"Allegorical" and "Spiritual" Hermeneutics

[John of Japan]

John,

Email me or PM me and let us talk about help I might be on the John R. bio, when possible please.

rd

I dropped you a line in a PM.

God bless.

 

[prophecy70]

"Allegorical" & "spiritual" hermeneutics are two tools used by preterists to attempt to lend some credence to their doctrine, so any discussion of these hermeneutics must necessarily involve preterism.

And "ignore" is a COWARD'S tool, used by those who can't answer questions in a given forum or thread.

I actually agree with the ignore thing. I wouldn't ignore you.
I laugh at your posts sometimes, and cringe at the repetitiveness, but its entertaining, and actually strengthens my views.

 

[prophecy70]

ook again. I didn't say that. I quoted A. T. Robertson, the greatest Koine Greek scholar of the 20th century, as saying that. He was amillennial, rejecting both the postmil and premil positions. (In spite of that, I highly recommend that you find his Word Pictures in the New Testament and consult it often. It is available for free in e-sword and other software packages, being in the public domain.)

This guy was Amillennial?

I thought the "THE" in the greek was a clear indiction of literalness of the 1000 years. How can someone with such a knowledge of greek not see the clearness?

Im confused.

See Post #45 below. These other usages you mention are hyperbole, but the usages in Revelation are clearly literal, as are most of the 441 usages in the Bible.

Do you understand the grammatical implication of the presence or absence of the definite article in Koine Greek?

 

[John of Japan]

This guy was Amillennial?

I thought the "THE" in the greek was a clear indiction of literalness of the 1000 years. How can someone with such a knowledge of greek not see the clearness?

Im confused.

If one interprets with allegorical interpretation coming to the text, no matter how great a scholar one is, he will still end up amil or postmil. A. T. Robertson's greatness as a Greek scholar is uncontested, but he was not a theologian. His advanced grammar, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (1934, over 1200 pages) is a famous classic. But in his day, most SBC scholars interpreted allegorically, so he just followed along. But again, he was not a theologian, but a grammarian.

I would love to have a discussion with him on the use of the article in Rev. 20. He would probably snow me under, but I like to think he would see my point.

 

[agedman]

This guy was Amillennial?

I thought the "THE" in the greek was a clear indiction of literalness of the 1000 years. How can someone with such a knowledge of greek not see the clearness?

Im confused.

Pre WWI, a greater number of classical theologians were schooled and taught A-Mill view and actually did think that the world would eventually be overrun with believers and the nations will turn to Christ to usher in a kingdom already conformed to His glory.

Here is a regularly sung hymn that reflects that thinking: We've a Story to Tell to the Nations - HymnSite.com - United Methodist Hymnal #569

A few things happened that brought greater focus upon the futility of the post and a-mill views. Not only the "war to end all wars" (WWI) but the great world wide depression, rise of Hitler, WWII, the atomic age, ...

Clearly the teaching that the world will get better and better was not enlightened by the understanding of the modern age. Yet, some did (as Darby examples) have a certain understanding, but not the fullness of consistency that has been developed and is still being developed.

But, the refrain:

"For the darkness shall turn to dawning,
and the dawning to noonday bright;
and Christ's great kingdom shall come on earth,
the kingdom of love and light." (from link, above)
​

cannot be sung with any authority of Scripture backing.

Modern days, (in my opinion) because of the overreach and some Hollywood presentations the other than pre-mill views have again pushed their way in to acceptability.

 

[David Kent]

It would help Robycop's case if he would stop playing the old tape over and over again, and tell us what actual events are eschatological events, then we can discuss them. As it is he just lives up to his reputation as the board's comedian.

 

[TCassidy]

Im confused.

You certainly are.

 

[agedman]

If one interprets with allegorical interpretation coming to the text, no matter how great a scholar one is, he will still end up amil or postmil. A. T. Robertson's greatness as a Greek scholar is uncontested, but he was not a theologian. His advanced grammar, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (1934, over 1200 pages) is a famous classic. But in his day, most SBC scholars interpreted allegorically, so he just followed along. But again, he was not a theologian, but a grammarian.

I would love to have a discussion with him on the use of the article in Rev. 20. He would probably snow me under, but I like to think he would see my point.

My grandfather was a Baptist pastor, graduate of SBTS and had A. T. Robertson as a teacher, mentor, and friend.

I was far to full of self, too driven, too stupid to sit with my grandfather and listen to him as he would reflect upon his growth in Christ, and who the people were that influenced him.

What a waste I was (am!) .

 

[TCassidy]

Here is a regularly sung hymn that reflects that thinking:

Here is another. That great anthem to Post Millennialism, The Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence in the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal";
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! Be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
While God is marching on.

 

[David Kent]

If one interprets with allegorical interpretation coming to the text, no matter how great a scholar one is, he will still end up amil or postmil. A. T. Robertson's greatness as a Greek scholar is uncontested, but he was not a theologian. His advanced grammar, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (1934, over 1200 pages) is a famous classic. But in his day, most SBC scholars interpreted allegorically, so he just followed along. But again, he was not a theologian, but a grammarian.

I would love to have a discussion with him on the use of the article in Rev. 20. He would probably snow me under, but I like to think he would see my point.

Jesus was speaking significantly or figuratively or symbolically when he said

• John 1:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
• 18Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
• 19This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

 

[prophecy70]

Pre WWI, a greater number of classical theologians were schooled and taught A-Mill view and actually did think that the world would eventually be overrun with believers and the nations will turn to Christ to usher in a kingdom already conformed to His glory.

How is that an A-Mill view and not a Post Mill view?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Excellent. Your mother taught you well.

She stood over me as I studied, hairbrush in hand. [Actually, I cannot tell a lie; I looked it up ]

Granted, Peter was making the point that God is not bound by time, and using antithesis to do that. But antithesis must be based on things that actually exist. So I disagree that Peter did not intend to be taken literally. The antithesis he gave could not exist if there were not a real, literal thing as 1000 years, and a real, literal thing called a day. Otherwise, the antithesis has no meaning.

I beg to differ. There is such a thing as a drop and there is such a thing as a bucket. If I talk about something being just a drop in the bucket,' I am comparing something small to something great, not making any sort of accurate comparison.

If I were to say, "A ganglof is as a fiple to God," then that would be meaningless because those two items do not exist. I made them up.

13 fiples to the ganglof, and 8 gangloves (note the plural!) to wrachton. I though everybody knew that.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Pre WWI, a greater number of classical theologians were schooled and taught A-Mill view and actually did think that the world would eventually be overrun with believers and the nations will turn to Christ to usher in a kingdom already conformed to His glory.

I think you'll find that's Postmil.

 

[prophecy70]

If one interprets with allegorical interpretation coming to the text, no matter how great a scholar one is, he will still end up amil or postmil. A. T. Robertson's greatness as a Greek scholar is uncontested, but he was not a theologian. His advanced grammar, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (1934, over 1200 pages) is a famous classic. But in his day, most SBC scholars interpreted allegorically, so he just followed along. But again, he was not a theologian, but a grammarian.

I would love to have a discussion with him on the use of the article in Rev. 20. He would probably snow me under, but I like to think he would see my point.

But how could he arrive at that position if "The" is means a clear 1000 literal years in Greek.
How could anyone interpret allegorical? Wouldn't the article by default make an allegorical interpretation wrong.

 

[prophecy70]

You certainly are.

Only because you and John were insisting on the literalness of the article "The"

 

[agedman]

How is that an A-Mill view and not a Post Mill view?

Both views have no literal 1000 year reign of Christ ruling with a rod of iron that nations of the world.

 

[TCassidy]

Only because you and John were insisting on the literalness of the article "The"

It is literally the article "the."

 

[prophecy70]

Both views have no literal 1000 year reign of Christ ruling with a rod of iron that nations of the world.

the two views are clearly different though.

 

[prophecy70]

It is literally the article "the."

Yes, but does it have to imply a literal 1000 years?

 

[TCassidy]

Yes, but does it have to imply a literal 1000 years?

Yes. Greek grammar makes it clear that he is talking about THE 1000 years, not just any 1000 years.

Illustration: Sit in THE chair. That means to sit in a specific chair. Not just any chair. THE chair.

If, on the other hand I say. Sit in a chair you are free to choose any chair you want to sit in.

Got it now?