Featured David Chilton's Hermeneutics

Genesis though is best seen as being literal, as in 24 hr days, younger earth/creation time, no evolution etc!
And Revelation does use symbolism and types, but they all point to a real and physical events going on, such as worldwide tribulation, and demons on earth etc!

 

A literal meaning to the scriptures does not mean we ignore genres or types/allogories etc, its just that we take the plain meaning intended for the scriptures...

 

Who determines then what the symbols and spiritual meanings intended really were?

 

"John of Japan,
そうこれはあなたの探求に失敗して、示してしなければならない場合、私の友人、偽証を負担しない.私 ofeered Isa 13、34 とジョエル. チルトンを言及する前にのであなたの防衛を他のスレッドで詩に与える

OKAY , well let's help out our Dear Professor...[can't quite get it right]...let's see what Iconoclast actually said, then we will understand the desperate attempt of our dear professor to cover up his inability to respond to the verses inquestion.
Did iconoclast actually say...David Chilton is unanswerable? Or did iconoclast actually say something else , that is now being twisted to cover up where we have failed?

First off we notice...it was Iconoclast who offered the verses before even mentioning Chilton at all....so let's remove your Chilton excuse for your lack of response....here is post #38 of spiritual interpretation#2
[QUOTEWell...let's reopen the case....you mention Joel 2-3....I believe the symbolic language was literally fulfilled when Peter declared this is that which was spoken by Joel.
I do not think it was any kind of scientific literal fulfillment....eclipses and such.....It was a literal change of the rule and reign in Israel and among believers. The same language was already used by God describing the judgement on Babylon in Isa13......notice...in ver .8 they shall be in pain as a woman in travail....sounds like mt24....it was a judgment a day of the Lord.
Notice from verse 10-13.....stars ,sun ,moon, shaking of the earth.
The same with the language in Isa34 in the judgement of Edom.The Heavens Rolled Up as A scroll?The Stars Falling? Did that happen literally, or was there a literal change in who controls Babylon?
The same exact language is used in revelation.....explain how you are consistent in your teaching where you do not explain away the language.

Show where it is not correct....
Or give your explanation to clarify where we have nothing to offer.

There is nothing cynical toward you in the post....I think the system you defend and teach has issues that do not allow you or others to defend it.][/QUOTE]

JOJ offered a weak response to a bit of Acts 2,[post47] but did not engage the language of Isaiah at all.

Iconoclast offers a quote from Chilton in post [55]

In post [57] icon responds to PB...look at what ICONOCLAST ACTUALLY says-

I understand.....I could not answer Chilton either....that is why it stands until someone can show he is off course.
If you cannot give a better account of the language isa34 uses as it shows up in Rev....what can you do but claim it is nailing jello to the wall?
If the heavens rolling up.like a scroll and the stars were falling from heaven ?.
The Ot....isa. ,joel,etc....we would not exist.
All premillennialism and it's followers are forced to ignore the language employed ,make like it does not exist....I understand.

I used to hold that belief system....but I could not answer any of these verses with that system...

Eclipse, blood moons, earthquakes.....do not get it done.

I did not like what I was reading at first....but I realized I could not or had not connected the pieces as David Chilton and other men had.
He may or may not be correct on some or all of his conclusions....but very few have tried to take this on.....it is quite a task indeed.


For someone who teaches languages....maybe do a study on...May or may not be correct

icon said;
.I offered it to show that the language God has used all throughout the bible has consistent meaning.
The figurative use of these phrases has literal meaning in scripture. When God in Mt 24....writes about the travail of a woman....we all need to pay attention.
When God speaks of the heavens rolling up like a scroll we can learn from scripture the meaning.
Chilton makes a solid case....not many want to deal with the language.....

What answers your question is that no Premillenialist can make sense of the Isa passages of Joel in any consistent way.
The passages are dismissed as if they have no relevance.
Post and Amill writers and theologians see clear connections as Peter did with Joel in Acts 2.
They do not go outside the bible to look for solar eclipses, or silly blood moon ideas.
They recognise the language as God uses the figures over and over and see what were the results historically ....then understand Revelation and mt24, in light of a proper understanding of the language used. They do not fragment and avoid the scriptures as a
Premillenialist does.


[Primitive Baptist acknowledged the language in post [79]]

Icon said;
Now please address the language of the heaven rolling up like a scroll....stars falling to the earth....
PB...if one star,or sun fell to the earth...it would be the end of this earth.....the earth did not end when Babylon, or Edom was judged.....explain the language.....or read Chilton....explain why what he said was wrong.

1]what does it mean that the stars of the heaven fall to the earth?
explain what this figure of speech is actually describing..
2] are these literal stars?
3]do they fall to the earth?
4]what does it mean the mountains were moved out of their place?
5] what does it mean that the heaven rolled up like a scroll?

Is it literal, and if so...what does it describe?
If it is figurative what does it describe?

I am just asking you to address the passage.
Forget which system it might be....answer the questions I just asked...
I do not think any Premillenialist can do it and remain consistent.
I do not want to hear a general statement right now....just the text explained.

Then you confuse Gary north's comments with mine....before you finally correct it.

What I have said is no premill person will take on or correct Chilton on those passages I quoted in this earlier thread...and i repeat it now.....you are dancing "with the stars" so to speak...avoiding the symbolic language and the links to other OT. portions, because for you to try and answer them will show why your system fails......


So...do not bear false witness because you are struggling with this my friend.

 

'''

While I found Paradise Restored a pivotal book in the midst of the whole Edgar Whisenant ruckus in 1988, further reading in "Tyler theology" left me confused. The fact that Greg Bahnsen wrote this review is telling in light of the fact that Bahnsen was considered one of Tyler's golden boys himself until he fell out of favor with Rushdoony. That context lends a lot of credibility to Bahnsen's criticisms. Thanks for posting the link.

 

We should NOT be getting any biblical understanding from a heretic!

 

I answered this saying it was a good critique in that in Rev 7 in that it appears Chilton tried to force his interpretation there...but notice there was no attempt to be critical of rev.6...
Derail the thread???? As if you stayed on topic on the spiritual interpretation threads....you ran for the hills rather than answer on topic....lol. ... (ran for the hills)....must be my allergorizing again.....lol....

 

I like that better than what I wrote....

 

John ,
I am trying to keep it simple for you.
All teaching has a literal meaning somewhere down the road.
No matter what form of communication. ...symbol,metaphor, parable,simile,metonomy,hyperbole,allegory,....there is a literal meaning.....a symbol eventually translates to a literal concept or teaching.

In thread 2 offered verses from isa13,34,, joel,.....before I mentioned Chilton..... I posted those here...you and others can read all about it......
You offered briefly on acts2/ joel.....but did not link the language.....your system does not allow you to do so....
I believe you are forcing literal ideas on the symbols thereby changing the intended understanding....
You miss it....because you do not LOOK.
You reject, rather than Look.

In Thread 2 and 3......I offered on the phrase woman in travail...you complain it was too long....
I offer on thorns and briars.....(apostates).... you say no..
That's fine....but do not complain you do not understand we we are saying...