#2 THE RAPTURE

[Pastor Larry]

You are confusing how the author “used” the words with how the author “intended to uses” the words.

I did not confuse anything. I reject that there is any substantive difference here.

Those who claim that the Biblical authors intended to say something very different from what they wrote are. . . (I can not think of a polite word for it).

I absolutely agree, and that is precisely why I reject covenantalism. It abuses the words that the authors used. Dispensationalism does not.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The translators of the KJV used a word that does not accurately express in English the meaning of the Greek word φθασωμεν.

To quote you, What could possibly be more ridiculous! In 1611 the KJV was right. But since then, that word has changed meanings. As a result, the modern day communication is not what the Scripture intends. I can't imagine you don't know that.

We are not to try to imagine what the Biblical writers intended to say—we are to believe what they did write and translate correctly into English the words in the Greek text.

This is exactly my point. When you do this, you will have their intended meaning.

Craig, I can't imagine you are serious in this debate. This is first year seminary stuff and you have lead us to believe you beyond that. Seriously, are you playing the devil's advocate here? I really don't understand, and that is not an attack in anyway. It just befuddles me ...

(This thing is not accepting posts correctly for some reason. Sorry to post three )

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
Hey Larry! Larry! Larry!;
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Ya' think????? YOu ever make any errors in typing fast?

This has unfortunately become all too typical of your contributions to this discussion: No substance; just attack the person. Why not discuss Scripture? Is the best you can do point out a typing error? Is that really all you have to bring to this table?

You know I just cracked up when I read this. I laughed so hard my own dog growled at me.

Very typical to accuse of what you are most guilty of.
May Christ Shine His Light On us all;
Mike

</font>[/QUOTE]I quoted your whole post here Mike, in hopes that you could highlight for us the part where you contributed something of substance, or addressed Scripture. Would you be so kind as to highlight that for us?

In the meantime, go back and read my post on hermeneutics. You may disagree, but it is certainly substantive, and Craig notwithstanding, the position I espoused can be found in virtually all orthodox hermeneutics text, such as Fee and Stuart, Osborne, Terry (an older one), Kaiser, etc. Where is your substantive contribution? It appears your post was simply an attack on me ...

Craig is right. My spelling is pretty good usually on big words. But "the" trips me up ... I guess the "t" and "e" are so close to each other than I don't get the "h" inserted in the right place.

 

[covenant]

"I guess the "t" and "e" are so close to each other than I don't get the "h" inserted in the right place."

Funny, my keyboard has Q-W-E-R-T-Y-U-I-O-P
....................................A-S-D-F-G-H-J-K-L

THEY AREN'T EVEN CLOSE!!!

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Larry;
You know you really shouldn't complain like that. In the first place, I didn't attack you. I just pointed out that you do the same to everyone you disagree with. And well, for me it was funny

because, I see now it isn't just me, but everyone you disagree with.

May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike

 

[Craigbythesea]

Pastor Larry wrote,

This is plainly false. That is not what I wrote. That is what you changed what I wrote to say. And therein lies one of your problems. You decided what you think I should say, and the fact that I, in haste, messed up a subject verb agreement is not grounds for you to change my words to mean something else. Do you not understand that is dishonest?

It is what you wrote—and it is right there in your post for everyone to see it and know for certain which one of us is telling the truth. You did not intend to write it, but that does not change the fact that you did write it. What an author intended to write and what the author did write are not necessarily the same.

This shows exactly my point. You knew what I meant, in spite of my error. Why? Because of context. If you would use context to interpret Scripture, you would be a dispensationalism.

I read and study every word in the Bible in its actual context. Those who read and study every word in the Bible in what their imagination leads them to be the “intended” context turn out to be Christian Scientists, Rosicrucians, Crustaceans, or Jellyfish.

You were forced to misconstrue the intent of my words in order to add your "Amen."

I did not misconstrue your intent; I simply posted what you actually wrote.

Authorial intent is the only legitimate hermeneutic.

I suppose it is if you are a Christian Scientists, Rosicrucians, Crustaceans, or Jellyfish.

After mocking my typographical error, you say something that makes no sense at all. Funny how that works ...

I wrote very plainly, but apparently you did not understand my intent so you chose not to understand my words.

I did not confuse anything.

I reject that there is any substantive difference here.

That makes as much sense as to argue that there is no substantive difference between a hippopotamus and a cat.

I absolutely agree, and that is precisely why I reject covenantalism.

What does covenantalism have to do with our discussion? My theology is not covenantal, it is conventional.

It abuses the words that the authors used. Dispensationalism does not.

I will not comment on covenantalism since it has nothing to do with this thread, but I will comment that Dispensationalism not only abuses the words that the authors used, it is a man-made, modernistic, false teaching that the vast majority of Bible scholars rightly reject.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Pastor Larry wrote,

quote:

The translators of the KJV used a word that does not accurately express in English the meaning of the Greek word φθασωμεν.
To quote you, What could possibly be more ridiculous! In 1611 the KJV was right. But since then, that word has changed meanings. As a result, the modern day communication is not what the Scripture intends. I can't imagine you don't know that.

I didn’t say that the KJV was not right in 1611. Please read what I actually wrote instead of what you mistakenly believe I intended to write. I wrote “The translators of the KJV used a word that does not (not “did not”) accurately express in English the meaning of the Greek word φθασωμεν.”

quote:

We are not to try to imagine what the Biblical writers intended to say—we are to believe what they did write and translate correctly into English the words in the Greek text.

This is exactly my point. When you do this, you will have their intended meaning.

Craig, I can't imagine you are serious in this debate. This is first year seminary stuff and you have lead us to believe you beyond that. Seriously, are you playing the devil's advocate here? I really don't understand, and that is not an attack in anyway. It just befuddles me ...

Apparently you went to a dispensationalist seminary where you were incorrectly taught. I know this stuff is very basic, but your posts betray the fact that you do not understand it. I have tried to help you, but you refuse to listen to my instruction—and that is certainly your right.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Pastor Larry wrote,

If you would use context to interpret Scripture, you would be a dispensationalism.

Larry,

You are probably right in thinking that my education is sub-standard. After all, I don’t even know what a dispensationalism is!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by covenant:
"I guess the "t" and "e" are so close to each other than I don't get the "h" inserted in the right place."

Funny, my keyboard has Q-W-E-R-T-Y-U-I-O-P
....................................A-S-D-F-G-H-J-K-L

THEY AREN'T EVEN CLOSE!!!

Pastor Larry doesn’t think straight—he thinks diagonally. The “t” and the “h” are on two different lines, diagonal from each other, just like his hermeneutics.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by covenant:
"I guess the "t" and "e" are so close to each other than I don't get the "h" inserted in the right place."

Funny, my keyboard has Q-W-E-R-T-Y-U-I-O-P
....................................A-S-D-F-G-H-J-K-L

THEY AREN'T EVEN CLOSE!!!

Really??? Look at your own post. Your keyboard, like every other has "QWERTY" ... That means the "T" and the "E" are separated by one key. That, by any definition, is "close." Why even bring that up? Is this a thread about typing skills?? Do you still not want to discuss Scripture?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
You know you really shouldn't complain like that.

I didn't complain. I asked where you posted anything of substance. You apparently are admitting that you didn't, thus showing my post to be correct.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It is what you wrote—and it is right there in your post for everyone to see it and know for certain which one of us is telling the truth. You did not intend to write it, but that does not change the fact that you did write it. What an author intended to write and what the author did write are not necessarily the same.

Let's compare.

Larry said: You know it is false if you have studied much.
Craig said: You know [dispensationalism] is false if you have studied much.

NOw, anyone can look and see very clearly which one is lying. You did not say what I said. YOu changed a two letter word for 17 letter word. That is not "the same" by any definition that means anything. You changed what I said.

Those who read and study every word in the Bible in what their imagination leads them to be the “intended” context turn out to be Christian Scientists, Rosicrucians, Crustaceans, or Jellyfish.

Who was talking about "intended context"? Perhaps you can start a thread on that. So far as I know, "intended context" has never really been discussed here.

I wrote very plainly, but apparently you did not understand my intent so you chose not to understand my words.

Again, Let's just cite your comments: And no, I am NOT confusing here subjective translation with subjective interpretation—subjective translation is an expression subjective interpretation. Notice the part in italics. It appears to make no sense, since it appears you left out a word. It's not a big deal. I didn't respond to it because I don't know what you meant by it, and my integrity won't let me respond to something you didn't mean.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I didn’t say that the KJV was not right in 1611. Please read what I actually wrote instead of what you mistakenly believe I intended to write. I wrote “The translators of the KJV used a word that does not (not “did not”) accurately express in English the meaning of the Greek word φθασωμεν.”

I know what you intended to say. My point is that simply by looking at the words without understanding the context and intent of the translators, you have a false doctrine. In other words, this is a text case that shows the necessity of my hermeneutic.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Apparently you went to a dispensationalist seminary where you were incorrectly taught. I know this stuff is very basic, but your posts betray the fact that you do not understand it. I have tried to help you, but you refuse to listen to my instruction—and that is certainly your right.

I was taught to study. I have read all sides of this issue. That is why I can respond to your posts. I am not even sure you know what the discussion is about. You say you are not a dispensationalist or a covenantalist. You say your theology is conventional. Well, that doesn't seem to carry much meaning in theological contexts, though perhaps you don't know that. Perhaps you could give us an example of conventional theology.

In the end, if you have not studied hermeneutics, it is easy to see why you are confused by this. We had a discussion a while back on hermeneutics, and it was interesting.

Craig you said you went to a dispensationalist seminary. Should I really believe your words?

 

[covenant]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by covenant:
"I guess the "t" and "e" are so close to each other than I don't get the "h" inserted in the right place."

Funny, my keyboard has Q-W-E-R-T-Y-U-I-O-P
..................................A-S-D-F-G-H-J-K-L

THEY AREN'T EVEN CLOSE!!!

Really??? Look at your own post. Your keyboard, like every other has "QWERTY" ... That means the "T" and the "E" are separated by one key. That, by any definition, is "close."</font>[/QUOTE] OH, THE PRIDE OF THE PHARISEES!!! I was just joshing! But, actually, you said "so close..." However, the keyboard letters T, H, and E, when spelling the word "THE" in sequence on the keyboard are not even close. But, do I really care? No, I don't take either the typo errors or the doctrine of dispensationalism seriously at all!

Originally posted by Larry; "Do you still not want to discuss Scripture?"

I'm sure you'll see the post. If not - then it will be in my time, not with cajoling!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by covenant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by covenant:
"I guess the "t" and "e" are so close to each other than I don't get the "h" inserted in the right place."

Funny, my keyboard has Q-W-E-R-T-Y-U-I-O-P
..................................A-S-D-F-G-H-J-K-L

THEY AREN'T EVEN CLOSE!!!

Really??? Look at your own post. Your keyboard, like every other has "QWERTY" ... That means the "T" and the "E" are separated by one key. That, by any definition, is "close."</font>[/QUOTE] OH, THE PRIDE OF THE PHARISEES!!!</font>[/QUOTE]Not sure how that fits in here. You surely aren't calling me a Pharisee are you?

I was just joshing!

I am fine with that, but it didn't seem that way.

But, actually, you said "so close..." However, the keyboard letters T, H, and E, when spelling the word "THE" in sequence on the keyboard are not even close.

If you read what I said, I didn't say that the T, H, and E were close, but that the T and E were close. And they are. As you can see above, the H was not included in the "close" comment.

But, do I really care? No, I don't take either the typo errors or the doctrine of dispensationalism seriously at all!

You should ... becuase you will one day ...

I'm sure you'll see the post. If not - then it will be in my time, not with cajoling!

I saw it and appreicate it. I posted some follow up questions that I hope you will address. The questions I posted are really at the heart of the discussion, and your last post didn't really address them.

 

[mcgyver]

I just re-read all 6 pages of this thread, and I am astounded! Here we have men debating hermenutecs and eschatology, and their opponents using the "liar, liar, pants on fire" method of debate.........

Instead of picking fault with someones typing skills, why don't we all try to have an intellectual exchange of ideas based on logic addressing the issues?

Thank you for allowing me to vent....

 

[covenant]

Larry,

I'm not even going to check the other thread because it is the "pride of the Pharisses" that says "I have to defend EVERYthing at all cost and have to have the last word about everything! It is the "pride of the Pharisees" that says I will make a big issue of something that should have been understood as just "joshing."

And that is why Christ wouldn't waste his time on them.

 

[covenant]

MCGUYVER

Sometimes there are dynamics at work between individual posters that may not be evident simply by dropping in and laying down condemnation - especially when I have not observed your participation in this thread anywhere.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Covenant,

I am not beyond learning. That is why I hope you will answer the other thread. I have never seen a amill give an answer to those questions. That is not to say that it can't be done. It is simply that I haven't seen it.

But I still marvel at why you bring "Pride of the pharisees" into this. It seem totally out of place. Your "joshing" was not apparent, especially given the "dynamics at work between individual posters." It was an unfortunate judgment on your part that it would be taken as such. Joshing assumes a certain level of understanding that you and I don't share, given the exchanges of the other thread. But be that as it may, I hope you will return to it. I think there are some serious holes in your position, but I am genuinely interested in why you don't think they are holes.