Last Days Madness

ACADEMIC · Aug 27, 2006

Well, it is really encouraging to find a few other theologically conservaitve Baptists who have rejected dispensatoanlist views of eshatology in favor of Partial PReterist or Full Preterist views. :thumbs:

Jo$h · Aug 27, 2006

But Josh, one chapter of historical fufilment does not cancel out the possibility of dispensationalism.

Almost any dispensationalist will support historical fulfilment of many/most OT prophecy.

Granted there is quite a bit of figurative speech, symbolism, hyperbole, simile, etc in the prohetic writings (for a reason). The question is where does one draw the line?
Click to expand...

I appriciate your questions HankD and will do the best I can to answer to them.

Most conservative Christians do not want to admit that the bible is full of figures of speech, hyperbole, similies, parables because it goes against the 21st century mindset, but it does not go against the ancient jewish mindset. Here in lies the historical-grammatical hermenutic, ie the bible was written to living breathing human beings in the past and we need to understand what it meant to them not to us.

I agree that one chapter does not cancel out the possibility, and dispensationalists support many ot prophecies being fulfilled but when it comes to stars falling, mountains melting etc., and because of the wooden literal hermenutic they are forced to say it hasn't been fulfilled or make up a dual-fulfillment theory.

As far as drawing the line on literal or spritual.
Just let the NT writers and their spiritual application to physcial ot passages do the interpreting for you. Since THEY were the ones under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpretiing OT prophecy. Remember they did not have the NT so ALL of their theology was from the OT (moses and the prophets).

av1611jim · Aug 27, 2006

Grasshopper said:

First, what I hope Jack Matthews does is show his students how this type of language is used by the Prophets in the Old Testament. I’m sure it will be seen that these events did not literally happen. Of course perhaps Jack will first give a brief lesson on the different types of literature found in the Bible. Then Jack will take his students to the New Testament and show them almost identical language. He will probably ask the question, “ If the OT Prophets used this type of language in a figurative/metaphoric way, then why do we assume the NT Prophets used it in a different manner”? At this point the class will probably all agree that it would be foolish to assume the Jews of the 1st century would understand the language differently than their ancestors. It is at this point they have entered the horrible heretical world of Preterism.

Second, always amusing to see futurist accuse preterist of not taking the Bible literally. Yet it is futurist who re-define such simple words as “near” “soon” “at hand” “ this generation” and “shortly”. Always amusing.

Here's my definition of futurism (it fits many other doctines, too):

* When biblical text, interpreted literally, agrees with futurism, that text must be interpreted literally.
* When biblical text, interpreted literally, contradicts or does not support futurism, that text must be considered symbolic.
That argument is a double edged sword. You’re too smart for that. Come on, bring you’re A-game.:love2:

So here we have “soon” meaning over 2000 years. Yet it is the preterist who don’t take the Bible literally? Let me guess, those "some people" you refer to are dispies perhaps?

Of course if “soon” was all we had, then you might have a point. But just because prophecy isn’t fulfilled the way you like it doesn’t mean you have to say it hasn’t happened yet. Judaism should teach us that.

1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things has drawn near. Therefore be of sound mind, and be sensible to prayers.

1Pe 1:20 indeed having been foreknown before the foundation of the world, but revealed in the last times for you,

Hmm, I guess that makes the great John Gill a borderline heretic:

John Gill

Mat 24:29 - Immediately after the tribulation of those days,.... That is, immediately after the distress the Jews would be in through the siege of Jerusalem, and the calamities attending it; just upon the destruction of that city, and the temple in it, with the whole nation of the Jews, shall the following things come to pass; and therefore cannot be referred to the last judgment,

Once again, the Baptist (non-preterist) John Gill:

And then shall the tribes of the earth, or land, mourn; that is, the land of Judea; for other lands, and countries, were not usually divided into tribes, as that was; neither were they affected with the calamities and desolations of it, and the vengeance of the son of man upon it; at least not so as to mourn on that account, but rather were glad and rejoiced:

and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. The Arabic version reads it, "ye shall see", as is expressed by Christ, in Mat_26:64. Where the high priest, chief priests, Scribes, and elders, and the whole sanhedrim of the Jews are spoken to: and as the same persons,

Click to expand...

__________________________________________

I am only commenting on this ONE stupid thing your friend John Gill has said. Apparently he is not very well educated for he says "...other lands and countries were not usually divided into tribes..."

What an idiot!!! Does he know anything aboutNorth America? Of South America? Or Africa? Or Asia? Or the Middle east? Or Europe?
Mankind has ALWAYS divided himself into tribes since the days of the Tower of Babel.

I would not trust anything this clown says based on this one comment alone. Apparently he lives in a cave and has never ventured out of it.

Grasshopper; I think you need another 'authority' for this one has let you down miserably!:laugh: :laugh:

webdog · Aug 28, 2006

Ed Edwards said:

I read some really great LAST DAYS books.
They are highly recommended.

The Revelation by John the Apostle
1 & 2 Thessalonians by Paul the Disciple to the Gentiles
2 Corinthians by Paul of Tarsus
Ezekiel by possibly Ezekiel.
The Acts of the Apostles by Luke
Click to expand...

:applause: :laugh:

Grasshopper · Aug 28, 2006

I am only commenting on this ONE stupid thing your friend John Gill has said. Apparently he is not very well educated for he says "...other lands and countries were not usually divided into tribes..."

What an idiot!!! Does he know anything aboutNorth America? Of South America? Or Africa? Or Asia? Or the Middle east? Or Europe?
Mankind has ALWAYS divided himself into tribes since the days of the Tower of Babel.

I would not trust anything this clown says based on this one comment alone. Apparently he lives in a cave and has never ventured out of it.

Grasshopper; I think you need another 'authority' for this one has let you down miserably!:laugh: :laugh:
Click to expand...

Gill may have been many things, but no-one ,except you, would use the word "stupid" concerning him. Of course I'm sure you have no clue who John Gill was so I take your statement with a grain of salt. Is there a reason you didn't address the other parts, or were you just wanting to take a personal shot?

Last Days Madness

ACADEMIC New Member

Jo$h New Member

av1611jim New Member

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter

Grasshopper Active Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

Last Days Madness

ACADEMIC New Member

Jo$h New Member

av1611jim New Member

webdog Active Member Site Supporter

Grasshopper Active Member Site Supporter

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter

Grasshopper Active Member
Site Supporter