thereselittleflower Posted July 20, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 20, 2015 Call it what you want, but it is what it is. And I am not "killing the messenger" here anymore than if I were criticizing Jim Jones, Joseph Smith or David Koresh. Sorry but that analogy is simply silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 No it's not. We criticize religious leaders all of the time, but when its a guy who sides with the RCC, suddenly its "killing the messenger." That's called "hypocrisy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted July 20, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 20, 2015 Killing the messenger: Fallacies of Authority Killing the Messenger (Argumentum ad Hominem) This fallacy disagrees with an argument by attacking the person who makes the argument. When political discussions become vehicles for attacking “feminists” or “conservatives,” they are usually guilty of killing the messenger. These discussions single out people who belong to a certain group or adhere to a certain ideology without ever examining the validity of the thought itself. This kind of fallacy can be done both by insulting someone or by misrepresenting their associations. An abusive example would be "Don't believe anything John says; he's a nerd." A circumstantial example would be "Of course he thinks fraternities are great. He's a Phi Delta." http://depts.washington.edu/methods/fallacies.html Seven fallacies of thought and reason A look at the most common logical fallacies and how they are used. by Jason Braithwaite PhD © 2006 (6) Argumentum Ad-hominem: Shoot the messenger fallacy This is a common logical fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem basically means that the argument becomes directed towards the individual as opposed towards the crucial issues being discussed. It is succinctly described as, attack the messenger not the message (hence - shoot the messenger). It is often seen in both politics and pseudoscience. Its aim is to undermine the position of ones opponent, by undermining the opponent personally (in a manner that is actually completely irrelevant to the debate). The hope here is that if one can discredit the individual, this by default, discredits his / her argument. It does not. The fallacy here relates to the irrelevance of the attack. It is not viable to argue against a position and then justify that argument by criticising the individual who holds it. Arguing that the proposals from the Educational minister are unlikely to work because he / she have no children of their own is hardly convincing. Furthermore, saying that Einstein or Darwin were selfish men does nothing to discredit the theories of Relativity and Evolution. They may have been the most selfish or the most unselfish of men, but this is an irrelevance as to the 'truth' of their scientific claims. Similarly, a cognitive neuroscientific account of strange experiences (i.e., near-death experiences) is not incorrect simply because the scientist proposing it is a skeptic. These are all examples of the ad-hominem fallacy. Any claim or theory should not be rejected solely on the basis of who holds it. http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/critical-thinking/seven-fallacies-of-thought-and-reason.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FresnoJoe Posted July 21, 2015 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 207 Topic Count: 60 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 8,651 Content Per Day: 1.17 Reputation: 5,761 Days Won: 4 Joined: 01/31/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/04/1943 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Killing the messenger.... Killing For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19 The And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. Revelation 19:16 Messenger The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Revelation 1:1-2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted July 21, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.35 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted July 21, 2015 ...Failure to take the highly symbolic character of apocalyptic into account virtually guarantees a misreading of the text. The numbers in Revelation cannot be understood by assigning then real numerical value, not even as round numbers. They are purely symbolic. Only someone with an anti-biblical agenda would make such dogmatic and misleading statements. Unless Scripture itself authorizes us to treat a number as metaphorical (e.g. 2 Pet 3:8 where one day is AS a thousand years and vice versa), and that too for a spiritual reason (the salvation of souls), numbers in Scripture (whether in Revelation or Genesis) must be taken in their plain literal sense. Otherwise the Bible simply becomes a collection of myths, legends, fables, and fantasies, and we can make just about anything out of anything else. While the book of Revelation does have many symbols representing physical realities e.g. the seven stars which are the angels of the seven churches (Rev 1:16-20), the symbols are ACTUALLY EXPLAINED in most cases, either directly or by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Revelation was meant to be read as a generally chronological revelation of future events until the Second Coming of Christ (and beyond). Therefore the Millennium is a literal period of one thousand years on earth when the Lord Jesus Christ takes absolute control of the world, and therefore there is universal peace, prosperity, and righteousness, as revealed in a multitude of Old Testament prophecies. What the Amillennialists have done is exactly what the Gnostics have done. They have given symbolic esoteric meaning to things which should be taken in their plain literal sense. Thus we have the New Testament Apocrypha which is full of fantasies and fables. Origen began this kind of interpretation, and Augustine is the source of Amillennialism. Reformed Theology simply accepted this misinterpretation hook, line, and sinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted July 21, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 21, 2015 ...Failure to take the highly symbolic character of apocalyptic into account virtually guarantees a misreading of the text. The numbers in Revelation cannot be understood by assigning then real numerical value, not even as round numbers. They are purely symbolic. Only someone with an anti-biblical agenda would make such dogmatic and misleading statements. Unless Scripture itself authorizes us to treat a number as metaphorical (e.g. 2 Pet 3:8 where one day is AS a thousand years and vice versa), and that too for a spiritual reason (the salvation of souls), numbers in Scripture (whether in Revelation or Genesis) must be taken in their plain literal sense. Otherwise the Bible simply becomes a collection of myths, legends, fables, and fantasies, and we can make just about anything out of anything else. While the book of Revelation does have many symbols representing physical realities e.g. the seven stars which are the angels of the seven churches (Rev 1:16-20), the symbols are ACTUALLY EXPLAINED in most cases, either directly or by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Revelation was meant to be read as a generally chronological revelation of future events until the Second Coming of Christ (and beyond). Therefore the Millennium is a literal period of one thousand years on earth when the Lord Jesus Christ takes absolute control of the world, and therefore there is universal peace, prosperity, and righteousness, as revealed in a multitude of Old Testament prophecies. What the Amillennialists have done is exactly what the Gnostics have done. They have given symbolic esoteric meaning to things which should be taken in their plain literal sense. Thus we have the New Testament Apocrypha which is full of fantasies and fables. Origen began this kind of interpretation, and Augustine is the source of Amillennialism. Reformed Theology simply accepted this misinterpretation hook, line, and sinker. Well that's what I used to think too, until I learned there was an actual genre of apocalyptic literature and what that really means when it comes to reading it. And the amillenialists of old were definitely not gnostic. They fought long and hard against gnosticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 When you make everything symbolic, you make the Bible servant to the reader. The Bible becomes whatever the reader wants it to be. If everyone approaches the book of Revelation as 100% arbitrarily symbolic as you do, whose interpretation of the symbolism is correct? Person A interprets the symbol one way, Person B interprets it a different way, and Person C is yet another interpretation. That's what happens when the standard for interpretation becomes totally arbitrary. When we make everything symbolic, and the symbol isn't explicitly explained, then it is up to the reader to decide what the symbol means and that creates chaos because then the Bible is whatever a reader wants it to be. All of us bring our own perceptions or paradigms to the Bible when we read it. That is inescapable because we all have different environmental elements that shaped who we are, individually. So when you simply take a one-dimensional approach to apocalyptic literature that basically says that everything is symbolic, and you leave it to the reader to "interpret" symbols instead of letting the Bible, what you get are myriads of different interpretations and that is one reason why Revelation, to so many people, is confusing. Everyone is operating from a different standard and understanding of interpretation. Since the book of Revelation doesn't define what "1,000 years is symbolic of, since it doesn't contain a solid explanation, what makes your interpretation correct? On what grounds is 1,000 years a long indefinite period of time? That explanation is not offered in Revelation 20, so you really have no grounds to push your interpretation as correct, or even more correct than someone else. Any possible interpretation is possible when we have symbols that require no explanation from the Bible. Interpretation has to have a standard. That standard is the intent of the author. If the author doesn't explain something as symbolic, it is not symbolic. If the author doesn't provide the interpretation of something as symbolic, we do not have the right to walk in and say, "it's symbolic." The purpose of interpretation is to get at the meaning the author wants to convey. The author, not the reader, supplies the interpretation. The problem with amillennialism is that it spiritualizes everything in the book of Revelation. It is a basically a Roman Catholic heresy that started with Augustine. That should tell you something. When we examine the early church of the second and third centuries, their view was premillennial and the 1000 years was seen as a literal time period. The people with the closest proximity to the original apostles were taught by the apostles that it was literal, and they passed it down to their disciples and on and on until Augustine. It is not a biblical teaching; it is a Roman Catholic teaching that was, unfortunately, accepted by some protestant groups. Not one amillennialist has ever been able to make a biblical argument for the extreme symbolism they claim exists in Revelation. Much of what they claim as symbolic is never explicitly explained in the text and that leads to a myriad of man-made explanations and nothing really biblical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qnts2 Posted July 21, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,875 Content Per Day: 0.71 Reputation: 1,336 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/13/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted July 21, 2015 ...Failure to take the highly symbolic character of apocalyptic into account virtually guarantees a misreading of the text. The numbers in Revelation cannot be understood by assigning then real numerical value, not even as round numbers. They are purely symbolic. The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John, pg 5-7 By Charles H. Talbert Author: https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=50286 That is one man's opinion. That is it. Just an opinion. Interesting that Talbert was one of the few Protestants accepted by the RCC and having had a position in the RCC. His non-literal position is common in the RCC, and among those who teach replacement theology. Other very distinguished scholars state essentially, what can be taken literally, should be taken literally. Actually it's not one man's opinion. He is an expert, with a great deal more expertise on this subject than anyone here, and he is one of many experts. And quite frankly, those who choose to ignore this in order to make Revelation say something it actually doesn't say in order to support doctrine they believe, are simply engaging in proof texting - taking these passages out of context, regardless of their credentials. This is a long established, and at the time, very popular genre that spanned hundreds of years in various cultures. There is a great deal of information about it for those who care to seek out the truth. You seemed to have completely missed what I was saying. I can quote many experts on the subject who do not agree that 1000 years is symbolic. Many real experts who have spent their life studying, and are respected for their expertise, believe the 1000 years is literal. The Messianic reign of 1000 years is long established and accepted spanning over 2000 years. It is also well known that some in the early church disliked the Jewish people and taught replacement theology. The non-literal interpretation came about from those who were against the Jewish people. So, you say this guy is an expert, but I know other experts who say his belief is wrong, a very bad teaching. Are you willing to consider other teachings? Just to name a few very well accepted theologians known for their expertise: John Walvoord (then president of DTS), Charles Ryrie (author of Dispensationalism Today and The Ryrie Study Bible), and J. Dwight Pentecost (author of perhaps the most influential text on the subject at that time, Things to Come). Also Lewis Sperry Chafer, well known for his work and many books in systematic theology. A quote by Charles Ryrie, world famous theologian. 'When the principles of literal interpretation both in regard to general and special hermeneutics are followed, the result the premillennial system of doctrine... If one interprets literally, he arrives at the premillennial system. This means that all promises made to David and Abraham under the Old Covenant are to be literally fulfilled in the future millennial age.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted July 21, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 21, 2015 ...Failure to take the highly symbolic character of apocalyptic into account virtually guarantees a misreading of the text. The numbers in Revelation cannot be understood by assigning then real numerical value, not even as round numbers. They are purely symbolic. The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John, pg 5-7 By Charles H. Talbert Author: https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=50286 That is one man's opinion. That is it. Just an opinion. Interesting that Talbert was one of the few Protestants accepted by the RCC and having had a position in the RCC. His non-literal position is common in the RCC, and among those who teach replacement theology. Other very distinguished scholars state essentially, what can be taken literally, should be taken literally. Actually it's not one man's opinion. He is an expert, with a great deal more expertise on this subject than anyone here, and he is one of many experts. And quite frankly, those who choose to ignore this in order to make Revelation say something it actually doesn't say in order to support doctrine they believe, are simply engaging in proof texting - taking these passages out of context, regardless of their credentials. This is a long established, and at the time, very popular genre that spanned hundreds of years in various cultures. There is a great deal of information about it for those who care to seek out the truth. You seemed to have completely missed what I was saying. I can quote many experts on the subject who do not agree that 1000 years is symbolic. Many real experts who have spent their life studying, and are respected for their expertise, believe the 1000 years is literal. The Messianic reign of 1000 years is long established and accepted spanning over 2000 years. It is also well known that some in the early church disliked the Jewish people and taught replacement theology. The non-literal interpretation came about from those who were against the Jewish people. So, you say this guy is an expert, but I know other experts who say his belief is wrong, a very bad teaching. Are you willing to consider other teachings? Just to name a few very well accepted theologians known for their expertise: John Walvoord (then president of DTS), Charles Ryrie (author of Dispensationalism Today and The Ryrie Study Bible), and J. Dwight Pentecost (author of perhaps the most influential text on the subject at that time, Things to Come). Also Lewis Sperry Chafer, well known for his work and many books in systematic theology. A quote by Charles Ryrie, world famous theologian. 'When the principles of literal interpretation both in regard to general and special hermeneutics are followed, the result the premillennial system of doctrine... If one interprets literally, he arrives at the premillennial system. This means that all promises made to David and Abraham under the Old Covenant are to be literally fulfilled in the future millennial age.' I agree with you that just because someone is claimed to have expertise in a field does not make what they say right. One must look at their credentials, standing, how their claims line up with christian understanding traditionally expounded upon, etc. As I said though, you were speaking about a nebulous, unnamed group of experts, and its very difficult to talk about their expertise when they remain unnamed. Now, you quoted Ryrie above (which I greatly appreciate you naming your sources): "'When the principles of literal interpretation both in regard to general and special hermeneutics are followed, the result the premillennial system of doctrine... If one interprets literally, he arrives at the premillennial system." If it is meant by "principles of literal interpretation" that everything must be interpreted literally, there is, logically speaking, no such principle of interpretation for then we are all in disobedience of the scripture which calls for us to have plucked out our eyes, and cut off our hands and feet in obedience to the words of Christ. Obviously we can just approach all scripture looking for the literal meaning of words all the time. So logically such an approach is invalid on its face. If it is meant by "principles of literal interpretation" the Biblical Literalism approach, then I completely disagree with your conclusion, as the Biblical Literalism approach requires that first one look at the genre of the book to decide it employs figurative, symbolic language before attempting to interpret it. In this approach, the genre dictates whether we are looking for a literal meaning of the text or a symbolic meaning of the text. So before we even start reading the book of Revelation, according to this literalism approach, we must first discern its genre, and whether its genre, ie allegory, poetery, or other genre, is symbollic, figurative in nature, and this dictates how we approach and understand its contents. The book of Revelation is of the apocalyptic genre which is heavily symbolic in nature, and this bridge must be crossed first before we even start to read it, and in reading it this fact must be ever present in our mind, and, in accordance with the Biblical Literalism approach, we should not be looking for literal meaning in such works. So Charles Ryrie would be in error. You then quote: "This means that all promises made to David and Abraham under the Old Covenant are to be literally fulfilled in the future millennial age." Since he predicates this on the previous claim being true when he says "this means", and the previous claim does not stand the test of proper hermeneutics of the Biblical Literalism approach to scripture which makes his first claim false, then this foundation for this second claim is absent so his second claim does not have the foundation and support he tried to give it, and just hangs there as an unsupported claim instead. And herein lies the crux of the issue. For this teaching of dispensationalism, that the promises made to David and Abraham under the Old Covenant are to have a future fulfillment in a future millennial age, to be true, one needs for the "thousand years" in Revelation to be a literal 1000 years, and so one is forced to read into these words in Revelation a literal interpretation of a literal 1000 years, or there is no scriptural basis for a future time of fulfillment of these promises to David and Abraham delineated in scripture, and then all of dispensational theology begins to crumble. This is called eisigesis - reading into scripture what one wants to find there - which has no validity. Again, following the Biblical Literalism approach to reading the book of Revelation, we must first cross the bridge of what genre it is in, and then only cross the bridge for figurative, symbolic genres when we are ready to look for the symbolic meaning of its contents. This is in complete contradiction to Ryrie's approach, and so, logically speaking, Ryrie's approach is invalid and is really an example of eisigesis. I have read these scholars you name. I was once staunchly dispensationalist and would have at one time agreed with everything you have said. But when I dug deeper into the foundations and underpinnings of dispensationalist theology, I found something I didn't expect. Nothing mandates, from scripture itself, that we understand the "a thousand years" in the book of Revelation must be a literal 1000 years. To say it is a literal 1000 years is speculative at best. If one forms teaching based on speculation, then one's foundation is nothing more than shifting sand. This is not the proper way to form christian teaching. The scriptures tell us we are to test everything, and hold fast to that which is true. So I tested dispenstional teachings - intensively. The problem we face here is there are several scholars who assume something to be true, and have allowed that assumption to dictate how they interpret a particular passage found in a highly symbolic genre to force a literal interpretation where symbolic meaning is to be looked for. They need the 1000 years to be a literal 1000 years. If it is not a literal 1000 years, then all their work is for naught. Their theology is heavily vested in their being right about this one point. So, using your approach to experts, what makes these experts better than other experts who disagree with them? You said Charles Ryrie is as world famous theologian. He is only 'world famous' to, relatively speaking, quite a small group of chrsitians, predominately in the US. He is most definitely not world famous to the vast majority of christianity world wide, most of whom would not even have any idea of who he is or what his teachings were. If you put him and the other experts you mentioned out as somehow better than others who disagree with them, then there must be a logical way to determine this. What method do you employ? In addition, this need of theirs for the "a thousand years" to be a literal 1000 years is predicated on another claim, that the promises of God to Abraham and David are as of yet unfulfilled and need a future fulfillment. The question that must be asked is, in the light of constant christian testimony and belief through the centuries to the contrary, what makes these experts right in this new approach, and the rest of christian experts, in centuries past, concurrent with them and today, wrong on this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qnts2 Posted July 21, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,875 Content Per Day: 0.71 Reputation: 1,336 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/13/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted July 21, 2015 ...Failure to take the highly symbolic character of apocalyptic into account virtually guarantees a misreading of the text. The numbers in Revelation cannot be understood by assigning then real numerical value, not even as round numbers. They are purely symbolic. The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John, pg 5-7 By Charles H. Talbert Author: https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=50286 That is one man's opinion. That is it. Just an opinion. Interesting that Talbert was one of the few Protestants accepted by the RCC and having had a position in the RCC. His non-literal position is common in the RCC, and among those who teach replacement theology. Other very distinguished scholars state essentially, what can be taken literally, should be taken literally. Actually it's not one man's opinion. He is an expert, with a great deal more expertise on this subject than anyone here, and he is one of many experts. And quite frankly, those who choose to ignore this in order to make Revelation say something it actually doesn't say in order to support doctrine they believe, are simply engaging in proof texting - taking these passages out of context, regardless of their credentials. This is a long established, and at the time, very popular genre that spanned hundreds of years in various cultures. There is a great deal of information about it for those who care to seek out the truth. You seemed to have completely missed what I was saying. I can quote many experts on the subject who do not agree that 1000 years is symbolic. Many real experts who have spent their life studying, and are respected for their expertise, believe the 1000 years is literal. The Messianic reign of 1000 years is long established and accepted spanning over 2000 years. It is also well known that some in the early church disliked the Jewish people and taught replacement theology. The non-literal interpretation came about from those who were against the Jewish people. So, you say this guy is an expert, but I know other experts who say his belief is wrong, a very bad teaching. Are you willing to consider other teachings? Just to name a few very well accepted theologians known for their expertise: John Walvoord (then president of DTS), Charles Ryrie (author of Dispensationalism Today and The Ryrie Study Bible), and J. Dwight Pentecost (author of perhaps the most influential text on the subject at that time, Things to Come). Also Lewis Sperry Chafer, well known for his work and many books in systematic theology. A quote by Charles Ryrie, world famous theologian. 'When the principles of literal interpretation both in regard to general and special hermeneutics are followed, the result the premillennial system of doctrine... If one interprets literally, he arrives at the premillennial system. This means that all promises made to David and Abraham under the Old Covenant are to be literally fulfilled in the future millennial age.' I agree with you that just because someone is claimed to have expertise in a field does not make what they say right. One must look at their credentials, standing, how their claims line up with christian understanding traditionally expounded upon, etc. As I said though, you were speaking about a nebulous, unnamed group of experts, and its very difficult to talk about their expertise when they remain unnamed. Now, you quoted Ryrie above (which I greatly appreciate you naming your sources): "'When the principles of literal interpretation both in regard to general and special hermeneutics are followed, the result the premillennial system of doctrine... If one interprets literally, he arrives at the premillennial system." If it is meant by "principles of literal interpretation" that everything must be interpreted literally, there is, logically speaking, no such principle of interpretation for then we are all in disobedience of the scripture which calls for us to have plucked out our eyes, and cut off our hands and feet in obedience to the words of Christ. Obviously we can just approach all scripture looking for the literal meaning of words all the time. So logically such an approach is invalid on its face. If it is meant by "principles of literal interpretation" the Biblical Literalism approach, then I completely disagree with your conclusion, as the Biblical Literalism approach requires that first one look at the genre of the book to decide it employs figurative, symbolic language before attempting to interpret it. In this approach, the genre dictates whether we are looking for a literal meaning of the text or a symbolic meaning of the text. So before we even start reading the book of Revelation, according to this literalism approach, we must first discern its genre, and whether its genre, ie allegory, poetery, or other genre, is symbollic, figurative in nature, and this dictates how we approach and understand its contents. The book of Revelation is of the apocalyptic genre which is heavily symbolic in nature, and this bridge must be crossed first before we even start to read it, and in reading it this fact must be ever present in our mind, and, in accordance with the Biblical Literalism approach, we should not be looking for literal meaning in such works. So Charles Ryrie would be in error. You then quote: "This means that all promises made to David and Abraham under the Old Covenant are to be literally fulfilled in the future millennial age." Since he predicates this on the previous claim being true when he says "this means", and the previous claim does not stand the test of proper hermeneutics of the Biblical Literalism approach to scripture which makes his first claim false, then this foundation for this second claim is absent so his second claim does not have the foundation and support he tried to give it, and just hangs there as an unsupported claim instead. And herein lies the crux of the issue. For this teaching of dispensationalism, that the promises made to David and Abraham under the Old Covenant are to have a future fulfillment in a future millennial age, to be true, one needs for the "thousand years" in Revelation to be a literal 1000 years, and so one is forced to read into these words in Revelation a literal interpretation of a literal 1000 years, or there is no scriptural basis for a future time of fulfillment of these promises to David and Abraham delineated in scripture, and then all of dispensational theology begins to crumble. This is called eisigesis - reading into scripture what one wants to find there - which has no validity. Again, following the Biblical Literalism approach to reading the book of Revelation, we must first cross the bridge of what genre it is in, and then only cross the bridge for figurative, symbolic genres when we are ready to look for the symbolic meaning of its contents. This is in complete contradiction to Ryrie's approach, and so, logically speaking, Ryrie's approach is invalid and is really an example of eisigesis. I have read these scholars you name. I was once staunchly dispensationalist and would have at one time agreed with everything you have said. But when I dug deeper into the foundations and underpinnings of dispensationalist theology, I found something I didn't expect. Nothing mandates, from scripture itself, that we understand the "a thousand years" in the book of Revelation must be a literal 1000 years. To say it is a literal 1000 years is speculative at best. If one forms teaching based on speculation, then one's foundation is nothing more than shifting sand. This is not the proper way to form christian teaching. The scriptures tell us we are to test everything, and hold fast to that which is true. So I tested dispenstional teachings - intensively. The problem we face here is there are several scholars who assume something to be true, and have allowed that assumption to dictate how they interpret a particular passage found in a highly symbolic genre to force a literal interpretation where symbolic meaning is to be looked for. They need the 1000 years to be a literal 1000 years. If it is not a literal 1000 years, then all their work is for naught. Their theology is heavily vested in their being right about this one point. So, using your approach to experts, what makes these experts better than other experts who disagree with them? You said Charles Ryrie is as world famous theologian. He is only 'world famous' to, relatively speaking, quite a small group of chrsitians, predominately in the US. He is most definitely not world famous to the vast majority of christianity world wide, most of whom would not even have any idea of who he is or what his teachings were. If you put him and the other experts you mentioned out as somehow better than others who disagree with them, then there must be a logical way to determine this. What method do you employ? In addition, this need of theirs for the "a thousand years" to be a literal 1000 years is predicated on another claim, that the promises of God to Abraham and David are as of yet unfulfilled and need a future fulfillment. The question that must be asked is, in the light of constant christian testimony and belief through the centuries to the contrary, what makes these experts right in this new approach, and the rest of christian experts, in centuries past, concurrent with them and today, wrong on this point? I'll admit to not finishing your post as there are too many errors. Literal interpretation is not what you say it is. I believe that is called a straw man argument. or an argument based on a presented fallacy. Earlier I stated that whatever can be taken literally, should be taken literally. An understanding of the entire OT would clearly bring a person to understand that they should not put out someones eye. It is an expression used at that historical time, meaning equal weights for equal measures. A non-literal interpretation is the most inconsistent hermeneutic there is. Those who practice the sloppy methodology pick and choose what they believe is literal and what they want to be symbolic or figurative. Take for example the number 7, which does have a symbolic meaning, but in the context which can be taken literally, it must first be taken literally. There really are 7 days in a week. Ryrie is indeed world famous. For example, the Ryrie study bible comes in many differing languages including Chinese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.3bcf7693122a11a52f8fe28b2763237d.gif)
Recommended Posts