DavidFWhite3 said:
If you have no idea what Dabianism is you have paid no attention to the long history of how Revelation has been interepreted. So how do you know if you are interpreting revelation literally or not?
==Dabianism? You mean Darby? Darby is not the issue. This debate would rage with or without Darby, and historically others have held his views. Darby is not the issue, Darby is a scapegoat. The issue is simple: What is the proper hermenuetic for Revelation? Should we understand Revelation "plainly", as the pre-millennial brothers do, or do we understand it "figuratively" as our a-millennial brothers do?
Revelation has many symbols (etc) within it. However these symbols are usually easily understood by a look at the context of the symbol or the Old Testament teaching on future events (Old Testament Eschatology). Either one will choose to go the plain route, or the figurative route. The early church, it is easily provable, went with the more plain (or literal) route. Thus they were usually pre-millennial. It was sometime later that a less than literal/plain route was favored (and thus the rise of a-millennialism and preterism). Personally I favor a more plain or literal understanding of Revelation. What does that mean? That means I allow the text to determine what is symbol, literal, etc. Unless the text directly indicates a figurative meaning I allow it to have a plain or literal meaning. Those things which are symbol are symbols for literal places, people, or events. This fits with the way the Old Testament prophecies that used symbols were fulfilled. To find out what a symbol stands for we look at the context of the verse, Revelation, and Old Testament prophecy. Usually in that mix we find the answer. If we cannot find a answer we leave it alone (ie..say I don't know). Going any further than that is dangerous.
___________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
To take Revelation literally means to believe the seven Churches in the letter are literally seven churches, not seven ages of future church history.
==There is no textual or historical reason to deny that these churches were real churches whom John wrote. Jesus Himself said that these churches were literal (Rev 1:11). Historically we know they were in what is today Turkey. John wrote his letter to these seven churches. On the other hand there is no textual or solid historical reason for understanding these churches as "seven ages of future church history". That approach seems to be highly subjective.
_________________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
To take Revelation literally means to believe in a literal dragon rising vrom the sea,
==The dragon, according to the text, is a symbol for satan. Revelation 12:9 states, "and the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who decieves the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth and his angels were thrown down with him". This is a great example of how to understand the symbols. We look to the context (immediant and broader) of the verse, and the Old Testament prophecies.
______________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
a literal beast with ten heads, and so forth.
==This is clearly symbolic language. However we are not free to invent our personal understandings (2Pet 1:20-21). The answer to this symbol is found in Revelation 13 and Daniel 7:19-21. Those who study the text plainly will understand the prophecy.
________________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
Just like Genesis chapter three with real talking snakes ands magic fruit.
==There is nothing in Genesis about magic fruit. The issue was obedience of the man not the fruit. That is clear from just reading the text. As for the snake there is no textual reason to deny that there was a snake. Revelation 12:9 and Genesis 3:14-15 may indicate that the snake was either the devil himself taking the form of a snake, or, the devil taking control of a snake (demonic possession). Either would fit the text and would also explain why the snake could speak.
________________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
the idiocy of Fundamentalism
==Why be a Christian if one is not a fundamentalist? A fundamentalist is one who holds to the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Apart from those fundamentals there is no rational reason to be a Christian. The fundamentals are a must. Therefore to be a Christian one must be a fundamentalist.
_________________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
In Revelation you make room for massive allegory and symbolism. In Genesis you do not, insisting on literal talking snakes and magic fruit. Your inconsistencies are the joke of the enlightened world,
==Genesis is narrative history, Revelation is prophecy or apocalyptic language. That is they are two different types of literary genre. Thus one must understand each as it was meant to be understood (exegesis) and not try to invent ones own meaning (eisegesis). As for the so-called "enlightened world" ? They are not the answer. The answer to prophecy and God's revelation will not be found in people who, in general, reject the very existence of God. In large part they are the scoffers and mockers that Scripture warns about (Ps 1:1, 2Pet 3:3-9).
________________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
which includes Christians who are not afraid to be educated regarding the historical nature of biblical literature
==Well that would include me. I am very educated in the historical nature of Biblical literature. However since you seem wish to group Genesis and Revelation into the same pot I have to wonder about your understanding of literary genre and the genre of those two books. On that your general hermeneutic seems rather weak (needing futher explanation), and your style overly harsh and abrasive. Educated people should be able to discuss differences with educated language and not overly abrasive language. Beyond that Christians are to be kind to one another (Eph 4:32, 1Cor 13:4) even we there are disagreements on some issues. Nobody will be damned to hell because they are pre-millennial, a-millennial, preterist, pre-trib, post-trib, or those type issues. People are condemned for rejecting the Gospel and unbelief. Godly Christians have disagreed on these issues and will continue to do so. Therefore Christians, educated Christians as well, should seek to debate/discuss these issues with Christian love and kindness. Apart from that attitude all we are doing is creating unnecessary splits and anger. Debate is good but among Christians the debate should never be hostile. Christians should debate these issues with a Christian attitude.
________________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
Fundies are in a world of their own, totally out of touch with the real Gospel as it relates to real people and real issues, good only for the meaningless talk that occurs every day on this boad.
==How do you define the "real Gospel"?
Btw, escape from hell and condemnation is very much in touch with people's lives.
_______________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
Maybe you should re-read the Gospels and focus on the "word in red" and then you might have an understanding of why I and many others find you to be out of sinc with Jesus.
==The Words in red are Scripture just like the Words in black. That is why I am opposed to red-letter Bibles, they only serve to confuse people. In fact, in certain places, scholars debate what words should be red and what words should be black. You find others to be "out of sinc with Jesus", ok...why?
__________________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
The Gospel is about God becoming human so we can learn to be human as God created humans to be
==Interesting. I would not totally disagree with that in a general sense (God created man in a sinless state in full relationship with Him and the final goal of salvation is restoration to that condition through Christ). However I fear you are going to restrict the Gospel to that (though I could be wrong). The Gospel, as Jesus explained it, saves people from sin and hell (ie..gives people a spiritual re-birth). See John 3. The Gospel is about a person's relationship with God. Now that will affect how he/she treats other people, but the Gospel is really God focused (ie...a person's relationship with God).
____________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
Have you ever read John? Have you ever read Hebrews? Have you ever read the New Testament?
==I have read and studied, in detail, all of the New Testament. Have you? Reading is nice but we need a careful detailed study of the text (w/out reading our modern views and opinions into the text).
_________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
Sory folks but no rapture, no 7 year tribulation. It's all fiction
==You will have a hard time supporting that with Scripture.
The term rapture is not found in Scripture, but the term from which the term rapture comes is. In 1Thessalonians 4:17 Pauls says that believers alive at the time of the coming of Christ will be "caught up" to meet the Lord in the air. The phrase "caught up" is where the term rapture comes from. So there will be a catching up of believers, a rapture, according to Scripture. Now will that be pre or post tribulation? I believe it will be pre-tribulational but I leave open the chance that it could be post. However, pre or post, there will be a rapture. That cannot be denied without denying Scripture.
As for the tribulation, Jesus said there would be a great tribulation (Matt 24:21). This agrees with Old Testament prophecy about the end of the age, and it agrees with the general outline of Revelation (chpts 6-19). The length of the tribulation is a subject of debate. If we look through history we see some who put it at about 3 (and a half) years and others who put it at seven (based on Daniel's weeks). I would put it at seven years based on the weeks in Daniel and Revelation. According to Scripture there will be a tribulation (Matt 24:21-22,29, Dan 12:1, Rev 6-19).
In Christ,
Martin.
