Bro Joe Cassada: Concerning the 3 ways to interpret Scripture, Bro Joe… I challenge you to read I Co 10:1-14 Bro Joe, it is obvious that Paul spiritualized and typified the Scripture. Read Galations 4:22-31 and it is obvious that Abraham,Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, etc are literal people, but that they have figurative lessons as well. Are you telling me you have never preached to your people about being a “lukewarm” Christian? Sure you have! Yet, in the context, it is speaking to the church that existed in Laodecea in John’s day. Just some thoughts.  Evang Dan Goodwin

Evang. Goodwin… do you believe that all scripture can / should be interpreted prophetically as well as literally and figuratively?  John Hardin

Bro. Goodwin,

Thank you for your thoughts. I do not deny that Paul spiritualized Scripture, but Paul had something you and I do not have: apostolic authority and Holy Spirit inspiration. Further, spiritualizing and typifying portions of Scripture are not problematic, per se – i am not condemning the usage of spiritualization. Paul teaches that the O.T. events were recorded for our examples – I understand that.

Have I preached about the dangers of being a “lukewarm Christian?” Sure. It is contextually applicable. John’s warning/rebuking/encouraging the seven churches is transcendent truth. Preaching to my people what John wrote to Laodicean Christians is as appropriate as preaching to my people what Paul wrote to Corinthian Christians. That you would use this as an example of spiritualizing/typifying perhaps shows a lack of discernment on what “context” really is. Context does not eliminate application, it guides it. The context of Rev. 3:14-20 is that the church at Laodicea was a real church that had real problems, not a type of “church age” immediately preceding Christ’s return. To say so is to go beyond Scripture.

The idea that all Scriptures are available for spiritualizing, typifying, and (worse) applying in a prophetic sense is problematic indeed. To insist that all Scripture be interpreted these three ways is dangerous. This libertine handling of Scripture has produced all manner unbiblical schemes, sermons, and prophetic theories in fundamental Baptist churches(including the notion that the seven churches of Asia are prophetic seven church ages and forcing the details of Joseph’s story into some kind of eschatological outline). To preach such ideas is to engage in a ministry of eisegesis and to feed God’s people the dry husks of man-made theories instead of the meat of His word.

Spurgeon said of spiritualizing: “I counsel you to employ spiritualizing within certain limits and boundaries, but I pray you do not, under cover of this advice, rush headlong into incessant and injudicious ‘imaginings,’ as George Fox would call them. Do not drown yourselves because you are recommended to bathe, or hang yourselves on an oak because tannin is described as a valuable astringent. An allowable thing carried to excess is a vice, even as fire is a good servant in the grate, but a bad master when raging in a burning house. Too much even of a good thing surfeits and disgusts, and in no case is this fact more sure than in the one before us (spiritualizing).”

I highly recommend Spurgeon’s book Lectures to My Students for his chapter “On Spiritualizing”. Again, spiritualizing and typifying are good and appropriate when done rightly, but odious and destructive when done poorly.  Joe Cassada

Tremendous response Bro Joe! Well said.  Pastor John

John said: Hardin on 8 December, 2009 at 12:54 pm #
Evang. Goodwin… do you believe that all scripture can / should be interpreted prophetically as well as literally and figuratively?

Quote
That might be quite difficult to do with all the “begats” in the Bible.  Evang Dan Goodwin

Bro Joe Cassada:
#1 You have no right to use a passage figurativly and then condemn others for using another passage figurativly. That kind of makes you the Pope dont it?
#2 You have no context to make that lukewarm church a lukewarm believer. You are interpreting it in a figurative sense just as it is meant to be…. you prove my point. It has a literal, a typical, and also a prophetic interpretation… just as the FIVE kingdoms in Daniel 2, or would you deny this as well? They were literal kingdoms, they can be applied figurativly, and they are definitly prophetic of the future.
#3 You can have any opinion you want to have on the 7 churches in Rev 2&3. But when taken in context, I dont see how anyone who wants to see it, can miss the Lord coming for the Saints after the laod age. If you still differ, fine, I wont argue with anyone over it, but you want the context…. it sure supports my view not yours.

I know there are some nuts and profiteers out there concerning the end times and 2012 and all that… but I get the impression from both of you that you do not believe the “signs of the times” of our day mean anything… at least you come across as “scoffers” to me after I went back and listened to the program. Is this really what God has called you to do?  Evang Dan Goodwin

You kind of proved my point about Baptist preachers being the biggest “scoffers” huh?  Evang Dan Goodwin

Is Sodom not a literal story… with figurative and prophetic teaching as well? Of course it is. He “pitched his tent toward Sodom” has great figurative truths we preach to our people about being seperated… and would the story not have a prophetic lesson even if not referenced by Jesus??
Is Noah’s ark… a literal story, not filled with figurative lessons for us… one door to heaven, etc… as well as prophetic in nature… when God shuts the door… judgment comes?? Was Enoch a literal person… but a type of the rapture??? Sure he was.
Is Daniel 8 not talking about a literal man…. but yet prophetic about the anti-christ? Do we not use the story of Daniel and the lions den , a literal story, and teach figurative lessons to out people? Hey, I bet there are some prophetic lessons there too… how about… WE WIN IN THE END! Hey… bet you guys have used the literal story of the “fiery furnace” and applied it figurativly to your people. Yeah thats right, Jesus is with us in the fire we go through in life, as well as the “storms of life”… oops… there is another.
OK… enough of this… I think I made my point.  Evang Dan Goodwin

Evang Dan Goodwin: John said:Hardin on 8 December, 2009 at 12:54 pm #
Evang. Goodwin… do you believe that all scripture can / should be interpreted prophetically as well as literally and figuratively?Quote
That might be quite difficult to do with all the “begats” in the Bible.

Yes, it might… but there are definitely some places where it is perfectly acceptable. Enoch begat Methuselah; and we know that Enoch at that same time heard the word of God and walked with God from that time forward preaching the judgment of God. Somewhat prophetic of that judgment was his son’s name which was born at the time Enoch heard the word of the Lord. He named his son Methuselah because Methuselah literally means “flood”. There would be no problem whatsoever in interpreting that “begat” in a prophetic manner.

So… what is the difference between “Enoch begat Methuselah” and most of the other begats in the Bible? The difference is, it was “intended” by God to be prophetic. We know that from the context of Genesis 5 and 6 there was a flood, and so we can put those two together to formulate that Methuselah’s name was intended to be prophetic.

There is no contextual reason for us to consider the 7th day of creation to be prophetic of a future Millennial Reign. in fact, in direct opposition to that notion we find in Hebrews chapter 4 the author tells us that God’s day of rest was prophetic of the rest we currently have in Christ…. not an end time Millennial Reign.  John Hardin

John said: “There is no contextual reason for us to consider the 7th day of creation to be prophetic of a future Millennial Reign. in fact, in direct opposition to that notion we find in Hebrews chapter 4 the author tells us that God’s day of rest was prophetic of the rest we currently have in Christ…. not an end time Millennial Reign.”

Your judgment his hindered by your faulty view of no rapture of the saints between Daniel’s 69th and 70th week.
Hebrews 4 shows the figurative sense of the Sabbath rest.. I see that clearly and I think even mentioned it in the book. There is no doubt that the 7th day is prophetic of the 1000 year reign John. God rested on the 7th day in Genesis… are you saying that God was resting/ that that was a type of God resting in Christ for salvation?? No, of course not. Compare Scripture with Scripture and use common sense… it is plain to see that the world will endure 6000 years and then the 1000 year reign.
Read II Pet 3:8 PS 90:4,12 Hosea 6:1-4 Matthew 16:28-17:1-9 and Isa 46:10 “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done.” As well as the quotes from the church fathers of the past.

Oh well… if you wont see it for whatever reason, you will one day very soon. I am convinced beyond any shadaw of doubt that there will be 6000 years of 360 days each and then the 1000 year reign. Christ IS coming soon and that day is not to overtake you as a thief (I Thess 5:4) which means if we are watching, and in Scripture, we will know that His coming draweth nigh, even at the door.
Any 13 year old child can tell that the lady in her 9th month is about to be delivered!!  Evang Dan Goodwin

Again, my interpretation of the 7th day is not my own private interpretation. My interpretation is based on Hebrews Chapter 4. You can ignore that all you want… but it doesn’t make it go away.

Also, the idea of a 6,000 + 1,000 year timeline originates from an non-canonical source called “The Book of War”. As far as deriving that 7,000 year theory from canonical books goes… you really have to read your own agenda into the texts to get that out of it.  John Hardin

Bro Joe is right, it is very dangerous indeed to apply every passage of Scripture literally, figuratively, and prophetically. We do not have the option to choose which passage we prefer to be prophetic. Bro Goodwin you have a poor grasp of Biblical interpretation. You should stick to preaching the black part of the Bible.  Pastor John

John… your above statement is absolutly RIDICULOUS!! I guess that makes you and Joe CO POPES (if Joe actually agrees with you) to tell the rest of us which parts you can teach and preach typically and which can be looked at prophetically!!
After all the examples I gave you…. and you rattle off that dumb statement…. my goodness, you do not even warrent a response! What a waste of my time!  Evang Dan Goodwin

#1 You have no right to use a passage figurativly and then condemn others for using another passage figurativly. That kind of makes you the Pope dont it?

Yes I do have the right (and the duty) to discern what passages are being interpreted beyond Scriptural bounds; that doesn’t make me a Pope – it makes me more discerning. Not all passages should be treated figuratively, and not all figurative interpretations of passages are legitimate.

#2 You have no context to make that lukewarm church a lukewarm believer. You are interpreting it in a figurative sense just as it is meant to be…. you prove my point.

No one made a church an individual believer. The warnings to a church are obviously applicable to its membership. Again, it is contextually applicable. That you are unable to discern that applicable context is more than just immediate facts does not prove your point at all. It just proves that you don’t understand context.

It has a literal, a typical, and also a prophetic interpretation… just as the FIVE kingdoms in Daniel 2, or would you deny this as well? They were literal kingdoms, they can be applied figurativly, and they are definitly prophetic of the future.

Yes, literal kingdoms were mentioned prophetically by means of a figurative vision(which IS the context of Daniel 2). No I don’t deny this. But, Daniel gave us the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision. The other prophecies of Daniel add further insight as to the scope and timing of the five kingdoms. But we have no authority to make the vision of Daniel mean anything other than what Daniel said it did. I do not deny that passages can be literal, figurative, or prophetic. I DO deny that all Scripture should be treated thusly. Not all Scripture is prophetic or figurative.

#3 You can have any opinion you want to have on the 7 churches in Rev 2&3. But when taken in context, I dont see how anyone who wants to see it, can miss the Lord coming for the Saints after the laod age. If you still differ, fine, I wont argue with anyone over it, but you want the context…. it sure supports my view not yours.

There is no church-age in the context of Revelation 2&3; you are reading into Scripture what isn’t there. I would have just as much authority to say that the three crosses on Golgotha represent three different church ages. Context is not on your side.

but I get the impression from both of you that you do not believe the “signs of the times” of our day mean anything

The signs of the times of our day mean just as much as the signs of the times of Spurgeon’s day or Paul’s day – every Christian in every age should expect the coming of the Lord. I do.

… at least you come across as “scoffers” to me after I went back and listened to the program.

I wasn’t on the program. I am no scoffer at the promise of Christ’s coming. I am sorry that you think I scoff at Christ’s coming simply because I disagree with your loose usage of spiritualizing.

Is this really what God has called you to do?

If you are referring to my interaction in a comment thread on a religious website: no, I just do this for fun in my spare time.

If you are referring to my standing against the libertine handling of God’s Word that has destroyed the discernment of God’s people and has opened the door for all manner of cracked-pot theories to be declared from fundamental Baptist pulpits, then yes, God has called me to this.

Bro. Goodwin, I actually enjoyed a lot of what you said on the program. I only had issue with two things you said – things I thought were serious enough to warrant discussion. For what its worth, I believe you love God and want to see people brought to the Savior, and for that, I thank God for you.  Joe Cassada

Bro Joe:
Maybe I have you mixed up… I was thinking you were the co-host on the program, I realize now you were not. Sorry about that.
I did not say all Scripture has to be interpreted 3 ways, I said it can be, in other words, I do not always find a prophetic interpretation of a passage,though it may be there somewhere. If I do see it, then one makes sure it does not contradict other Scripture.
Concerning the creative week… I challenge you to read II Pet 3:8 (day as a 1000 years) and then get the context of II Pet 3. I promise you, the whole chapter of II Pet 3 is prophetic in nature.
I have already proved my points with the Scriptures and examples given to anyone who “has ears to hear.” Keep preaching to your people about not “pitching their tents toward Sodom” and I will keep preaching the 6000 years of the creative week, as well as the prophetic truths of the 7 feasts of Israel. I am in pretty good company:

Read this from the Seven-Fold Promise book pg 46-49
There were many who have believed this in history. Let
us give you a few quotes from some men of old concerning
these truths.
Irenaeus wrote in 150 A.D. in his book “Against
Heresies” “For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years;
- 47 -
and in six days created things were completed; it is evident,
therefore, that they will come to an end in the sixth
thousand years.”
Bishop Latimer wrote in A.D. 1552 “The world was
ordained to endure, as all learned men affirm, 6000
years. Now of that number, there are passed 5,552 years [as
of 1552], so there is no more left but 448 years.” (Till the
year 2000)
Lactantius in 300 A.D. Wrote this in his book Divine
Institutions: “Because all the works of God were finished in
six days, it is necessary that the world should remain in
this state six ages, that is six thousand years. Because
having finished the works, He rested on the seventh day and
blessed it; it is necessary that at the end of the sixth
thousandth year all wickedness should be abolished out of
the earth and justice should reign for a thousand years.”
Not only did men of old believe in a 6000-year earth
and then the Millennium, but look at the following
Scriptures:
Hosea 6:1-2
Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn,
and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise
us up, and we shall live in his sight.
After two days is prophetic of the two thousand years of
the New Testament. The third day is the one thousand year
Millennial reign of Christ where Israel will once again be the
- 48 -
center of things on earth. My skeptical friend, what else
could it mean?
Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when
it is past, and as a watch in the night.
Did you know that Moses spoke this Psalm and that he will
be one of the two witnesses during the Tribulation?
Psalms 90:12
So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our
hearts unto wisdom.
Matthew 17:1-9
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his
brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as
the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold,
there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good
for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three
tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for
Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud
overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud,
which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased; hear ye him.
Here we have the story of the transfiguration. Again, all
Scripture has three interpretations, the literal, the typical, and
the prophetical. This is a literal event that happened, but it
also has figurative lessons to apply to our lives as well as
- 49 -
prophetic teaching. Verse one says “after six days…” hey,
there we have Christ appearing after six prophetic days…
which are 6000 years according to II Peter 3:8. In the
prophetic light of this passage, we see Jesus coming in the
clouds and showing His glory to the three disciples, a type of
the rapture. If you are still not convinced, look at the verse
just before chapter 17:
Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming
in his kingdom.
The Bible goes from this verse to Matthew 17:1. What
He is saying is that some will not face death, but will be
raptured out of here! The “after six days” in verse one is
prophetic of 6000 years of history. If that still does not
convince you, in verse three of Matthew 17, Elijah and
Moses show up after the 6000 years and after Christ shows
us His glory at the rapture. Hey, they are the two witnesses
who show up in Jerusalem after the rapture and are
responsible for the conversion of the 144,000 Jews at the
middle of the Tribulation. The Bible is an amazing book!  Evang Dan Goodwin

Bro Joe, all I can say is take the Bible and prove me wrong. I have “rightly divied” the Scripture. The types and figures are all backed up by other Scripture.
Have you read my book? Talk to Bro Beller about it, we did a Prophecy Conf with him last year… he loved the book because he believed it lined up with the Bible. We did not set dates, but rather a warning that the lady is near the end of her 9th month!  Evang Dan Goodwin

Bro Joe: I am amazed that you will use “he pitched his tent toward Sodom” figuratively to warn your people about getting too close to evil, the world, etc. Yet, you accuse a brother of using some verses figuratively because of context?? Where is the context in the pitching of the tent? Using your arguement, I could accuse you of spiritualizing a passage where nowhere in the rest of the Bible did anyone use that story figuatively. See, you condemn your own practice with your premise.
If you want to give the book a read, I would be glad to e-mail it to you as a PDF  Evang Dan Goodwin

Probably a better way to make my statement would be, there are 3 ways to look at Scripture.
1. Literal
2. Typical/figurative
3. Prophet

I certainly do not find all 3 in every passage I study, but I have a feeling all 3 are there.  Evang Dan Goodwin

I did not say all Scripture has to be interpreted 3 ways, I said it can be, in other words, I do not always find a prophetic interpretation of a passage,though it may be there somewhere.

Well, then, our disagreement is not as agitated as it once was. In my first comment, I said: “Perhaps I misunderstood his statements, in which case I would be glad to retract my comments.” At 24:32 in the program you said “Scripture should be interpreted 3 ways…”; since you did not say “Some Scripture can…” but “Scripture should” I understood that to mean that you approached all Scripture with these 3 interpretive filters you mentioned. However, since I misunderstood the intent of your statement, I retract what I said in my first comment since we at least agree that not all Scripture is open to prophetic/figurative application.

I do, however, still take issue with your interpretive methods. 2 Peter 3:8 has become a launching pad into all manner of speculation. Now, anything with a 6 or 7 in Scripture is forced into a prophetic mold. 2 Peter 3:8 does not give us license to interpret Scripture in such a way. The context of 2 Pet. 3:8 was that Peter was answering the objections of the scoffers who dismissed Christ’s return because some 40 years had passed since the promise was given. Peter was not giving us an eschatalogical outline; he was simply saying that God works in a timeless manner – one day or 1,000 years make no difference to God who exists beyond the constraints of time. It was a common rabbinical phrase, not a prophetic sequence of events.

Regarding your quotations of Irenaeus, Latimer, and other respected divines of antiquity: I would respectfully disagree with them regarding the day-age theory, and, instead, throw my hat in the ring with the more discerning Charles Spurgeon who said of 2 Peter 3:8:

From this text certain persons, more desirous to find arguments for their theories, than a truthful exposition of the Apostle’s meaning, have drawn the inference that a day in Scripture is typical of a thousand years—that is to say, that inasmuch as God was six days in creating the heavens and the earth and then rested on the seventh day, so we must expect to have a thousand years for every day. A thousand years in which the new heavens and the new earth will be in preparation, and then we shall enjoy in the seventh thousand a period of perfect peace and holiness.

Now such may possibly be the case. It may so happen that when the six thousandth year of labor shall be over, we shall enter upon the millennial rest. The last millennium may be a Sunday to the preceding six. But even if we knew this, I am not sure that it would be of any great assistance to us in foretelling the day when the Church militant should be universally triumphant through the coming of her Lord. The chronology of the past is surrounded with so much obscurity that we question whether any man will be able to tell us when the six thousand years will be over, or within a hundred or two of how old the world is.

Our curiosity would be rather tantalized than gratified, even if this theory could be verified. For all the chronologies we have, even that which the translators have put into our Bibles, are matters of conjecture, and their accuracy is far from indisputable. We could not, therefore, ascertain the times and seasons any more certainly, nor ought we desire to do so, for the Father keeps them in His own power and as for the time of the end we believe no man knows it, no, not even the angels of God.

Brethren, we would not wish to discover what God has hidden, nor to question where He declines to answer. It is certain, however, that our text does not teach the doctrine of the Sabbatical seventh thousand years. For looking at the whole drift of the passage, you will see that the words were written to meet the arguments of some who said, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the Fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” “No,” answers the Apostle, “It is not so.”

Ironically, when you latch onto the day-age theory you rob dispensational eschatology of one of its foundations: the imminent return of Jesus Christ – something the divines you quoted would have opposed. But such is the case when one engages in imaginative interpretations and over-prophetic applications – you end up painting yourself in a corner. To subscibe to the day-age theory is to admit that Christians a thousand or more years ago had no need to watch for the imminentt return of Christ, which is in contradiction to dispensational theology. You referred to me as a “skeptical friend”. I am no skeptic of Christ’s return – by His grace I try to watch for it daily.

You continue:“Here we have the story of the transfiguration. Again, all Scripture has three interpretations, the literal, the typical, and the prophetical.” (Emphasis mine)

Does all Scripture have three interpretations, or does only some (as you indicated earlier)? Which is it? I think what you mean is that Scriptures can be interpreted three ways when you can make it fit your preconceived notion of 7,000 years of human history. This is a man-made theory not stated in the Bible. Tragically, you force such an interpretation onto the Mount of Transfiguration narrative, turning the phrase “after six days” into another eschatological timeline. This is just the kind of preposterous conjectures that makes for sorry preaching. It would be better to forsake such fanciful propositions than to subject God’s people to fictional sermons.

Did you know that Moses spoke this Psalm and that he will be one of the two witnesses during the Tribulation?” Yes I am aware of Moses’ authorship. No, the Bible does not say he will be one of the two witnesses – this is pure speculation.

am amazed that you will use “he pitched his tent toward Sodom” figuratively to warn your people about getting too close to evil, the world, etc. Yet, you accuse a brother of using some verses figuratively because of context?? Where is the context in the pitching of the tent? Using your arguement, I could accuse you of spiritualizing a passage where nowhere in the rest of the Bible did anyone use that story figuatively. See, you condemn your own practice with your premise.

You assume too much abut my preaching and again fail to discern context from immediate facts. The story of Lot could be spiritualized as an illustration of the dangers of sin. Again, spiritualization is not wrong, but should be engaged in with discernment and not an over active imagination. That you cannot discern the difference between using Lot’s story as an example and forcing the creative week into a prophetic timeline shows that we are at an impasse.

Yes, I have read your book, and was, frankly, alarmed. Especially that you would give credence to the Mayan calendar, Nostradamus, and giant asteroid rumors. Such outlandish ideas have no place in God’s house and are a source of reproach against dispensationalists. Scripture only backs up your position after you have forced it through a grueling regimen of hermeneutical jumping jacks.

Regarding, Bro. Beller, I appreciate his friendship and ministry and would prefer we leave him out of our discussion, as I would hate for anyone to assume I am questioning his judgment because of his support of your book. Bro. Beller is a good man and his church is a model of Christian charity. On that, I’m sure, we can agree.  Joe Cassada

Bro Joe said:
” one day or 1,000 years make no difference to God who exists beyond the constraints of time. It was a common rabbinical phrase, not a prophetic sequence of events.”

Bro Joe… where is your documentation for this statement? I think you have no idea how to handle the interpretation of the verse 8 and you have preconceived ideas from your past that will NOT allow you to look at a passage in a prophetical light. The verses right before verse 8 are speaking of creation in Genesis 1. (see verse 5) You want to talk about context… well there it is brother! Then verse 9… what promise is he speaking of? The promise of his return! For you to tear verse 8 out of the context with the excuse that it is just a rabinical saying is NONSENSE! Who is it that can not properly understand the Scriptures here?????
Christ is coming as a theif to the world… not to believers. We are to see the day approaching.

Joe said: “The story of Lot could be spiritualized as an illustration of the dangers of sin. Again, spiritualization is not wrong, but should be engaged in with discernment and not an over active imagination. That you cannot discern the difference between using Lot’s story as an example and forcing the creative week into a prophetic timeline shows that we are at an impasse”
Well…. I will let whatever readers pass by here decide the merits of that silly statement!

JOE SAID: “Yes, I have read your book, and was, frankly, alarmed. Especially that you would give credence to the Mayan calendar, Nostradamus, and giant asteroid rumors. Such outlandish ideas have no place in God’s house and are a source of reproach against dispensationalists. Scripture only backs up your position after you have forced it through a grueling regimen of hermeneutical jumping jacks”

WELL BRO JOE… be alarmed then. You seem to not be a very good reader if you thought I gave “credence” to any of these men mentioned. I plainly pointed that out…. but in your zeal to quench anybody knowing something about the return of the Lord that you and Spurgeon don’t know about, rather than pay more attention to what was written you scoff! As far as the astoroid headed to the earth in 2012… it is a scientific FACT! Why would you call it a RUMER Joe except to discredit me?? Will it hit the earth? Who knows… but your attitude of scepticism sure dont do anybody any good.

II PETER 3:3-4 “… there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming?”

Probably best we just leave it here and go our ways.  Evang Dan Goodwin

“Bro Joe… where is your documentation for this statement? I think you have no idea how to handle the interpretation of the verse 8 and you have preconceived ideas from your past that will NOT allow you to look at a passage in a prophetical light.”

Documentation? That’s actually funny. Where is the documentation in your book regarding Nostradamus’ prophecies and the giant asteroid rumors? When something is common knowledge, (such as 2 Peter 3:8 and rabbinical phrases) documentation isn’t needed – but if you must, I suggest you read Gill or Barnes; Gill I know cites sources.

The verses right before verse 8 are speaking of creation in Genesis 1. (see verse 5) You want to talk about context… well there it is brother! Then verse 9… what promise is he speaking of? The promise of his return! For you to tear verse 8 out of the context with the excuse that it is just a rabinical saying is NONSENSE! Who is it that can not properly understand the Scriptures here?????

Well, I don’t have opportunity now to provide you with what is apparently a much needed exposition of 2 Peter 3. Seriously, though, vs 4 is Peter quoting the objection of scoffers; vs. 5 is his answer: that they are willingly ignorant of the fact that the same water that was used in creation was the same water that was used in the deluge; and that the current earth is will likewise be overcome someday by fire. The mention of God’s creative work in vs 4 and the mention of the one day/one thousand years in vs. 8 does not, according to any normal, level-headed exegesis produce a day-age theory. Bro. Goodwin, I implore you to learn the craft of exposition, and to see that interpreting something according to context does not involve reading into Scripture a doctrine that is not there.

“You seem to not be a very good reader if you thought I gave “credence” to any of these men mentioned. I plainly pointed that out…”

Bro. Goodwin, did you or did you not mention the Mayan calendar, Nostradamus, and giant asteroid rumors in your book? Did you not list them as “clocks-a-tickin’”? Is that not giving them credence? If you do not regard Nostradamus, asteroids, and Mayan calendars, then why did you mention the in your books in the same list as Daniel’s seventy weeks? Did you or did you not do this? Although you gave a weak disclaimer in your book (something like “these may not mean anything at all, but they are clocks ticking”) you still mentioned them as prophetic clocks ticking down towards the coming of Christ. It’s not my reading that is poor, I assure you that.

“but in your zeal to quench anybody knowing something about the return of the Lord that you and Spurgeon don’t know about, rather than pay more attention to what was written you scoff!”

Bro. Goodwin, I think your book has introduced something about the return of the Lord that even the Lord didn’t know. You judge my motives; I judged your methods and product. I quoted Spurgeon because thought perhaps you would give a listening ear to a respected Baptist preacher. I apologize for my assumption.

“I PETER 3:3-4 “… there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming?” Probably best we just leave it here and go our ways.


Yes, scoffers will come, and as I said earlier, by God’s grace I look for his return daily. Not by asteroids, or Mayan Calendars, or Nostradamus, but because His word shows me to expect an imminent of my Savior.

I would also like to unequivocally state that I have not interest in discrediting you. In fact, I hope you see many saved and that God blesses your ministry in wonderful ways. I do, however, wish that our fundamental Baptist pulpits preached the Word and not man-made imaginations, and I pray that you would see the error of your interpretations and begins to feed God’s people more solid meat.

I have agreed with many things you have said in your book and even on John’s program, and I also agree with your final statement:“Probably best we just leave it here and go our ways.
  Joe Cassada

I would just like to say here that the mention of an Asteroid traveling toward Earth was not just a rumor. Bro. Goodwin stated in the Podcast interview that someone told him they saw a special on the History Channel regarding the Asteroid and that is all true.

But the event recorded on the History Channel was an event that happened in 1999. NASA tracked an Asteroid traveling toward Earth, which they measured to be 80 tons which was to hit somewhere near India. The asteroid actually did enter the Earth’s atmosphere at the exact time NASA predicted, but the asteroid exploded in the atmosphere. It was quite an event that was seen for hundreds of miles.

I think maybe Bro. Goodwin should have checked the fact about the Asteroid before he trusted “what someone told him” and published it in his book.  John Hardin

While I object to the asteroid’s speculated landfall in 2012 as some kind of prophetic clock ticking, I retract the “rumor” adjective I connected to asteroid in my above comments. My apologies to Bro. Goodwin.  Joe Cassada

Sorry if it sounded like I was calling you out Bro. Joe, that wasn’t my intention. I was actually proving that not only was Bro. Goodwin’s statement regarding the 2012 asteroid a rumor, but it was based on false information by someone who apparently made a passing remark about a min-interpreted documentary they saw on the HIstory Channel.

The poor scholarship of that book worsens by the minute.  John Hardin

No, quite all right. I should have stressed that it’s landfall was rumor, versus calling the asteroid a rumor.  Joe Cassada

John Hardin: I would just like to say here that the mention of an Asteroid traveling toward Earth was not just a rumor. Bro. Goodwin stated in the Podcast interview that someone told him they saw a special on the History Channel regarding the Asteroid and that is all true.But the event recorded on the History Channel was an event that happened in 1999. NASA tracked an Asteroid traveling toward Earth, which they measured to be 80 tons which was to hit somewhere near India. The asteroid actually did enter the Earth’s atmosphere at the exact time NASA predicted, but the asteroid exploded in the atmosphere. It was quite an event that was seen for hundreds of miles.I think maybe Bro. Goodwin should have checked the fact about the Asteroid before he trusted “what someone told him” and published it in his book.

NOT TRUE! You must be speaking of a different astoroid John.  Evang Dan Goodwin

Evang Dan Goodwin:
NOT TRUE!You must be speaking of a different astoroid John.

According to “NASA” (the organization that tracks NEO’s) the largest asteroid threat for Earth impact in 2012 is an asteroid named “2008 YD3″. This asteroid is an estimated .02 kilometers, or about 6 feet in diameter. While this asteroid is in the threat range to be tracked, keep in mind that any object is considered a Near Earth Object if it is expected to come within 6.5 million kilometers of Earth at any foreseeable time in the future. 2008 YD3 is most likely to impact Earth in 2061, but even then I wouldn’t be too worried about it.

Here is the link to all the data. http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/

If you have a more credible source, I wish you would let us know.

Also here is a link to the asteroid event I described http://transientsky.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/incoming-fireball-2008-tc3/ Apparently I was mistaken, the year was 2008 not 2009 and was over Sudan.  John Hardin

Bro John said: “Apparently I was mistaken, the year was 2008 not 2009 and was over Sudan.”

Sadly, you are mistaken about alot more than this since you plan to be around down here during Daniel’s 70th week.  Evang Dan Goodwin

Evang Dan Goodwin: Bro John said:“Apparently I was mistaken, the year was 2008 not 2009 and was over Sudan.”Sadly, you are mistaken about alot more than this since you plan to be around down here during Daniel’s 70th week.

Could you please elaborate on why you believe I am going to be here during the tribulation period?
Do you really believe that because I refuse to accept your claims of an imminent Earth destroying asteroid in 2012, I must not be saved?

Did you pull that out of Genesis Chapter 1 too?  John Hardin

To nobody in particular, just some thots:
If Paul had not said in I Co 10:1-11 that the happenings of the children of Israel were examples for us… and someone preached them as types… would you have cried FOUL??

If Galatians had not mentioned Hagar .. Ishmael… as allegory… would you not have been able to use the types in a sermon? I mean.. would the truth not still be there?

Do you really believe God revealed all the types for us and that there are none unless God revealed them? Who taught you such a thing?

What did God mean when he told Daniel to “seal up the book till the time of the end?” Do you actually think he meant it to not be unsealed till we get to heaven??? Do you suppose he meant for some things to be understood in the last days before the Lord comes????? By the way… that was not Spurgeon’s day…. it is our day. If you want to study prophecy, I would not recommend Spurgeon.

Why is it that men whom I quoted in 300 AD, through late 1500’s understood the end would come in the day you and I live in…. (after 6000 years) but your average Baptist preacher of “our day” scoff at it and say he aint coming in our day and nobody can know the season???? Interesting huh??

Funny, someone here wanted to use Spurgeon from the 1800’s when they were still in the horse and buggy days to back him on prophecy, but would not want to take issue with Pastor Beller, a Baptist preacher and a man of great insight who loved the book and actually hosted a prophecy conference. Nobody in Spurgeon’s day understood prophecy like it can be understood today. NOBODY! I only brought up Beller because he is in your area and is well respected. There are dozens upon dozens of preachers I could have mentioned. In fact, Bro Waugh and I talked to many and got their opinion on these things before ever publishing this book. Lonnie Mattingly has preached several prophecy conferences with us and loved and has promoted the book.

Who in the world taught you guys how to study and understand Scripture?? How come you use Abraham and Isaac as types… but Mary and Martha are not to be used as types of the Gentile and Jew? So Enoch must not be used as a type of the rapture either huh? Yet, I almost guarantee you do.

This is an amazing and powerful book… this inspired Bible I hold in my hands! There is a whole lot more in it than meets the eye when you read it looking for God to reveal truths. It is filled with powerful allegories, types, and figures. Yes, and filled with prophetic truth from cover to cover.

As for the chapter on 8 clocks tickin: Go back and read the first 2 paragraphs on pg 56-57 and then apologize for your harsh remarks! Much in that chapter is just speculating about some things that may be coming in 2012…. we never said they were biblical or that they were certain! Go back and read it and quit making something out of it that isn’t there.

The 6 days of the creative week are as plain as can be to one who is not shackled by preconceived notions from bible college or seminary! God rested on the 7th day when there was nobody their to watch!! A 1000 year Millennium rest coming… The Sabbath on the 7th day…. the Feast of tabernacles which is the 7th feast of Israel a type of the Millennium…. all this reinforced by Hosea 6:1-4 PS 90:4,12 II Pet 3:8 Isaiah 46:10 and Matthew 17:1-11 The early church fathers understood all this.

Speaking of Matthew 17… “after 6 days..,.” make light of it all you want… laugh at it… look down your noses at it…. but nothing in the bible is there just to fill a page!! Put Surgeons’ books away for a night… and go study the Scriptures I gave above with an open mind,… and then take a serious look at Matthew 17 keeping in mind the context of the last verse in chapter 16. My goodness… after six days???? Why did God give us that piece of information?? Why did he tell us six days had passed? Why are moses and Elijah there? Why was Christ transfigured into his Glorified body? You dont suppose it could mean that after 6000 years of human history the two witnesses show up after the rapture?? You dont suppose that Elijah and Moses had to see Christ in his glorified body to be able to testify of these things later? After six days they went up( Peter James and John)… that could not possibly be a reference or type of the rapture right?? I mean especially since neither Spurgeon nor yourselves saw it first???
Believe what you want… choke on this if you want… but nothing in this figure/type contradicts Scripture… no… rather it sheds more light on other scripture… reinforces it.
I don’t know why a Baptist preacher would want to scoff at these things. I did tell Pastor Waugh, my co-author, that our biggest critics would be Ind Baptist preachers. Our own crowd! I was right… but God’s people have ALWAYS stoned the messengers.
Brethren, I am no novice. I have written 4 books, several study guides, am finishing another on the WORDS OF GOD in defense of our beloved inspired and preserved King James Bible, and have plans for another book. I am just a man, and I know that no man is right on everything… including me. I am humbled that God would use a wretch like me at all. First Baptist Hammond sells 3 of my books in their store, though I knew they would not touch this one…haha! (They certainly won’t want my new one on THE WORDS OF GOD) A preacher in Lexington said my book on THE CHURCH TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE is the best he ever read and has bought more than 100 of them! Now to God be the glory for all that, I can take no credit for anything I have done. I am just saying that I am not some fresh out of college wet behind the ears school boy. Disagree if you must, but enough of the junk about not knowing how to study!!

Gentleman…. I take my leave. May the Lord find us watching… because if we are not watching, we are probably not ready  Evang Dan Goodwin

John Hardin: Could you please elaborate on why you believe I am going to be here during the tribulation period? Do you really believe that because I refuse to accept your claims of an imminent Earth destroying asteroid in 2012, I must not be saved?Did you pull that out of Genesis Chapter 1 too?

Maybe I have you mixed up, but on the broadcast, one of you does not believe in Christ coming for the Saints before Daniel’s 70th week (Tribulation for 7 years) and the other is a recent convert to believing in pretrip.  Evang Dan Goodwin

Evang Dan Goodwin:
Maybe I have you mixed up, but on the broadcast, one of you does not believe in Christ coming for the Saints before Daniel’s 70th week (Tribulation for 7 years)and the other is a recent convert to believing in pretrip.

I apologize, now I understand what you meant. Yes, I am the one who is not fully convinced of Pre-millennial Theology. I told you before the interview that I lean more toward A-millennialism, and my co-host (John Kuykendall) is a Pre-Millennialist. Thank you for acknowledging that I will be here during Daniel’s 70th week.  John Hardin

One more thing that comes to mind before I go, Pastor Cassada:
When the nhost contacted me, he wanted me to discuss the astoroid and the Mayan stuff. I told him I was not intertested in that, and that I was no expert on those things, and they were just some interesting furture events that alot of people have their eye on. By the way, they are very interesting events in light of where we are in the world. I told him I would be glad to come on and share the biblical things we put in the book and just touch on a few of the other things.
After I did the show, and then listened to the show later, and saw how they used 30 min of the 70 min we spoke, and the jumbo they put at the beginning and the end to shed a bad light on those who believe the Lord ’s return draws nigh, I knew I had been had.
Bro cassada… they are sure glad to have you on here to further show discredit to the Lord’s soon return. You might give that some thought.  Evang Dan Goodwin

John Hardin: I apologize, now I understand what you meant. Yes, I am the one who is not fully convinced of Pre-millennial Theology. I told you before the interview that I lean more toward A-millennialism, and my co-host (John Kuykendall) is a Pre-Millennialist. Thank you for acknowledging that I will be here during Daniel’s 70th week.

Haha… I did not such thing! Haha… I simply pointed out that you believe you would be, but if your born again, you will be gone after Rev 4:1 with the rest of us…. you will just be a bit more confused than you are now??!!  Evang Dan Goodwin

Evang Dan Goodwin:
Haha… I did not such thing!Haha… I simply pointed out that you believe you would be, but if your born again, you will be gone after Rev 4:1 with the rest of us…. you will just be a bit more confused than you are now??!!

Well, when you’re still here during the tribulation you can call me and I’ll show you through the scriptures that you’re not necessarily lost.   John Hardin

Evang Dan Goodwin: One more thing that comes to mind before I go, Pastor Cassada:
When the nhost contacted me, he wanted me to discuss the astoroid and the Mayan stuff.I told him I was not intertested in that, and that I was no expert on those things, and they were just some interesting furture events that alot of people have their eye on.By the way, they are very interesting events in light of where we are in the world. I told him I would be glad to come on and share the biblical things we put in the book and just touch on a few of the other things. After I did the show, and then listened to the show later, and saw how they used 30 min of the 70 min we spoke, and the jumbo they put at the beginning and the end to shed a bad light on those who believe the Lord ’s return draws nigh, I knew I had been had. Bro cassada… they are sure glad to have you on here to further show discredit to the Lord’s soon return.You might give that some thought.

In our defense Bro. Goodwin, I told you ahead of time that we really only wanted 20 minutes of dialog, anything more than that would have to be edited out. I’m sure our listeners appreciate that we cut out 50 minutes of the interview. I also reminded you at the end of the interview that we only needed 20 minutes of dialog and that much of what you said would be edited for time’s sake.

Also, keep in mind that in our email correspondence I was up front with you that I personally questioned the year 2012 as the Lord’s return, and so did Bro. Kuykendall. I also told you that we held to different eschetological beliefs and our intention for doing the interview was to spark some debatable topics. You agreed to do the interview, but you said you didn’t want to be a part of the debate. That’s fine, but you need to understand our Podcast is to discuss and debate the truth… it’s not a 1 hour infomercial.

You also need to understand that Christians sometimes disagree. That doesn’t mean they’re not saved, nor does it mean they hate you… but healthy discussion and disagreement can be constructive. I’m sorry your feelings were hurt, but I really made every effort to explain to your our intentions.  John Hardin

OK John… my feelings were not hurt at all.  Evang Dan Goodwin

Bro cassada… they are sure glad to have you on here to further show discredit to the Lord’s soon return. You might give that some thought

Bro. Goodwin, I have no idea how to emphasize this anymore than I have already: I believe in the soon return of the Lord; I have believed in it for many years, and by God’s grace I look for it everyday. I have said this at least twice in the comment thread. Do you not realize that I have already emphasized my belief in the Lord’s imminent return? My disagreement of the day-age theory does not in any way discredit the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ. Further, my opposition to any or all of your metaphorical interpretations of Scripture does not in any way indicate an opposition to dispensational theology, pre-tribulationalism, or premillenialism. I kindly ask you to retract that statement.

As for your other questions, I will be glad to answer them in a few days. Currently, I’m out of town and haven’t the time or the resources to engage your questions with the quality they deserve.  Joe Cassada

Bro Joe… I did not say you did not believe in the return of the lord. I am simply saying you are playing into the hand of those who want to make light of the coming of the Lord.
I think I made my points and proved beyond any doubt with Scripture concerning the creative week… there is no reason for us to hash it out any further. I am not so much bothered by the fact that you see it different, but that you are playing GOD in that you use Scripture figuratively and prophetically when it suits you, but criticise others that do so. Dont give me the “context ” thing either… I already proved my point there.
May the Lord bless you and your ministry

Bro Goodwin  Evang Dan Goodwin

Evang Dan Goodwin: I am not so much bothered by the fact that you see it different, but that you are playing GOD in that you use Scripture figuratively and prophetically when it suits you…

Bro. Goodwin, no-one is saying that it’s ok to use scripture figuratively / prophetically when it suits them. In fact I believe I can speak for Bro. Joe when I say we are stating the exact opposite. The only buffer we have when interpreting scripture figuratively / prophetically is the context of scripture itself. For instance: How can we possibly know how God intended the Sabbath rest to be used figuratively / prophetically? Hebrews Chapter 4 tells us explicitly how the 7th day is to be interpreted figuratively… that is, it is an illustration of the rest we have in Christ. To interpret the Sabbath in any other way is to go beyond the confines of scripture… and that is a dangerous thing to do.  John Hardin

OK Bro John… then I guess God was resting in Christ in Genesis n1 when he rested on the 7th day huh? See, that makes no sense at all. I agree there is a “figurative ” lesson, but to deny the Prophetic is to miss alot of the truths in the Bible. I gave you loads of Scripture to back up the creative week.
You know, the seventh feast of israel is a type of the Sabbath… and also a type of the 1000 year millenial reign. By the way, to deny the significance of the sevens in the Bible would be just plain I G N O R A N C E. Bible talks about being willingly ignorant in II Pet 3. The Seven churches… the 7th representing the last church age. Go ahead and choke on that all you want. The 7th feast being the last 1000 year period, the millenium. Seventh day… the last of a week.. The seventh day in Gen 1 is OBVIOUSLY a type of the millenium. Any 4th grader can see this… if he is not messed with by a theol0ogian first!
If you want to believe II Pet 3:8 is just a Rabinical statement…. go ahead. The context as well as comparing Scripture with Scripture… and good common sense tells me otherwise.
You know… there is a chapter in Daniel that speaks of Alexander the great… yet… it is also prophetic of the anti-christ at the same time. Under your way of study, since it is not specifically mentioned ;later as being prophetic by anyone else in the Bible…. I guess you would have to say it was not.
This is a much deeper book than you will give it credit! Mary is a type of the Jews… martha a type of Gentile/church age. Lazarus is the dead in Christ who rise first. Martha went out first (church age) then came Mary… Jesus wept for her in John 11. Interesting huh??
Who told you the ark was a type of salvation??? I dont think it is told us to do so as you mentioned the sabbath was in Heb 4?? Why have you used Abraham and Isaac as a type of Christ? Are we told in the N.T. to do so?? How bout the fiery furnace??? Ever preach on that and apply it figurativly??? Sure! See what I am saying? You have picked what is allowed to be used figuratively and what is not. Maybe you are “Pope John” ?? haha!!
“After six days Jesus was transfigured” I am sorry you dont see the wonderful prophetic truth of that John. Now if it contradicted Scripture… which it does not, we would have a problem. It does not… in fact, as I already pointed out… it sheds light and confirms other Scriptures. It is too perfect to just be a coincidence in the Bible .

No… you fellers are wrong that is all there is to it. I have proved my points here
“He that hath ears to hear let him hear…”  Evang Dan Goodwin

Evang Dan Goodwin: OK Bro John… then I guess God was resting in Christ in Genesis n1 when he rested on the 7th day huh?See, that makes no sense at all.I agree there is a “figurative ” lesson, but to deny the Prophetic is to miss alot of the truths in the Bible. I gave you loads of Scripture to back up the creative week.

Now that’s just ridiculous. Do you not understand the difference between the type and that which it typifies? No, God was not resting in Christ on the 7th day, he was resting (as the scripture says) in his satisfaction of his creation. When we rest in Christ, we are also satisfied with God’s work.

Evang Dan Goodwin: You know, the seventh feast of israel is a type of the Sabbath… and also a type of the 1000 year millenial reign.By the way, to deny the significance of the sevens in the Bible would be just plainI G N O R A N C E.Bible talks about being willingly ignorant in II Pet 3.The Seven churches… the 7th representing the last church age.Go ahead and choke on that all you want.The 7th feast being the last 1000 year period, the millenium.Seventh day… the last of a week.. The seventh day in Gen 1 is OBVIOUSLY a type of the millenium.Any 4th grader can see this… if he is not messed with by a theol0ogian first! If you want to believe II Pet 3:8 is just a Rabinical statement…. go ahead.The context as well as comparing Scripture with Scripture… and good common sense tells me otherwise.

The Jewish 7th feast could just as easily typify our rest in Christ (as Hebrews 4 states) and our ultimate rest with Christ forever in Heaven. The 7th Church (Laodicea) in Revelation 3 is a type of Church… not only in the early Church, but for today also…. surely you agree with that. If you really believed that we were living in a Church age where people could not be saved, why in the world would you be an Evangelist? Is that just your excuse for not seeing the converts you think you should? Also, it’s funny that you bring up the “7th Church (Laodicea)” because according to your day / age theory, the Church of Laodicea would serve to typify the Millennial reign. Are you suggesting that the Laodicean Church typifies the attitude of mankind during Christ’s Millennial reign? That would certainly be a contradiction.

2 Peter 3:8 says absolutely nothing for a Millennial Reign. All that means is that God in eternity resides outside the confines of time. According to 2 Peter 3:8, maybe your Millennial Reign will only last a day? That’ll sure mess up you 7,000 year creation model.

Evang Dan Goodwin: You know… there is a chapter in Daniel that speaks of Alexander the great… yet… it is also prophetic of the anti-christ at the same time.Under your way of study, since it is not specifically mentioned ;later as being prophetic by anyone else in the Bible…. I guess you would have to say it was not.

I would be very wary of any claims made to any scripture being prophetic unless it was proven to me scripturally… Does that align me with the Church of Ephesus in Rev. 2:2 “thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars”? Why am I not more like the Laodiceans?

Evang Dan Goodwin: This is a much deeper book than you will give it credit!Mary is a type of the Jews… martha a type of Gentile/church age.Lazarus is the dead in Christ who rise first.Martha went out first (church age)then came Mary… Jesus wept for her in John 11.Interesting huh??

Ok, so what’s your point? Could you direct me to a commentator who has commented on John 11 in the same way you have? I suspect you can’t.

Evang Dan Goodwin: Who told you the ark was a type of salvation??? I dont think it is told us to do so as you mentioned the sabbath was in Heb 4??Why have you used Abraham and Isaac as a type of Christ?Are we told in the N.T. to do so?? How bout the fiery furnace??? Ever preach on that and apply it figurativly??? Sure!See what I am saying?You have picked what is allowed to be used figuratively and what is not.Maybe you are “Pope John”?? haha!!

The Ark is used as a type of salvation because Peter used it in 1 Peter 3:20,21. The story of Abraham and Isaac is applied figuratively to the gospel by Stephen in Acts 7, Paul in Galatians 4, and the author of Hebrews in Hebrews 11:17-19. Otherwise we would have no authority to use that event figuratively to typify our salvation.

Evang Dan Goodwin: “After six days Jesus was transfigured”I am sorry you dont see the wonderful prophetic truth of that John.Now if it contradicted Scripture… which it does not, we would have a problem.It does not… in fact, as I already pointed out… it sheds light and confirms other Scriptures.It is too perfect to just be a coincidence in the Bible .No… you fellers are wrong that is all there is to it.I have proved my points here
“He that hath ears to hear let him hear…”

The problem I have is that if God wanted us to know that there would be exactly 6,000 years to the day of humans on Earth, then another 1,000 years with Christ reigning on Earth.. God would have told us so explicitly in His word. He has told us explicitly all through the NT that we would be resurrected and taken to Heaven after an indeterminate amount of time… but you seem to be reading between the lines of scripture to find some mystical Millennial Reign. The promise to Abraham in Gen. 15 was that his seed would inherit the promised land and dwell therein forever. What is it about a thousand years that makes it “forever”? If the Millennial reign is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham, then God is a liar, and I am not prepared to draw that conclusion. We are told in Galatians 3:7 that we who are of faith are the Children of Abraham.. and yes, we will inherit the land that Canaan served to typify… we will live in Heaven “forever”. The Earth will pass away, and the little strip of land the Jews claim with it…even if there is a Millennial reign. So how could Canaan have been the promised land to begin with? Abraham knew Canaan wasn’t the fulfillment of the promise because while he sojourned in Canaan he looked for another city Hebrews 11:10.

I will agree that the number 7 is an important number in scripture; 7 is always a number that illustrates God’s power in finality. Our final resting place will be Heaven, that is clear from scripture, so any use of the number 7 could in some way represent our final resting place and God’s ultimate power to bring that to pass. Every single instance of the number “7″ you can use to attempt to prove your day / age theory can be scripturally applied to our infinite residence with Christ in Heaven.

I think that you have neglected the truth that we will reside in Heaven forever in an attempt to formulate your day / age theory… If we will reside in Heaven forever, then the 7’s in scripture do not necessarily have to refer to a determinate 1,000 year block of time… and therefore there is no basis for applying the other 6 units to 1,000 year units of time.

In contrast to your application of the number 7 to a millennium; Revelation 20:6 says that we will reign with Christ for a thousand years. Although the KJV interprets the term “thousand” as a determinate unit of time, the Greek word “chilioi” is defined as “an indeterminate” amount of time. That Greek word would be more appropriately translated as “forever”. Since Revelation 20:6 is the primary proof verse for the Millennialists, and that verse more appropriately refers to eternity… wouldn’t it be a bit more theologically sincere to say simply that after the resurrection all Christians will reside with Christ for eternity in Heaven?  John Hardin

John, I mentioned that God resting on the 7th day was not figurative of resting in Christ since you were arguing that the only type that was scriptural was the type of resting in Christ because of Hebrews 4. I was a bit sarcastic saying “I guess God was resting in Christ” in Genesis 1.
THEN YOU SAID: “Now that’s just ridiculous. Do you not understand the difference between the type and that which it typifies? No, God was not resting in Christ on the 7th day, he was resting (as the scripture says) in his satisfaction of his creation…”

John… John… John…! You have just proved my point!! I have been telling you that Scripture can be looked at 3 ways didn’t I?? Well… isn’t that what started all this nonsense?? Now you got all hot because of Hebrews 4 that Sabbath means resting in Christ and therefore Genesis 1 can NOT have anything to do with the 1000 year Millennium! Yet John… now YOU have come up with a second type for this rest. I don’t have a problem with that… I am on trial here because of that remember??
1. Genesis 1 is a literal story of real literal events
2. There are many types we can glean… you yourself just pointed one out… I am so proud of you! By the way, I COULD accuse you of preaching your own pet belief here John. Where does it say God rested in his satisfaction of his creation??? Huh??? The Bible says :
Genesis 2:1-3
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
(KJV)
OK John… you are making something figurative here that you can not prove in the passage! Where does it say here that God rested in his satisfaction of his creation? I understand that God saw that it was good… but that gives you no right to say God rested because he was satisfied in his creation! YOU are saying something God did not say… and it is not said anywhere else in Scripture.
JOHN, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TYPE AND WHAT IT TYPIFIES???? HMMM??
I am not mad at you John, but I won’t be treated like a 4th grade student here! If you got some truth to share… I will listen and look at it with an open mind, but you have a funny attitude about you.

Some things for you to go study John:\
1. Has God ever been tired?
2. Will God EVER get tired?
3. Does God need to rest… ever??

Yes… God did rest… because the Bible says that He did. By the way… He did so when nobody was even looking! It means something to God. This is a literal event that happened but it also has some figurative lessons as well as a very very plain prophetic lesson . It is as plain as the screen on your computer! Until you learn that Daniel’s 70th week is stuck in between the church age and the 1000 year rest, you will never get it.

JOHN SAID:
The Jewish 7th feast could just as easily typify our rest in Christ (as Hebrews 4 states) and our ultimate rest with Christ forever in Heaven.

BRO GOODWIN: “Could just as easily” That is your answer to why the Feast of Tabernacles could not possibly be prophetic of the Millennium?????

Check out the prophetic truths of the 7 feasts:
1. Christ died on Passover
2. Christ lay in the grave during Unleavened bread
3. Rose on Firstfruits
4. Empowered the church on feast of Pentecost
These next 3 feasts take place 4 months after Pentecost in the fall. No feasts during these 4 months… they are working to get a harvest… as we are working today to get a harvest of souls… a bride for Jesus Christ.
5. Feast of Trumpets (Rosh hashanna) Type of rapture
6. Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) Type of Christ return at end of Trib
7. Feast of Tabernacles (Booths) God’s people rest… type of Millennium

JOHN SAID:

The 7th Church (Laodicea) in Revelation 3 is a type of Church… not only in the early Church, but for today also…. surely you agree with that. If you really believed that we were living in a Church age where people could not be saved, why in the world would you be an Evangelist? Is that just your excuse for not seeing the converts you think you should?

BRO GOODWIN: John I have no idea where you got such an idea. A church age where nobody can be saved? No such thing… don’t pin that stuff on me. I never said people could not get saved during the Laodicea age of history.

JOHN SAID:
2 Peter 3:8 says absolutely nothing for a Millennial Reign. All that means is that God in eternity resides outside the confines of time.

BRO GOODWIN: John, I never said it mentioned the Millennium in 2 Peter. I said it was referring to the creative week in Genesis 1 and that the 7th day is obviously prophetic of the 1000 year reign. Now you give your opinion that it means God resides outside confines of time… though that may be true… which one of us is taking liberties with that verse now huh?? You did not get that from the passage, you got that from a dead theologian’s commentary!

JOHN SAID:

According to 2 Peter 3:8, maybe your Millennial Reign will only last a day? That’ll sure mess up you 7,000 year creation model.

BRO GOODWIN: Does not line up with the rest of the bible John.

JOHN SAID:

Ok, so what’s your point? Could you direct me to a commentator who has commented on John 11 in the same way you have? I suspect you can’t.

BRO GOODWIN:
Sorry John, I am sure there are some I could direct you to, but I have not cracked one of those open in some time.

JOHN SAID:
The Ark is used as a type of salvation because Peter used it in 1 Peter 3:20,21. The story of Abraham and Isaac is applied figuratively to the gospel by Stephen in Acts 7, Paul in Galatians 4, and the author of Hebrews in Hebrews 11:17-19. Otherwise we would have no basis to use that event figuratively to typify our salvation.

BRO GOODWIN:
You prove my point again John!! The reason these stories can be used in the N.T. is because they were already types. Open your eyes John!

Are you telling me Enoch is not a type of the rapture? Oh I forgot, you don’t believe in the rapture.

How about the fiery furnace John…. Are they not figures and types of the fiery trials we go through??? Of course they are.

I texted a few preachers who I consider to have a very good grasp of Scripture. I got a very positive agreement with me from them all. I will give you just one of them: I asked that if Hagar and Ishmael were not mentioned in Galations as types, would they still be usable as types? OF COURSE was his answer!

Let me give you a few thoughts about types:
1. They must not contradict other scripture
2. Should not have to strain to see it.
3. The fact that some are mentioned in N.T. is because they were already types!
4. Jesus, Paul and other N.T. writers in fact gave us the example that many O.T. stories are figures and types.

JOHN SAID:
The problem I have is that if God wanted us to know that there would be exactly 6,000 years to the day of humans on Earth, then another 1,000 years with Christ reigning on Earth.. God would have told us so explicitly in His word.
BRO GOODWIN: ok Pope John… he has to do things the way you say huh?? The Bible was not written for the casual reader. “Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman…”

JOHN SAID: He has told us explicitly all through the NT that we would be resurrected and taken to Heaven after an indeterminate amount of time… but you seem to be reading between the lines of scripture to find some mystical Millennial Reign.
BRO GOODWIN: Since you are the only one on here who has that belief, and this is not the real discussion at hand, I will not bother with it.

JOHN SAID:
You’d better study the scriptures a little more deeply if you want to debate on this site.

BRO GOODWIN: You say that a type is only a type if mentioned and used as such elsewhere. Hagar and Ishmael would not be types if not mentioned in Galations…. I think maybe you need to take your own advice John.

BRO JOHN SAID:
I will agree that the number 7 is an important number in scripture; 7 is always a number that illustrates God’s power in finality. Our final resting place will be Heaven, that is clear from scripture, so any use of the number 7 could in some way represent our final resting place and God’s ultimate power to bring that to pass. Every single instance of the number “7″ you can use to attempt to prove your day / age theory can be scripturally applied to our infinite residence with Christ in Heaven.

BRO GOODWIN SAID: Here you go again , John, making a “type” out of something in the Bible while telling others not to do so!!

BRO JOHN FINALLY SHOWS HE REALLY DOES NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE:
In contrast to your application of the number 7 to a millennium; Revelation 20:6 says that we will reign with Christ for a thousand years. Although the KJV interprets the term “thousand” as a determinate unit of time, the Greek word “chilioi” is defined as “an indeterminate” amount of time. That Greek word would be more appropriately translated as “forever”. Since Revelation 20:6 is the primary proof verse for the Millennialists, and that verse more appropriately refers to eternity… wouldn’t it be a bit more theologically sincere to say simply that after the resurrection all Christians will reside with Christ for eternity in Heaven?

BRO GOODWIN : So John, is the King James the perfect inspired preserved word of God or not? Here you have a problem with a verse so you want to blame translator error!! What about John 3:16… is that verse ok?? You know… maybe you should be the Pope! That is what Pope’s do… they play God and tell the commoners what parts of the Bible to believe!
John, let me ask you a few questions:
1. Do you know Greek and Hebrew?
2. Do you feel like you are expert in it?
3. Do you feel like you know it better than those 54 men of Hampton court did in 1604?
4. Do you feel the translators made some errors?
5 Do you feel you are qualified to find and correct these errors?
6. Do you believe there is a perfect original Hebrew or Greek manuscript somewhere?
7. If so, can you get your hands on it?
8. If so, could you prove it is right and could you even understand it without a Lexicon?

See… we are back to Genesis oner again John. Satan came to the woman and hissed: “hath God said…” He got her to question, doubt, and then disobey what God had said. You are doing the same, John. There are NO originals… NONE! NOWHERE! Nobody today, not even Dr. Waite knows the Greek like those men of 1604. NOBODY!! Not even close! The language is lost to us. The Lexicons are corrupt! Mr. Strong was on the RSV committee. We either have the perfect Words of God in the KJB or we dont. PERIOD.

John, Rev 20:6 means what it says in your King James Bible. Believe it.  Evangelist Dan goodwin

Evangelist Dan goodwin: John,I mentioned that God resting on the 7th day was not figurative of resting in Christ since you were arguing that the only type that was scriptural was the type of resting in Christ because of Hebrews 4.I was a bit sarcastic saying “I guess God was resting in Christ” in Genesis 1.
THEN YOU SAID:“Now that’s just ridiculous. Do you not understand the difference between the type and that which it typifies? No, God was not resting in Christ on the 7th day, he was resting (as the scripture says) in his satisfaction of his creation…”John… John… John…!You have just proved my point!!I have been telling you that Scripture can be looked at 3 ways didn’t I??Well… isn’t that what started all this nonsense??Now you got all hot because of Hebrews 4 that Sabbath means resting in Christ and therefore Genesis 1 can NOT have anything to do with the 1000 year Millennium!Yet John… now YOU have come up with a second type for this rest.I don’t have a problem with that… I am on trial here because of that remember??
1. Genesis 1 is a literal story of real literal events
2.There are many types we can glean… you yourself just pointed one out… I am so proud of you!By the way, I COULD accuse you ofpreaching your own pet belief here John.Where does it say God rested in his satisfaction of his creation???Huh??? The Bible says :
Genesis 2:1-31 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.(KJV)
OK John… you are making something figurative here that you can not prove in the passage!Where does it say here that God rested in his satisfaction of his creation?I understand that God saw that it was good… but that gives you no right to say God rested because he was satisfied in his creation!YOU are saying something God did not say… and it is not said anywhere else in Scripture.

You asked “Where does it say God rested in His creation”? In Genesis 1:31. Had you gone back to the previous verse you would have seen that. The seventh day of creation IS figurative… but not of a Millennial reign but I’m not going to argue with you over private interpretations. You can come up with any mystical interpretation you want and pull proof verses out of the air all day, but at the end of the day, the context of scripture still interprets scripture… and Hebrews 4:3,4 makes it clear that our rest in Christ is the anti-type of the 7th day of creation. A couple of things to consider…

1. This 7th day of God’s creation is never recorded to have ended. If (as I claim) the 7th day is figurative of our rest in Christ, you can chalk one up to eternal security. If (as you claim) the 7th day is figurative of the Millennial Reign, where is the eternality of God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 15?

2. The 7th day of creation, according to Genesis 1:31 is clearly symbolic of the perfect completion of God’s work, and His satisfaction in that work… if the 7th day is figurative of our salvation (rest in Christ) it would verify that our salvation is also perfectly complete as well as eternally secure. If the 7th day is figurative of the Millennial Reign, then the full consummation of Christ’s resurrection work has not yet been completed… and will not continue forever as Genesis 2:1 suggests.

Also consider Albert Barnes statements regarding the Genesis account of the 7th day of creation: “In closing the interpretation of this chapter, it is proper to refer to certain first principles of hermeneutical science. First, that interpretation only is valid which is true to the meaning of the author.” He goes on to say “..”Here we have the general review and approval of everything God had made, at the close of the six days’ work of creation.” John Gill says of the 7th day: ” it had been said of everything else, at the close of each day’s work, excepting the second, that it was good; but here the expression is stronger upon the creation of man, the chief and principal work of God, that it was “very good”; he being made upright and holy, bearing the image of his Creator upon him, and in such circumstances as to be happy and comfortable himself, and to glorify God: the phrase may be expressive not only of the goodness of everything God had made, as it was in itself, and in its use; but of his complacency, and delight therein, every thing being made for himself and for, his pleasure.”

Evangelist Dan goodwin: JOHN, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TYPE AND WHAT IT TYPIFIES???? HMMM?? I am not mad at you John, but I won’t be treated like a 4th grade student here!If you got some truth to share… I will listen and look at it withan open mind, but you have a funny attitude about you.Some things for you to go study John:
1. Has God ever been tired?
2. Will God EVER get tired?
3. Does God need to rest… ever??Yes… God did rest… because the Bible says that He did. By the way… He did so when nobody was even looking!It means something to God. This is a literal event that happened but it also has some figurative lessons as well as a very very plain prophetic lesson .It is as plain as the screen on your computer!Until you learn that Daniel’s 70th week is stuck in between the church age and the 1000 year rest, you will never get it.

I don’t know about you, but I’m resting in the God’s complete work now. The gospel is not that Christ will reign for a thousand years on Earth.. then who knows what. The Gospel is that the work of my salvation has already been 100% completed, and I will rest in the satisfaction of that work forever more.

Evangelist Dan goodwin:

JOHN SAID:According to 2 Peter 3:8, maybe your Millennial Reign will only last a day? That’ll sure mess up you 7,000 year creation model.

BRO GOODWIN:Does not line up with the rest of the bible John.JOHN SAID:Ok, so what’s your point? Could you direct me to a commentator who has commented on John 11 in the same way you have? I suspect you can’t.BRO GOODWIN: Sorry John, I am sure there are some I could direct you to, but I have not cracked one of those open in some time.

LOL! That explains a lot.

Evangelist Dan goodwin:JOHN SAID:
The Ark is used as a type of salvation because Peter used it in 1 Peter 3:20,. The story of Abraham and Isaac is applied figuratively to the gospel by Stephen in Acts 7, Paul in Galatians 4, and the author of Hebrews in Hebrews 11:17-19. Otherwise we would have no basis to use that event figuratively to typify our salvation.

BRO GOODWIN:
You prove my point again John!!The reason these stories can be used in the N.T. is because they were already types.Open your eyes John!Are you telling me Enoch is not a type of the rapture?Oh I forgot, you don’t believe in the rapture.How about the fiery furnace John…. Are they not figures and types of the fiery trials we go through??? Of course they are.I texted a few preachers who I consider to have a very good grasp of Scripture.I got a very positive agreement with me from them all.I will give you just one of them:I asked that if Hagar and Ishmael were not mentioned in Galations as types, would they still be usable as types?OF COURSE was his answer!Let me give you a few thoughts about types:

1. They must not contradict other scripture
2. Should not have to strain to see it.
3.The fact that some are mentioned in N.T. is because they were already types!
4.Jesus, Paul and other N.T. writers in fact gave us the example that many O.T. stories are figures and types.

So you are suggesting that the Apostles didn’t have any more authority to translate those types than we do? Are you an Apostle now Bro. Goodwin? Are you suggesting you know more about those types than the Apostle Paul? Are you suggesting you know more about the figurative application of the 7th day of the creative week than the author of Hebrews. Were not those men HOly Ghost inspired to write those letters? You are encroaching on a dangerous line there Pope Goodwin.

By the way..Are those preacher friends of yours your version of consulting commentators? Why would you reject the notion of consulting a “dead” theologian? Maybe some of your preacher friends could write a commentary for you so you didn’t have to call them all the time. Wouldn’t that make life easier? Or you could just study like the rest of the world and consult men who have put their knowledge in writing.

Evangelist Dan goodwin:JOHN SAID:
The problem I have is that if God wanted us to know that there would be exactly 6,000 years to the day of humans on Earth, then another 1,000 years with Christ reigning on Earth.. God would have told us so explicitly in His word.
BRO GOODWIN:ok Pope John… he has to do things the way you say huh??The Bible was not written for the casual reader.“Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman…”JOHN SAID:He has told us explicitly all through the NT that we would be resurrected and taken to Heaven after an indeterminate amount of time… but you seem to be reading between the lines of scripture to find some mystical Millennial Reign.

BRO GOODWIN:Since you are the only one on here who has that belief, and this is not the real discussion at hand, I will not bother with it.

JOHN SAID:
I will agree that the number 7 is an important number in scripture; 7 is always a number that illustrates God’s power in finality. Our final resting place will be Heaven, that is clear from scripture, so any use of the number 7 could in some way represent our final resting place and God’s ultimate power to bring that to pass. Every single instance of the number “7″ you can use to attempt to prove your day / age theory can be scripturally applied to our infinite residence with Christ in Heaven.

BRO GOODWIN SAID:Here you go again , John, making a “type” out of something in the Bible while telling others not to do so!!
BRO JOHN FINALLY SHOWS HE REALLY DOES NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE:
In contrast to your application of the number 7 to a millennium; Revelation 20:6 says that we will reign with Christ for a thousand years. Although the KJV interprets the term “thousand” as a determinate unit of time, the Greek word “chilioi” is defined as “an indeterminate” amount of time. That Greek word would be more appropriately translated as “forever”. Since Revelation 20:6 is the primary proof verse for the Millennialists, and that verse more appropriately refers to eternity… wouldn’t it be a bit more theologically sincere to say simply that after the resurrection all Christians will reside with Christ for eternity in Heaven?

BRO GOODWIN :So John, is the King James the perfect inspired preserved word of God or not?Here you have a problem with a verse so you want to blame translator error!!What about John 3:16… is that verse ok??You know… maybe you should be the Pope!That is what Pope’s do… they play God and tell the commoners what parts of the Bible to believe!
John, let me ask you a few questions:
1. Do you know Greek and Hebrew?
2. Do you feel like you are expert in it?
3. Do you feel like you know it better than those 54 men of Hampton court did in 1604?
4. Do you feel the translators made some errors?
5Do you feel you are qualified to find and correct these errors?
6. Do you believe there is a perfect original Hebrew or Greek manuscript somewhere?
7. If so, can you get your hands on it?
8. If so, could you prove it is right and could you even understand it without a Lexicon?See… we are back to Genesis oner again John.Satan came to the woman and hissed: “hath God said…” He got her to question, doubt, and then disobey what God had said.You are doing the same, John.There are NO originals… NONE!NOWHERE!Nobody today, not even Dr. Waite knows the Greek like those men of 1604.NOBODY!!Not even close!The language is lost to us.The Lexicons are corrupt!Mr. Strong was on the RSV committee.We either have the perfect Words of God in the KJB or we dont.PERIOD.John, Rev 20:6 means what it says in your King James Bible.Believe it.

So.. when I give you a rock solid argument against the Millennial Reign, you resort to answers like: “I won’t answer that”, “You don’t believe the Bible”. You claim that the word “χίλιοι” in the Greek is a corruption of the Greek text.. and apparently the KJV translators had a copy of the Greek which used maybe the word “Χίλιες” instead of “χίλιοι”. So explain to me why every other modern translation has interpreted Revelation 20:4 to say ‘thousand’ if all the modern translations are based on corrupted texts?

I somehow think you just made that defense up. I think it’s substantially clear that the word “χίλιοι” was in the manuscripts the KJV translators used… and also the ones Strong used, and also the ones the modern translators used.

I’m sorry Bro. Goodwin. I refuse to believe a theory just because someone told me it’s true. Through extensive study of the scriptures I have come to the same conclusion that most Historic Baptist Theologians have come to regarding Eschatology, and it has nothing to do with a thousand year reign of Christ.  John Hardin

JOHN Said”
You asked “Where does it say God rested in His creation”? In Genesis 1:31. Had you gone back to the previous verse you would have seen that. The seventh day of creation IS figurative

BRO GOODWIN SAID: Genesis 1
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
(KJV)
ok John, I have your verse listed here. Sure… as I already pointed out… God said it was good… but you said God rested in his satisfaction of his creation!
That is NOT what this verse says John. Point that out for me will you?? Then you go talking about the figurative again with no backing from scripture which you claim is WRONG for anyone else to do.

As for your no 1000 year reign belief… lets not get into other issues right now. This discussion started because you scorned and mocked people who see prophetic/ figurative lessons in scripture.

JOHN SAID:
So you are suggesting that the Apostles didn’t have any more authority to translate those types than we do? Are you an Apostle now Bro. Goodwin?
BRO GOODWIN SAID: Of course I am not an apostle. I made my point and you know it. Let me say it again. They set a precident in the N.T. that O.T. stories can be and are types of truths. What is so hard about that John?? Hagar and Ishmael were ALREADY types before paul used it as such. To say they were not is ridiculus. Enoch is a type whether mentioned in N.T. or not.
JOHN SAID: Are you suggesting you know more about those types than the Apostle Paul? Are you suggesting you know more about the figurative application of the 7th day of the creative week than the author of Hebrews. Were not those men HOly Ghost inspired to write those letters? You are encroaching on a dangerous line there Pope Goodwin.
BRO GOODWIN: That is nonsense , John, quit acting like a teenager!
Let me ask you something , John: Daniel was told to “seal the book till the time of the end” Has that time come yet John?

BRO JOHN SAID: By the way..Are those preacher friends of yours your version of consulting commentators? Why would you reject the notion of consulting a “dead” theologian?
BRO GOODWIN: I did not say it was wrong, but you better not believe alot of what they say… most were not even baptist.

BRO JOHN SAID:
So.. when I give you a rock solid argument against the Millennial Reign, you resort to answers like: “I won’t answer that”, “You don’t believe the Bible”.
BRO GOODWIN SAID: As I said… I have no intention of wasting my time trying to educate you about the rapture! This is all about you trying to show me a poor student of the scriptures…

JOHN SAID: You claim that the word “χίλιοι” in the Greek is a corruption of the Greek text.. and apparently the KJV translators had a copy of the Greek which used maybe the word “Χίλιες” instead of “χίλιοι”.

BRO GOODWIN SAID: I made absolutly no such claim John!!!!!! Where do you come up with such false assumptions??? Go back and read it again…. you got to be more perceptive than this. What I said, since I have to take the time to say it again…. is that the translators… new and understood the Greek like no man alive anywhere in the world today!!!! PERIOD! Under the guidance of God, whose job it is to preserve His word, they gave us the perfect word of God in english. I take issue with people who know NOTHING of Greek, who look at corrupt lexicons, and think they can better the KING James! You did just that John… you believe there is a mistake in the translation of Rev 20 because you read after a corrupt King James Bible hater and corrector who wrote a Greek lexicon!

JOHN SAID: So explain to me why every other modern translation has interpreted Revelation 20:4 to say ‘thousand’ if all the modern translations are based on corrupted texts?

BRO GOODWIN: Even the modern corrupt bibles get some stuff right John… what does that have to do with anything??? I really dont care what any of the new bibles have to say.

BRO JOHN SAID: I somehow think you just made that defense up.
BRO GOODWIN Think anything you want John… prove me wrong. Answer my 8 questions I gave about the Greek. NOBODY has the curage to answer them. You didnt!

BRO JOHN SAID: I think it’s substantially clear that the word “χίλιοι” was in the manuscripts the KJV translators used… and also the ones Strong used, and also the ones the modern translators used.

BRO GOODWIN: hAHAHA.. Pope John is speaking as Christ on earth now… he was in the room in 1604-1610 and saw the greek manuscript those men had on the table!!!! John, this is getting worse as you go. Who told you what was or wasnt in the greek? Do you know that all the manuscripts,notes, papers, and the original hand written 1611 KJB all burned in the London fire of 1650??? God has left you NOTHING to go on to prove or disprove anything about the King James … just F A I T H!! Jack Schaap doesnt have it either… he has two different Greek new Test. on his desk he studies and they are both different! Satan is laughing! As for Strong and modern translators having those original manuscripts…. HOGWASH! LIES! Dont believe such rubbish John.

BRO GOODWIN:
I do not see this going anywhere between us…. and I doubt anyone but us is reading these, so I am not helping anyone else see my points here, so I say we find something else to do.
I leave you with a few Scriptures to read up on in the perfect inspired preserved King James Bible:

Hebrews 8
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
(KJV)
Hebrews 9
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
(KJV)

Hebrews 10
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
(KJV)

Hebrews 11
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
(KJV)

Hebrews 9
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
(KJV)

1pe 3:21  Evangelist Dan goodwin

Also:
1 Peter 3
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
(KJV)

Romans 5
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
(KJV)

1 Corinthians 10
1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
(KJV)

Galations 4 and many others. Who in the world taught you that Scripture must be mentioned as a type somewhere before it can be a type?? Truth is, John, you do it all the time yourself.  Evangelist Dan goodwin

To say that a story in the Bible has no type or figure unless affirmed by Paul or someone to be true, would be like saying 2+2 is only 4 if the teacher says it is.  Evangelist Dan goodwin

Bro. Goodwin. What would you say if I told you I now believe in Purgatory because I interpret the Exodus account of the crossing of the Red Sea as a figure or type of that “cleansing”… as they passed through the Red Sea on their way to the promised land?  John Hardin

I would say you have contradicted other scriptures in the Bible and better go back and study. A type or figure can NOT contradict other scripture.
A much better type is that of being baptized into the church as was already brought out by both Stephen (acts 7) and Paul I Co 10:1-11
Course, there are other types there too.  Evangelist Dan goodwin

Could it be that you have misunderstood these other scriptures and that my position on the Red Sea crossing is the right interpretation?  John Hardin

Well… it appears Pope John has got to the last bead and has begun to lose it here. John really is “popish” in that he does not believe the King James is the final authority… after all… there are mistranslated words in it… and we have to look to men educated in Greek to know what the Bible says. What a shame. Further, he really is confused on what a baptist is and where we came from. Not fully his fault… most baptist have educated themselves after Protestants. He said John the Baptist was a Jew and therefore could not be part of the church. Though I agree John was an O.T. prophet pointing men to Christ and the N.T. church, being a Jew has nothing to do with it. Would someone explain to our host that Paul, Peter, James, John… and the rest of the Apostles were all Jews as well??
John, I also proved beyond all doubt that the Bible is filled with types and figures… shadows of things to come. You have been proven wrong and thus have gone to speaking nonsense. Grow up John, I am sure you are a good guy and are probably saved as I am… but you have a public ministry here and better brush up on what you believe and why! OK… you dont like all the hipe about 2012… well get over it! I dont make a big deal about 2012 either! But to say it is wrong to use types and figures unless they are mentioned by the Apostles or Jesus is just plain wrong!

Before leaving… Bro Cassada and you (I think) bothmentioned Spurgeon: If you will crack open his book “Lectures to my Students” you will find he used types all through the book!! I mean all through it! I dont have the book in front of me, but I remember one in particular: There is a verse in the O.T. Isaiah 52
11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD.
(KJV)

Spurgeon used the phrase “be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord” figurativly and applied it to preachers being clean and holy! I agree with him… my point is… under your rules of interpretation, Spurgeon was taking liberty with Scripture! The context is concerning preists in the temple if I recall.
There are dozens and dozens of examples of this in his book.  Evangelist Dan goodwin

Your failure to answer my question speaks volumes Bro. Goodwin. I posed the question to you if it would be legitimate to believe the crossing of the Red Sea to be figurative for purgatory? You in turn said that if it didn’t line up with the rest of the Bible… then it would be a false claim. I agree wholeheartedly with you Bro. Goodwin.

So why is it so hard for you to understand that according to Hebrews 3:18-19 and Hebrews 4:1-6, that God’s rest on the 7th day of creation is a figure for the rest we have in Christ? It’s congruent with scripture, which is the buffer you verified to be the basis for which we interpret types.

Now, without jumping through a bunch of hoops to prove your point, and without giving me a bunch of other types, can you show me a place in scripture which verifies without a doubt that your interpretation of the 7th day being a type for the Millennial Reign is Biblically substantiated?

Also based on YOUR method of interpretation that you just gave me… can you show me where the Bible interprets the other 6 days of creation as a figure for six millennia of human inhabitance on Earth? You proved to me using scripture that the Red Sea is not a figure of purgatory… now let’s see you prove that your day / age theory is correct using the same (correct) method.  John Hardin

John, here is the Scripture you asked me for.
I just happened upon it after just a few min of study.
Colossians 2
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
(KJV)

There it is John. The sabbath is a shadow of things to come…. millennium  Evangelist Dan goodwin

Yep, you got me there Bro…..

Or it could mean what the author of Hebrews said, that the sabbath was a shadow of things to come… eternal rest in Christ.  John Hardin

Yes but comparing with all the other scriptures and truths:
Gen 1 God rested on 7th day
2 Pet 3:8 day as 1000 years
Sabbath is 7th day of the week
Rev 20:4 speaks of 1000 years
Hosea 6:1-4
Matthew 17:1- after 6 days
Isa 46:10
Every 7th year in Israel was a sabbatical year
After 49 years (7X7 years) they had a year of jubilee on 50th year
The 7th and final feast of israel is tabernackle which is all about rest.

You would have to be spiritually blind to not see the significance of God’s number 7 in Scripture  Evang Dan Goodwin

JOHN SAID:
Or it could mean what the author of Hebrews said, that the sabbath was a shadow of things to come… eternal rest in Christ.

Bro Goodwin: John, as I have said all along… there can be the literal, figurative, and prophetic meanings… as we see in so many places of the Bible. Both views are right in this passage.  Evang Dan Goodwin

All the verses you just used to prove a literal 1,000 year Millennial Reign have all been proven irrelevant. So, without all those irrelevant verses you keep throwing out of which none explicitly point to a Millennial Reign, we are back to the figurative interpretation of the 7th day of rest. You said above, that both view are right.
Can you explain why it has to be that both views are right when we are only told expressly by a New Testament author that one of those views are right? The author of Hebrews is the only author that interpreted the sabbath rest as figurative, and he says in chapters 3 and 4 that the sabbath rest was a figure of our rest in Christ. Why do you keep holding on to that Millennial Reign idea?  John Hardin

No, sorry John.. but those verses have NOT been proven wrong.
John. Satan is going to be loosed for a season after the 1000 years. If the 1000 years is a type of eternity as you say, (a type that does NOT fit scripture) then I guess Satan is going to be loosed after eternity???? No, you are mistaken John. Christ is going to come back at the last battle of Daniel’s 70th week and the saints are coming with him and shall rule with him for a 1000 years. Satan is in the bottomless pit during this time, the lion shall lay down with the lamb. Christ reigns from Jerusalem with a rod of iron. At the end of 1000 years satan is loosed and there is one last battle…. then comes the new heaven and new earth… and new Jerusalem descends…..

John, you admitted that Col 2:16-17 had you!! Yet, because you have this faulty nonsense of no rapture and no 1000 year…. you strain at the truths in the Bible.
“He that hath ears to hear…” I gave you bunches of Scripture. I even forgot some like PS 90:1-12
I am not the “Convincer” the Holy Spirit is. I leave you to HIM.  Evang Dan Goodwin

No millennium…. a typical Roman Catholic belief! Protestants… who were spawned by this great whore (Rev 17) kept many of her heretical beliefs. See, Rome believes through their power and persuasion they will actually better the earth and its people and bring in the kingdom! You believe like a typical protestant, John. Bible believing Baptist do NOT believe such things.

If you wish to answer my Greek questions as well as my church questions, openly in public on the forum, I will be glad to help you see your error once you have done so. Otherwise, I see no point in going on with this.  Evang Dan Goodwin

Evang Dan Goodwin: No, sorry John.. but those verses have NOT been proven wrong.
John. Satan is going to be loosed for a season after the 1000 years.If the 1000 years is a type of eternity as you say, (a type that does NOT fit scripture) then I guess Satan is going to be loosed after eternity????No, you are mistaken John.Christ is going to come back at the last battle of Daniel’s 70th week and the saints are coming with him and shall rule with him for a 1000 years.Satan is in the bottomless pit during this time, the lion shall lay down with the lamb.Christ reigns from Jerusalem with a rod of iron.At the end of 1000 years satan is loosed and there is one last battle…. then comes the new heaven and new earth… and new Jerusalem descends…..John, you admitted that Col 2:16-17 had you!!Yet, because you have this faulty nonsense of no rapture and no 1000 year…. you strain at the truths in the Bible.
“He that hath ears to hear…”I gave you bunches of Scripture.I even forgot some like PS 90:1-12
I am not the “Convincer”the Holy Spirit is.I leave you to HIM.

I said “Yep, you got me”, sarcastically. The scripture you quoted, along with all the scripture you quote doesn’t contradict the Amillennial view… it supports it. You have simply decided to take a view of the end times that is not fully supported by scripture in lieu of the historic Baptist position.  John Hardin

Evang Dan Goodwin: No millennium…. a typical Roman Catholic belief!Protestants… who were spawned by this great whore (Rev 17) kept many of her heretical beliefs.See, Rome believes through their power and persuasion they will actually better the earth and its people and bring in the kingdom!You believe like a typical protestant, John.Bible believing Baptist do NOT believe such things.If you wish to answer my Greek questions as well as my church questions, openly in public on the forum, I will be glad to help you see your error once you have done so.Otherwise, I see no point in going on with this.

If you’re going to teach people about the end times, whatever view you take.. you really should understand the three predominant eschatological views: they are Pre-millennialism, Post-Millennialism, and A-Millennialism.

Post-Millennialism is what you rightly accuse the Catholics of, but you are confusing that with A-Millennialism. Post-Mil’s believe that we are living in the Millennial Reign now, Christ is reigning the world now through the institution of the Church and will return physically when they have assumed control of the Earth.. also called “Dominionism”. I don’t agree with that perspective.

A-Mill’s believe that there is no Earthly Millennial Reign, but that most those passages you guys interpret as being Millennial refer to our eternal rest with Christ in Heaven. We also interpret the book of Revelation by progressive Parallelism which means most of the book of Revelation is not based on future events… this is also called “Partial Preterism”.

Do some study on it… write a book to defend Pre-Millennialism… that’s what I did, and that’s what convinced me of the A-Millennial position.  John Hardin

There is already a book on it, John, it is called the Bible!

JOHN SAID: We also interpret the book of Revelation by progressive Parallelism which means most of the book of Revelation is not based on future events… this is also called “Partial Preterism”.

BRO GOODWIN: Haha.. and you accuse me of making types and figures in the Bible??? Your a hypocrit John! Good night… read Rev 1:19 Revelation 1
19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
(KJV)

John I have no desire to discuss anything with you any more… as I said… you wont answer the questions I reaised concerning greek and the church/  Evang Dan Goodwin

I’m astonished that you would call me a hypocrite. You, the guy who writes and sells books to explicate Biblical teaching… but by your own admission the Bible is the only book we need. By your own admission you won’t crack open a commentary… but you’ll write books for others to buy and read. Why not just let them read the Bible?
I don’t accuse you of making types and figures in the Bible…. are you dense? I (as well as others) are accusing you of making types and figures in the Bible to say what you want them to say without any Biblical basis.
Your arrogance astonishes me Dan. You start off proposing your private interpretations of scripture supersede the inspired writings of the Apostles, then you have the audacity to demand I answer a list of stupid questions about “do I know Greek”, and “do I think I know more than the KJV translators”. The amazing thing is… you really think those questions are supposed to stump me. Your immature list of questions do not even warrant my condescending to answer them… they are not questions about Greek, they are questions spawned from a lame attempt to bully me into a corner. Just in case you haven’t figured it out yet… I’m not intimidated by you.  John Hardin

Like I told you, I’ll answer you Church questions, if for no other reason that those you teach will have a source to go for the truth. I’ll let you know when I get the post finished.  John Hardin

The greek and Church questions are simple but powerful. You should not need to go break out a bunch of books John, I just wanted you to answer them. Most was simple yes or no. I am not interested in a big discorse from you… so dont bother.

As for your comments above…. you do nothing but twist what I said. I will leave it there… if anyone happens to come on and read any of this, they can decide who is mixed up.

Good bye john  Evang Dan Goodwin

I know you aren’t interested in a big discourse from me, but possibly someone else out there would be interested in learning the truth about Biblical Church history. I have published the article and it can be read here: http://gideonsword.net/the-church/baptisthistory  John Hardin

I always thought that Mary and Martha were types of the Mexican Church from 1950 to 1954 and 1/2. And everyone knows that Lazarus is a type of that other guy that did all that stuff in Russia. You can’t judge me on that interpretation cuz you aint no pope  Pastor John