I thought this was interesting...

[Willie T]

What's wrong? Are you afraid of giving the proper credit? You need to produce the origin of the quote, else some will think you are lying. Good practice also.

Stranger

Several that matter have already asked me, and I told them.

 

[Stranger]

Several that matter have already asked me, and I told them.

You have presented a quote on the forum. You need to give the proper credit. I would think there are rules against not doing that, and I know you like to follow the rules.

Stranger

 

[Willie T]

You have presented a quote on the forum. You need to give the proper credit. I would think there are rules against not doing that, and I know you like to follow the rules.

Stranger

I think I clearly named the two people of interest in the topic discussed.

 

[Stranger]

I think I clearly named the two people of interest in the topic discussed.

It is a simple request. You gave a quote. I need a reference to that quote. Why would you not be willing to give it?

Stranger

 

[Willie T]

That came from a blog I was reading, and the two people quoted are named. Do you doubt they said those things? I don't know how to help you with that.

 

[Stranger]

That came from a blog I was reading, and the two people quoted are named. Do you doubt they said those things? I don't know how to help you with that.

Gee, a blog. That is really official. Means nothing.

It does point to how you obtain your material for what you believe. Careless. You didn't even check up on the quote else you could have given it. You quote something yet don't know how to give someone the ability to check it. If you quote Ryrie, then give the exact location of the quote. If you can't, then don't quote. It is nothing but, as I said earlier, bull.

Shoddy work at best. Consider this a learning experience.

Stranger

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Gee, a blog. That is really official. Means nothing.

It does point to how you obtain your material for what you believe. Careless. You didn't even check up on the quote else you could have given it. You quote something yet don't know how to give someone the ability to check it. If you quote Ryrie, then give the exact location of the quote. If you can't, then don't quote. It is nothing but, as I said earlier, bull.

Shoddy work at best. Consider this a learning experience.

Stranger

Foolish talk for a critic.
What do you have to say that is better?

 

[Willie T]

Well, I happen to have Chilton's book, so I know his quote is accurate. And for months, I used to talk with a minister at the church we were going to who worshiped the ground Ryrie walked on, so I also know the stance on pure literalism was one of Ryrie's biggest things in interpreting the Bible. And, with all that, I am very willing to wager *Stranger* some serious money (I said CASH) about what Ryrie is also credited here with saying about the "locusts" possibly being helicopters or some other modern war machine. (Just as soon as he grows up some and quits trying to play these silly school boy games.)

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

Well, I happen to have Chilton's book, so I know his quote is accurate. And for months, I used to talk with a minister at the church we were going to who worshiped the ground Ryrie walked on, so I also know the stance on pure literalism was one of Ryrie's biggest things in interpreting the Bible. And, with all that, I am very willing to wager *Stranger* some serious money (I said CASH) about what Ryrie is also credited here with saying about the "locusts" possibly being helicopters or some other modern war machine. (Just as soon as he grows up some and quits trying to play these silly school boy games.)

You would lose that 'bet' (which Christians are not to do by the way), as the 'locusts' (Rev. 9) are described in the OT itself, re-utilized in the Rev. on a great scale, going from literal in the OT (which have no king; Pro. 30:27), to spiritual, that do have a such a 'king' (Rev. 9:1,11, see also 11:7, the 'beast' is the 'king' thereof, being the 6th 'head' of Rev. 17). There are several times that 'locusts' are mentioned, especially in Exo. 10 with Moses (and dealing with the Sanctuary on the whole as a greater picture), and later on the 'locusts' are identified as people, specially 'crowned' (Nah. 3:17) and 'captains' (rulers), and at least 4 types of 'locusts' (Joe. 1:4, 2:25), devouring 4 different parts of the tree, (head, to foot) and are considered 'God's army' (Joe. 2:25) used to punish the rebellious, devouring the dead wood and branches (Rev. 9:4), as like a plague, as they were considered under the 'clean' category (Lev. 11:22; Deut. 28:38). The events of these 'locusts' have already happened, but in order to understand this, one needs to consider the beginning of the last Three Trumpets, called the "Woe" trumpets, as they are tied together (as like the 3 angels of Rev. 14:6-12), see Rev. 8:13. Once Rev. 9:1 is understood, in its timing, and the 7 trumpets and 7 Last plagues as a whole (tying into Joshua and Jericho, in Joshua 6), as with the Exodus from 'Egypt', and when it began for us (Christians), in the context of the 7 branch candlestick that is the Revelation, one cannot mistake the timing, nor the identification of them.

People that 'read into' the text things like 'helicopters', 'ufos', etc, simply have not read what scripture says of the symbols and realities themselves.

The Rev. 9 is also not a reference to Islam, nor Muhammad, nor Ottoman empire. Those who teach those things, also 'read into' the text that which is not there, not following the command in scripture, to go line upon line, precept upon precept, not going from natural to spiritual.

I have a many page study on Rev. 9 (not all complete, but useful), and if any desire we can look at just the first verse of Rev. 9 (beginning with Rev. 8:13).

 

[Willie T]

Took about two minutes to find this quote:
"If God be the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought." [Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 81.]

This pretty plainly says Ryrie felt the exact words the Bible used were what it meant.

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

Took about two minutes to find this quote:
"If God be the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought." [Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 81.]

This pretty plainly says Ryire felt the exact words the Bible used were what it meant.

Yes, Ryrie also said:

"...Revelation ... 9:1-2 John records seeing a star fall from heaven. This is a plain symbol, and one that is interpreted in the text itself as indicating a created being (probably an angel). The English word "star" is used today in both a literal and symbolic manner, just as it is in Revelation 8 and 9. We speak literally of the stars in the heavens. We also refer to stars on the athletic field or in the entertainment industry, and in so doing we are using a symbol with a very plain meaning. Indeed, symbols often make the meaning more plain.

Futurists do not deny the presence of symbols in the book, nor do they claim to be able to explain every detail with certainty. But they do insist that the principle of plain interpretation be followed consistently throughout the book. ..." - Revelation - Every Man's Commentary by Charles C. Ryrie - Revelation- Everyman's Bible Commentary

He may not include me in his "Every Man's Commentary". The Revelation is a great parable including both natural and symbolic materials. Thus, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches ..."

 

[Willie T]

In your rush to recreate and reword my OP, you are trying to defend something I'm not even concerned about. I said I found that blog article interesting because of, for one thing, the way that Ryrie reverses courses on his avowed Literalism, and starts seeing symbols all of a sudden when the pure literalism no longer works.

So many people do this while, all the time trying to put others down for seeing symbolism in their personally cherished verses where they swear we have to read literally.

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

*sigh*. Thank you for your time. Leaves thread.

 

[Stranger]

Foolish talk for a critic.
What do you have to say that is better?

If what I have to say requires quoting from another, then I give the reference for the quote. That is the honest thing to do. That is what is required. Since when do you quote and not give reference?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Took about two minutes to find this quote:
"If God be the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought." [Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 81.]

This pretty plainly says Ryrie felt the exact words the Bible used were what it meant.

That is not the quote you gave in the opening post.

Stranger

 

[Willie T]

Here's where the Ryrie quote about the beasts of Revelation comes from.

Charles C. Ryrie, The Living End: Enlightening and Astonishing Disclosures about the Coming Last Days of Earth (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1976), 37.

Would you also like a warm bottle of milk and some Pablum with that?

 

[brakelite]

The first clue in understanding any Bible verse is given in the first post itself... The Bible interprets itself. Unfortunately, while many claim this is a true way of studying scripture, the moment they get to revelation or Daniel they do the opposite. Instead of saying in their explanation"the Bible says", or the'Lord says", they say, "I believe" or "I think", or "I am sure" etc etc etc.
They see all these incredible beasts, throw their hands up in despair or go to their imagination for answers. Yet the angel Gabriel already told Daniel who the beasts were 2500 years ago. And a composite of those beasts is self explanatory.
Just as @Benjamin said, the answers are all there in the OT, all you have to do is look.

 

[Stranger]

Here's where the Ryrie quote about the beasts of Revelation comes from.

Charles C. Ryrie, The Living End: Enlightening and Astonishing Disclosures about the Coming Last Days of Earth (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1976), 37.

Would you also like a warm bottle of milk and some Pablum with that?

You gave two quotes.

Stranger.

 

[Willie T]

You gave two quotes.

Stranger.

And you're only getting one answer.

 

[Stranger]

And you're only getting one answer.

And what does that mean?

Stranger