This discussion has been going on for centuries, and it's obvious that we won't resolve it. It's also obvious that we won't agree.

But, speaking of redefining words, the word "foreknowledge" means "knowledge of something before it happens or exists." It's not guessing; it's not a tentative prediction, like that of a weather forecast; it's not an analysis of several possible alternatives that may happen. The Greek word is prognosis, beforehand knowledge.

Becareful Rosangela, this and your continuing comments on this is getting very close to accusing Deuteronomy and Ellen White and the SDA Bible Commentary of lieing.

I understand that the argument on God's foresight is being debated here, and I hope that I've made it clear that I believe in the infinite God not being limited to time and space, and that God transends time and space and knows the end from the begining.

As to this specific group of questions: Prophecies of Christ's first coming included both the land and exile theology threads of Deuteronomy, and the royal threads in say the Psalms. Yes, Jesus could have come as the litteral king ruling from a palace in Jerusalem. Yes, young Daniel fully expected to see Jesus come and to lead like a second Moses, a great exoduse from Babylon. The older Daniel had a different understanding which broke his heart, but there was no need to there to be a first and second coming, Jesus could have done it all when he first came. Now God knew what would happen, but the prophecys were given with the possibility for it to be fulfilled earlier.

The condition for the second coming include "IF I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again." and "When the gospel of this kingdom is preached to all the world THEN the end shall come" Jesus predicted his second coming to be connected to the fall of the temple, AD 70. Paul said that the gospel had been preached into all the world, but in Romans he also said that he would like to bring the gospel to Spain... Paul did not see Spain as part of the world where the gospel needed to be preached, but that it would be nice to bring it to places outside of what he and the disciples understood as "The World" probably as the Jewish world.

Hebrews and Revelation deal with the great dissapointment of AD 70, Hebrews pointing to the heavenly ministry of Jesus, and Revelation saying "Yes, but don't be so focused on Jesus heavenly ministry that you forget that he is coming again, you lost your first love, you need to preach again" and discribes what could have happened durring the persecution of the current emperor Domatian (Spelling?) if the church was willing to be martyered in the persecution but boldly preach again.

Yes, the Millennium could have been for ONLY the martyrs of the Nero-Domitan, with the rest of us rising at the end of the thousand years. By analogy and that the conditions for the second coming to occure during the Domitan persecution were not fulfilled, Mrs. White mixes John's special resurection for specific martyrs with Paul's general resurection for the righteous of all ages and thus have us rise with John's martyers of his day.

Also in Greek, the term "Thousand years" did not mean a set number, but only "As much time as needed" for a situation. No rushing, but taking plenty of time to take care of an issue. Thus it is a conditional term to start with. And again it is to give enough time so that sin will not rise again. The extra time before Jesus comes is also to give us the evidence we need to fulfill the contitions for sin to not rise up again. We know it well enough to not want to be burned by it again.

I was going to mention on the last post that I appreciate your carrying on a conversation. I have no aspirations of your changing your mind, as to the best of my recollection in our years of discussions, you never have (at least in relation to anything I've written). However, by reading your explanations, I may get some idea of how you are thinking, which I would be very pleased to understand. So far I'm not getting it, I'm afraid. It's so obvious, to me anyway (I would think to anyone) what "risk of failure and eternal loss" means, as well as "all heaven was imperiled for our redemption" that I'm just not able to conceive of how you could fit these phrases with the concept of 100% certainty, when these are such polar opposites.

At any rate, I agree that foreknowledge means knowledge of something before it happens, I just disagree as to the nature of that something. You see the future as a single-threaded thing, a thing which must happen. I believe it's more complex than that, comprised in part of certainties, but also of things that are uncertain, decisions to be made by self-determining creatures which are not yet realities, but possibilities.

When God looks into the future, He sees it as it is, which is a complex web of yet to occur actions. He doesn't see it as a movie or T.V. rerun, as the statements such as "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss" "All heaven was imperiled for our redemption" "It is our privilege not only to look for but to hasten" Christ's future make clear. These statements simply don't fit with a T.V. rerun future. I haven't even seen any effort to explain these statements, other then the idea that words such as "risk" "imperiled" and "hasten" don't mean what we would understand them to ordinarily mean, an argument which, it seems clear to me, would make it possible to interpret any statement in any way which one would choose to do.

Anyway, I'll end again with thanking you for participating in the dialog. Maybe some time I'll get it (your way of thinking).

I'm interested in this. Could you provide some back up, or more information on this thought. The reason I'm asking is a friend of mine has discussed this idea with me, but we were not aware of the linguistic point you are making.

Kevin,
I’ve never accused the SDABC of lying (although I sometimes disagree with it), much less the Bible and Ellen White. What I disagree with is the interpretation some give to them, and by the way, I disagree with yours.

No, Jesus could not have come as the literal king ruling from a palace in Jerusalem.

“None of the people, not even the disciples, understood the nature of Christ's kingdom. … They seemed unable to believe that he would not sit on David's throne, that he would not take the scepter, and reign as a temporal prince in Jerusalem. Words true and full of significance when rightly placed are misleading when misapplied. The utterances of the prophet describing the second appearing of Christ were applied by the Jewish teachers to his first advent. The description of Christ's second coming is true, but this truth, tho beautiful and grand, could not be made to harmonize with his first coming. The word was true, but it was truth placed in the wrong setting.” {ST, July 1, 1897 par. 6,7}

“The leaders in Israel professed to understand the prophecies, but they had received false ideas in regard to the manner of Christ's coming. Satan had deceived them; and all the glories of Christ's second advent they applied to his first appearing. All the wonderful events clustering around his second coming, they looked for at his first. Therefore, when he came, they were not prepared to receive him." {RH, September 5, 1899 par. 5}

Yes, there was a need for a first and a second coming, and no, Jesus could have done it all when He first came.

Jesus did not predict His second coming to be connected to the fall of the temple in AD 70, but, instead, “blended the description of the two great crises, leaving the disciples to study out the meaning for themselves. When He referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, His prophetic words reached beyond that event to the final conflagration in that day when the Lord shall rise out of His place to punish the world for their iniquity, when the earth shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain. This entire discourse was given, not for the disciples only, but for those who should live in the last scenes of this earth's history” (DA 627).

And no, the millennium could NOT have been only for the martyrs of the Nero-Domitian persecution, with the rest of us rising at the end of the thousand years. Would Satan have been bound during all this time? Where?

Rosangela, Kevin is arguing that had things been different, a different result would have occurred. Quoting from Ellen White doesn't address Kevin's issues, unless Ellen White is addressing the same hypothetical issue Kevin is.

Tom, I totally agree with what Rosangela posted. As you can see, I am not the only one who believes it.

Tom,

Ellen White does address the issue. She says that had the Jews fulfilled God's plan, they would have prepared the world for Christ's first coming (PK 703, 704). But of course Christ would have come in exactly the same way - as a great Teacher, to die for our sins - not as a King. Since she says that they would have prepared the world for Christ's first coming, of course there would have been a second coming, for which the role of Christ as King was reserved.

As to Christ's second coming in 70 AD, she is clear that that couldn't have been the case, for she says that, at the time Christ spoke on the Mount of Olives, in mercy to the disciples He blended the description of Jerusalem's destruction with the description of the end of the world, because they weren't prepared to know that so many years would transpire between the two events.

Taking the 2300 day/year prophecy into consideration, Christ couldn't have come the 2nd time prior to 1844.