Does "All" mean "all", all the time?

[Doc]

All doesn't mean all when it's clearly demonstrated by the context:

Rev 13:8

(CLV) And all who are dwelling on the earth will be worshiping it, everyone whose name is not written in the scroll of life of the Lambkin slain from the disruption of the world."

Here, it is clear from the context that "all" means only those whose names are not written in the scroll of life.

[martincisneros]

I agree it would be bad form for God to change his words many generations after they were said.  But with the bible we have many assurances that God is good and that He won't change:
- God is Love
- God doesn't lie
- God doesn't change his mind
- God doesn't change his purpose

Otherwise, there's not only no assurance of all meaning all in the Scriptures, but there's no basis for concluding anything other than what the secular humanist concludes about it all being fanciful myth with questionable relevance for the 21st century.

[WhiteWings]

That would be like God saying the following in Genesis:

"My people, you can do whatever you want, and I will save you ALL from a fiery hell which I created"

And then in Revelations He says, "Except I won't save the ones I don't like!  HA!"

That's exactly what I mean!

Not sure if we are getting off topic here.

That's for the topic starter to decide. I think not because the ET get their limiters from many verses away.

[WhiteWings]

All doesn't mean all when it's clearly demonstrated by the context:

Rev 13:8

(CLV) And all who are dwelling on the earth will be worshiping it, everyone whose name is not written in the scroll of life of the Lambkin slain from the disruption of the world."

Here, it is clear from the context that "all" means only those whose names are not written in the scroll of life.

I agree. An easy example because the limiter is in the same verse.
But to take legomans example: What if the verse is given in Genesis and the limiter in Revelation.
Can such a limiter even exist? If we find such a limiter then for me personally not hindered by any scriptual knowledge it can only be a translation or interpretation error.

[legoman]

That would be like God saying the following in Genesis:

"My people, you can do whatever you want, and I will save you ALL from a fiery hell which I created"

And then in Revelations He says, "Except I won't save the ones I don't like!  HA!"

That's exactly what I mean!

Not sure if we are getting off topic here.

That's for the topic starter to decide. I think not because the ET get their limiters from many verses away.

Good points.

Its easy to forget that we are looking at the complete work of the bible and can read the beginning to end.

But what about Adam?  Where were the warnings for Adam about eternal hell?  He died a little too soon to find out about that one.  Oh well too bad - God will have the last laugh there I guess  :laughing7:

What about all the people in the old testament?  The thoughts on this vary, from:
- all OT people in hell
- Jesus preaching to some of the OT people in hell so some can be saved
- some of the OT people saved by faith (predetermined by God)
etc.

But they didn't really have the same scriptures about the lake of fire/gehenna/eternal fire, because the new testament wasn't written yet.

So God was a little slow in revealing his purpose - too bad for those who died before they knew there was a hell I guess.

Of course, in truth, God is slow in revealing his purpose, but luckily his purpose is actually good!

[martincisneros]

I agree. An easy example because the limiter is in the same verse.
But to take legomans example: What if the verse is given in Genesis and the limiter in Revelation.
Can such a limiter even exist? If we find such a limiter then for me personally not hindered by any scriptual knowledge it can only be a translation or interpretation error.

It can exist, but the Scriptures wind up using more precise language than subjective duration language.  Such as the issue with animals.  Genesis and Leviticus seems to say what it seems to say.  But Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel and many other passages do a complete about face on the sanctity of all life issue as a result of the Cross of Christ.  But it doesn't do the duration thing that many people try to build ET on.  Such as with Hosea 2:18 it'll use the Hebrew word for blood covenant with regards to God's salvation towards the animals themselves.  It'll take on the language of dramatic promises, like a couple of places that speak of His saving work in the animal kingdom being just like when He brought Israel out of the land of Egypt -- implying to me at least, that in the months, years, and decades to come, the signs and wonders will get really nasty over this if need be.  In other words, when something is dramatically changed elsewhere in the Bible, it's not something that's snuck in with only the orthodox who think they've got the stronger stomach being able to know the truth of God's Word.  It'll be something that the Archangel Gabriel [practically] blows the Trumpet over in the Scriptures.  It'll be more than one statement.  It'll really paint the new image that God wants us to have of the situation, rather than being some obscure time reference that the Church winds up fighting for the rest of the eon over like a couple of cats hung over a clothes line with their tails tied together.

[legoman]

I agree. An easy example because the limiter is in the same verse.
But to take legomans example: What if the verse is given in Genesis and the limiter in Revelation.
Can such a limiter even exist? If we find such a limiter then for me personally not hindered by any scriptual knowledge it can only be a translation or interpretation error.

It can exist, but the Scriptures wind up using more precise language than subjective duration language. 

Yes any such limiter would must be very precise.  And repeated in more than 1 place in the bible - every scripture always has its witness in another part of the bible.  So even the extreme example of a single verse in Genesis limited by a single verse in Rev doesn't work because every verse should be verified with 2 or 3 witnesses.

Legoman

[jabcat]

I agree. An easy example because the limiter is in the same verse.
But to take legomans example: What if the verse is given in Genesis and the limiter in Revelation.
Can such a limiter even exist? If we find such a limiter then for me personally not hindered by any scriptual knowledge it can only be a translation or interpretation error.

It can exist, but the Scriptures wind up using more precise language than subjective duration language. 

Yes any such limiter would must be very precise.  And repeated in more than 1 place in the bible - every scripture always has its witness in another part of the bible.  So even the extreme example of a single verse in Genesis limited by a single verse in Rev doesn't work because every verse should be verified with 2 or 3 witnesses.

Legoman

Good words guys...This is along the lines of what I was thinking and hadn't posted.  :thumbsup:  I believe all is all unless there's a qualifier in context.  For example, WW, I looked at the Genesis verse about the flood...many translations qualify there as "everything upon the earth that breathes through its nostrils".  I guess Noah and his crew wouldn't technically be on the earth (terra firma), as they were floating on God's water" (?).

[WhiteWings]

I agree. An easy example because the limiter is in the same verse.
But to take legomans example: What if the verse is given in Genesis and the limiter in Revelation.
Can such a limiter even exist? If we find such a limiter then for me personally not hindered by any scriptual knowledge it can only be a translation or interpretation error.

It can exist, but the Scriptures wind up using more precise language than subjective duration language. 

Yes any such limiter would must be very precise.  And repeated in more than 1 place in the bible - every scripture always has its witness in another part of the bible.  So even the extreme example of a single verse in Genesis limited by a single verse in Rev doesn't work because every verse should be verified with 2 or 3 witnesses.

Legoman

Good words guys...This is along the lines of what I was thinking and hadn't posted.  :thumbsup:  I believe all is all unless there's a qualifier in context.  For example, WW, I looked at the Genesis verse about the flood...many translations qualify there as "everything upon the earth that breathes through its nostrils".  I guess Noah and his crew wouldn't technically be on the earth (terra firma), as they were floating on God's water" (?).

If it means earth as in planet earth (which I don't believe) then water/seas are on earth too.
But that's sidetracking the thread. More on-topic is to say that many explaining words are spoken/written that inform us of a boat and who/what is in it. The logical limiter is that a boat floats and that those in the boat don't drown. And just in case you might think the boat sank it's clearly explained they didn't drown.
In fact this story is one of the best and most lenghty explaining (at least) 8 people survived.
If you read the story you read the limiter. That's the way it should be according to me. (but not is according to Martin) People that lived at the time the story was written down, know the whole story. They don't have to wait another millenium for a limiter.

[martincisneros]

That breathes through it's nostrils might be a way that should be translated.  Not sure.  Few fish likely drowned with the flood.  Not saying it couldn't have happened 'cause the world was in absolute pandamonium with that MegaFlood.  Just depends on how rough the waters were as far as whether or not whales, dolphins, and other things that some people would mistakenly think of as fish as to whether or not they'd of gotten pretty thin in population.

[jabcat]

 Several obvious qualifiers here...

וּבְכָל-הַשֶּׁרֶץ, הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל-הָאָרֶץ--וְכֹל, הָאָדָם.  21 And all flesh perished that moved upon the earth, both fowl, and cattle, and beast, and every swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth, and every man; 
כב  כֹּל אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁמַת-רוּחַ חַיִּים בְּאַפָּיו, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה--מֵתוּ.  22 all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, whatsoever was in the dry land, died. 
כג  וַיִּמַח אֶת-כָּל-הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה, מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה עַד-רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיִּמָּחוּ, מִן-הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּשָּׁאֶר אַךְ-נֹחַ וַאֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ, בַּתֵּבָה.  23 And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven; and they were blotted out from the earth; and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark. 


Good reference site  http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

[martincisneros]

וּבְכָל-הַשֶּׁרֶץ, הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל-הָאָרֶץ--וְכֹל, הָאָדָם.    
כב  כֹּל אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁמַת-רוּחַ חַיִּים בְּאַפָּיו, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה--מֵתוּ.  
כג  וַיִּמַח אֶת-כָּל-הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה, מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה עַד-רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיִּמָּחוּ, מִן-הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּשָּׁאֶר אַךְ-נֹחַ וַאֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ, בַּתֵּבָה.

Interesting.

[jabcat]

 LOL...you like my handwriting?   :tease:

[martincisneros]

An example of where all doesn't mean all would be Luke 21:22, which is the cornerstone, and genuinely the only verse, of full preterism:

22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

This was said around 30AD

And the New Testament was written between 40AD and 95AD, perhaps all written prior to 70AD.  So, Luke 21:22 would have zero to do with prophecies written later with the completion of the New Testament, particularly if any of it, such as 2Peter and Revelation were written after 70AD, as there's much evidence to support in terms of early Christian acknowledgements of when those documents were written and because scholars don't have copies of 2Peter and Revelation prior to the 90sAD.  Scholars have copies of all of the other writings of the New Testament prior to 70AD.  Those have been found.  Earliest copies being in the 40s of fragments of the multiplication of the bread passages from the Gospels.

Various aspects of prophecy weren't fulfilled in 70AD, such as the White Throne Judgment, and the millenial reign of the saints in the thousand+ years previous to that in all of the nations of the earth.  The prophecy in Acts chapter 1 about the bodily return of Jesus most definitely wouldn't have been fulfilled in 70AD.  Jesus said in this Luke 21:22 passage that all things that have been written, or had been written as of when He was saying that, which doesn't deal with prophecy further in the New Testament.  Additionally, it was with regards to the things spoken about and to Israel (as the rest of Luke 21 will bare out) which doesn't deal with all of the prophecies throughout the Bible regarding the nations, regarding the animals, regarding the bodily return of Christ, regarding the restoration of Israel to Christ (addressed by St. Paul in Romans 11), the bodily resurrection in 1Corinthians 15, and regarding the restored earth where righteousness is dwelling in the heavens and earth in 2Peter 3.  If all things had strictly been fulfilled, then because of 1Corinthians 15:28, Christ Jesus would no longer be Lord -- which all genuine Christians would immediately brand heresy!

[WhiteWings]

An example of where all doesn't mean all would be Luke 21:22, which is the cornerstone, and genuinely the only verse, of full preterism:

22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Are you 100% sure that verse is translated correctly.
I don't ask because your the rest of your post doesn't make sense but because past/current/future tense (or whatever its called) can mean a huge difference in this verse.

[Doc]

An example of where all doesn't mean all would be Luke 21:22, which is the cornerstone, and genuinely the only verse, of full preterism:

22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

This was said around 30AD

And the New Testament was written between 40AD and 95AD, perhaps all written prior to 70AD.  So, Luke 21:22 would have zero to do with prophecies written later with the completion of the New Testament, particularly if any of it, such as 2Peter and Revelation were written after 70AD, as there's much evidence to support in terms of early Christian acknowledgements of when those documents were written and because scholars don't have copies of 2Peter and Revelation prior to the 90sAD.  Scholars have copies of all of the other writings of the New Testament prior to 70AD.  Those have been found.  Earliest copies being in the 40s of fragments of the multiplication of the bread passages from the Gospels.

Various aspects of prophecy weren't fulfilled in 70AD, such as the White Throne Judgment, and the millenial reign of the saints in the thousand+ years previous to that in all of the nations of the earth.  The prophecy in Acts chapter 1 about the bodily return of Jesus most definitely wouldn't have been fulfilled in 70AD.  Jesus said in this Luke 21:22 passage that all things that have been written, or had been written as of when He was saying that, which doesn't deal with prophecy further in the New Testament.  Additionally, it was with regards to the things spoken about and to Israel (as the rest of Luke 21 will bare out) which doesn't deal with all of the prophecies throughout the Bible regarding the nations, regarding the animals, regarding the bodily return of Christ, regarding the restoration of Israel to Christ (addressed by St. Paul in Romans 11), the bodily resurrection in 1Corinthians 15, and regarding the restored earth where righteousness is dwelling in the heavens and earth in 2Peter 3.  If all things had strictly been fulfilled, then because of 1Corinthians 15:28, Christ Jesus would no longer be Lord -- which all genuine Christians would immediately brand heresy!

Revelation has a reference to the temple still standing in it, which is a major clue that it was written before 70 AD, among other clues. But we know that Revelation wasn't the final revelation given to us in scripture.

[martincisneros]

If Revelation is talking about the Temple that was standing on earth when John was writing this, because he was caught up to the third heaven in Revelation 4:1.  I've not yet seen anything conclusive one way or the other to prevent a future temple from at least being attempted, or to prove conclusively that Revelation 4:1 has no baring on what John's seeing throughout the book of Revelation.

[Doc]

If Revelation is talking about the Temple that was standing on earth when John was writing this, because he was caught up to the third heaven in Revelation 4:1.  I've not yet seen anything conclusive one way or the other to prevent a future temple from at least being attempted, or to prove conclusively that Revelation 4:1 has no baring on what John's seeing throughout the book of Revelation.

The best arguments I've seen for early dating of Revelation are by a partial preterist, who himself admits that even the literal historical fulfillment surrounding 70 AD does not necessarily preclude a future one of some type.

He also admits that the evidence is not 100% conclusive, but that the evidence does fall slightly in favor of the early date.