have been a literal new heavens and new earth at some point.

lbm has a very special place in my heart. i see how time they spend with the Lord in their messages, but i also believe they came up with best answer they could think of on that strange passage.

i dont think we have to take the 100 years literally for the lost. the truth is it will take time to construct weapons, train an army, etc. but how much time?

what will be left on the earth? there is the destruction of the 2nd coming and burning by fire. so how much is left, or usable, and does that matter, because there will still have been a thousand years of decay. how long does steel and iron last? after the flood trees and plants sprang up all over. we dont seem to have any evidence of that happening after the 2nd coming.

To me it's the only explanation that makes sense. Try reading Ezekiel 38-48.

in regard to this and a couple of other issues this point raises some questions for me.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

how long does this "life" last for the lost upon resurrection? they will get new bodies but not incorruptible bodies. a 95-yr-old who died of natural causes in our time will get a new body but how "youthful" will it be? would it survive for a 100 years? or have i answered my question?

what will these people be eating to stay alive? will there be water somewhere?

One gets the impression there will be billions of people in close proximity. It does seem like this would be a sustainable situation for a prolonged period of time.

Also if they were alive for any significant period of time, one would think they would kill each other, at least some, as their characters would be the same as on earth. There would be rapists, child-abusers, murderers etc. Why would these do what they did in their first life?

I wonder about something here... If the "little season" of Rev 20:3 is indeed 100 years long, then the following thought [from Great Controversy] raises a question.

"With military precision the serried ranks advance over the earth's broken and uneven surface to the City of God. By command of Jesus, the gates of the New Jerusalem are closed, and the armies of Satan surround the city and make ready for the onset." (GC 664)

Have the gates of the city been open up until this point?
It is clear that the ungodly cannot enter the city, and it is clear that there is no more probationary opportunity for them, but if the gates of the city are open for practically 100 years, why have they been open? Would the redeemed have any reason to be going out and in?

Interesting. And not one of the wicked will die of "natural" causes during that time will they? Satan convinces his people that he has raised them up, and that it is he that sustains them... but isn't it the literal presence of God Himself that sustains all the people?

I wonder whether the wicked will require food and drink... Because when Moses had been in the presence of God for 40 days, he explained that "I neither did eat bread nor drink water."(Deut 9:9)

It was the literal, direct presence of "Life" that sustained him. Might it be the same with those of the second resurrection?

Good questions, Stewart. It is my understanding that the city is not resting upon terra firma at this point in time, but is still hovering over the earth until following the earth's cleansing by fire. The saints, however, can fly...and they have not been confined within the city as though it were a jail. Perhaps they were allowed to come out for a view of their former friends and relatives, or perhaps their liberty to come and go is a portion of the revelation which the wicked receive, showing what God is like.

I think the city's gates are shut only as a protection against the advance of the wicked at that point in time. Can we find other quotes about this?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The first thought that drew my attention, Green Cochoa, was that the city of God is "not resting upon terra firma at this point". Perhaps it is incidental in a way, but there does seem to be quite a lot of material saying that when Christ sets foot on the Mount of Olives, that mount will literally "part asunder", and a "great plain" will be formed between the two sections. The New Jerusalem physically descends and "rests" on the plain.

GC 663. "As the New Jerusalem, in its dazzling splendor, comes down out of heaven, it rests upon the place purified and made ready to receive it, and Christ, with His people and the angels, enters the Holy City. Now Satan prepares for a last mighty struggle for the supremacy."

And it appears that even in the lake of fire, the city is physically riding on the surface of the "boundless lake".

"...the whole earth, with the exception of that portion where the city rests, will be wrapped in a sea of liquid fire, yet the city is preserved as was the ark, by a miracle of Almighty power. It stands unharmed amid the devouring elements" (3SG 87, 7BC 986.5)

This is a relevant thought too, I think.

3SG 84.
"The city of God comes down and settles upon the mighty plain prepared for it. Then Jesus leaves the city surrounded by the redeemed host, and is escorted on his way by the angelic throng. In fearful majesty he calls forth the wicked dead. They are wakened from their long sleep. What a dreadful waking!"

Does the second resurrection take place while Jesus and the redeemed are OUTSIDE the city?

Stewart,

This is wonderful! I stand corrected, and happily so. I had never seen it this clearly before--but upon looking up those quotes about the Holy City resting upon the Mount of Olives, I think I have finally established the timeline for this event!

Yes, the City does rest upon the earth before the wicked are destroyed. There is a little ambiguity in some of Mrs. White's statements on the timing of the dead being raised (without cross-comparison, it can be made to appear that she has contradicted herself). But this is only because she speaks of multiple time settings within the same paragraph, and out of order. However, in other statements where she clearly gives the times and events in their chronological order, it seems clear that the moment at which Jesus' feet rest upon the Mount of Olives and it becomes a plain for the City to land on, is the moment at which the 1000-year period has ended.

In other words, this "little space" of 100 years or however long it is from that moment until the point in time when the wicked are destroyed by fire is all POST MILLENNIUM.

Here is the statement which makes this clear:


I've underlined the point relative to the time. This could be construed as an ambiguous, "relative" time except for the fact that she has been so specific about its relationship to the thousand-year period in Heaven.

This does, however, raise some troubling questions...

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes it does. Look at the quote I posted above. It takes place before the city is within sight of earth, and while it is still en route. Then the wicked get to see the city descending and they also see Jesus stand on the Mount of Olives.

When the wicked are raised, the city is empty. All saints and angels have followed Jesus out of it, and it is descending after them, apparently by itself.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.