--- Doug Skiles <skiles@...> wrote: > Dear Terry, > > So, could the original authors speak (or write) about things > that they had no knowledge of? [I wouldn't say "NO knowledge", but certainly very limited in some cases. For example, look at 1 Pet. 1:10-12: "...the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating...." --Terry] > To say that one who uses the literal "when possible" approach > is a literalist is incorrect and a misrepresentation of what I > have said. [Sorry if I sounded like I was misrepresenting you. I wasn't intending to address you personally, but only to *nicely* ridicule Alford's statement. I think it's foolish to say that non-literal interpretation somehow destroys the Scriptures, when the Scripture writers themselves do it so often. Also, every Amillennialist I've met says they use the literal "when possible", too. It's just that their "when possible" is different. By the way, I notice you haven't addressed the few Scriptures I cited that were interpreted non-literally <wink> --Terry] > If you really want to have sincere discussions stay on point > and away from personal judgements... [Just a reminder...remember, I'm the one who is an "Informed Pan-Millennialist", so I have no "personal judgements". I believe I could make a case for Realized Millennialism (AKA Amillennialism) so strong that the average person in the pew would be totally convinced. But I'm not making that case, because I'm not convinced enough myself. What bothers me is the STRONG Pre-Trib Pre-Mill "literalist" who pounds it into the congregation's heads, as though it was part of the Fundamentals of the faith, when they don't even have the knowledge to make a case for the other side. Even the pagan (Mormon) author Steven Covey has enough common sense to "Seek first to understand, and then to be understood." (7 Habits of Highly Effective People) I have believed for a long time that if one can't make at least a fair case for the opposition, then they don't understand their own position that well, even if they're right. In any case, no offense meant at all. Sharpening iron can produce a little friction sometimes, but the Spirit-filled believer will only take it as warming the heart. I have an off-the-reservation opinion that if one isn't reasonably filled with the Spirit at a given time, they shouldn't be discussing theology until they are filled. Draw near to Him, commune with Him, pray for His guidance, then fire away. I can't close, though, without a reminder that you still didn't address the few Scriptures I gave that clearly were not interepreted literally by the New Testament writers <grin>. --Terry] Blessings, Terry > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Terry Rayburn" <terryrayburn@...> > To: <soundofgrace@...> > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 10:29 AM > Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Significance in Language > > > > Doug, > > > > With all due respect to Alford, his statement is foolish. > > > > All one has to do is study the New Testament gospels > > and epistles, look for Old Testament references, and > > see how Jesus and the apostles interepreted the Old > > Testament passages. > > > > When the Old Testament passages were prophetic, > > and were "literally" fulfilled, they nevertheless often had > > a totally different meaning then would have been given > > to them in a "literal" interpretation. > > > > Or they were fairly literally fulfilled, but no one could > > have understood what they meant until the prophecy > > came to pass. This is why I believe it's a mistake to > > "force" a meaning on obscure prophecies today. > > > > I've never met a "literalist" who has done such a study > > of New Testament references to Old Testament > > prophecies and not have their eyes opened, and their > > faith in a "literalist" hermeneutic shaken (though some > > won't admit it, yet can't explain it). > > > > Some examples: > > > > Zech. 13:7 is quoted in Matthew 26:29, "I will strike the > > Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered." > > No one in Zechariah's time could possibly have > > understood that the ultimate meaning was the running > > away in fear of the disciples at Jesus' crucifixion. > > > > Psalm 118:22,23 is quoted in Matthew 21:42, "The stone > > which the builders rejected Has become the chief > > cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, And it is > > marvelous in our eyes." Who could have known what > > the precise meaning was in David's day, yet Jesus > > makes it obvious. > > > > Some modern-day "literalists", had they lived in Isaiah's > day, > > when reading the passage about John the Baptist referred > > to in Luke 3:4-6, would have concocted some theory about > > valleys being filled with something (blood? water? who > > knows?), and mountains and hills being brought low > > (maybe by some earthquake, or God's fist slamming them > > down? who knows?). The point is it was figurative > > language, but there was no way for the people of Isaiah's > > time to know that until the prophecy was fulfilled in John. > > > > Dean Alford would say, "there is an end to all significance > in > > language and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony > > to anything." But he would be wrong. > > > > Even in short-term prophecy, "literalism" can get you in > > trouble. When Jesus said, in John 2:19, "Destroy this > temple, > > and in three days I will raise it up," it wasn't until after > He > > rose from the dead that even the disciples knew what He > > meant, let alone the Jews. > > > > One of my favorites is from Jeremiah, referenced by Matthew > > when Herod slaughtered the infants in his attempt to kill > > the Messiah. "A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation, > > weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her > > children, Refusing to be comforted, because they were > > no more." Literal? > > > > There are MANY more examples. I just grabbed a few > > from the Gospels, but they are in the epistles, too. > > > > It's an easy study to do if you have a New King James, > > since the OT references are in italics. An honest > > interpreter, after that study, should at least admit a > little > > difficulty in interepreting the prophecies of Matthew 24 > > and Revelation, don't you think? > > > > Blessings, > > Terry > > > > > > --- Doug Skiles <skiles@...> wrote: > > > >> I just wanted to add this small but extremely important > >> comment which makes the premil position to be supported by > >> text. If in the discussion to establish the A mil position > as > >> the genuine eschatology, one's hermeneutic allows for a > doing > >> away with the plain, literal sense, then "there is an end > to > >> all significance in language and Scripture is wiped out as > a > >> definite testimony to anything".-- Dean Henry Alford > >> There has to be a baseline for any measurement which > restrains > >> individual speculation as a tool of interpretation. Why > would > >> anyone consent to distort words from their plain sense and > >> chronological place in the prophecy on account of > considering > >> a possible difficulty or "risk" of abuse which the doctrine > of > >> the millennium may bring with it. --Dean Henry Alford. > >> Sincerely, Doug. > >> -- > >> Read the Sound of Grace pages at > >> http://www.soundofgrace.com > >> > >> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > >> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... > >> > >> To view our online archive go to our web page at > >> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Visit "Grace For Life" > > An Oasis of Rest for the People of God > > http://www.graceforlife.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection > around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > -- > > Read the Sound of Grace pages at > > http://www.soundofgrace.com > > > > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > > soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... > > > > To view our online archive go to our web page at > > http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace > > > > > > > > > -- > Read the Sound of Grace pages at > http://www.soundofgrace.com > > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... > > To view our online archive go to our web page at > http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace > > > > Visit "Grace For Life" An Oasis of Rest for the People of God http://www.graceforlife.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com