Rollo Tamasi
Well-Known Member
Every now and then, when I don't save something...
In this case, you questioned Willie's integrity, that's what hurts.
I thought this was interesting...
- Thread starter Willie T
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
In this case, you questioned Willie's integrity, that's what hurts.
Then you should take the same advice and be sure to give a proper reference when quoting someone.
Integrity is in question when you don't. Which is why you should.
Stranger
@Stranger: You remind me of the fictional TV show character "Sherman Cooper". What you're doing can be hilarious to those of us who are observing and not involved. Of course, if all you wanted was to know where the quote actually came from, then just ask for that, politely. But those of us 'watching the show' know what you really wanted. And it's fun to watch Leonard--oh, I mean Willie T--deal with you.
@Willie T : John's Gospel really trips up the "literal only" crowd. For example, in chapter four Jesus talks about "Living Water" and the Woman At The Well takes him literally. Later in that same chapter Jesus talks about his food. The Disciples also take him literally. And that's just fine and dandy. But then, in Chapter 6, Jesus says that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The Liturgical Crowd insists this is literal. (And, yes, I know this is a can of worms. Sometimes it's fun to watch the worms wiggle around.) The real point of what John records Jesus as saying is explicit. What matters is that we follow the command and celebrate His Passion with a simple meal: Do this as oft as ye eat & drink it. This holds true throughout the Bible. We should not focus on a tiny bit of scripture and argue as to whether God means it literally...instead, we need to focus on the message. It does not matter one bit if we are reading in Jesus' Revelation as recorded by John about real locusts or helicopters, either interpretation is valid. Locusts or helicopters? Both are instruments of destruction. You might as well argue about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin! We should focus on what John saw, the big picture, and meditate on that.
@Willie T : John's Gospel really trips up the "literal only" crowd. For example, in chapter four Jesus talks about "Living Water" and the Woman At The Well takes him literally. Later in that same chapter Jesus talks about his food. The Disciples also take him literally. And that's just fine and dandy. But then, in Chapter 6, Jesus says that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The Liturgical Crowd insists this is literal. (And, yes, I know this is a can of worms. Sometimes it's fun to watch the worms wiggle around.) The real point of what John records Jesus as saying is explicit. What matters is that we follow the command and celebrate His Passion with a simple meal: Do this as oft as ye eat & drink it. This holds true throughout the Bible. We should not focus on a tiny bit of scripture and argue as to whether God means it literally...instead, we need to focus on the message. It does not matter one bit if we are reading in Jesus' Revelation as recorded by John about real locusts or helicopters, either interpretation is valid. Locusts or helicopters? Both are instruments of destruction. You might as well argue about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin! We should focus on what John saw, the big picture, and meditate on that.
To me, it kind of depends upon who it is doing the questioning. Some will (always), and some won't (they are the ones who truly matter.)
Thank you, Al,
The thing that tickles me about this little irritation called *Stranger*, is that whether I had said the quotes came from either "Source A" or from "Source B", it wouldn't have told him anything at all about whether or not those were accurate quotes..... and he didn't really care if they were accurate or not.
All he was hoping for was that I would give a reference that he could "label" in some way. And, now, even with the references, he still can't figure out how to tack a derogatory name (label) on them.
The thing that tickles me about this little irritation called *Stranger*, is that whether I had said the quotes came from either "Source A" or from "Source B", it wouldn't have told him anything at all about whether or not those were accurate quotes..... and he didn't really care if they were accurate or not.
All he was hoping for was that I would give a reference that he could "label" in some way. And, now, even with the references, he still can't figure out how to tack a derogatory name (label) on them.
Rollo Tamasi
Well-Known Member
This is not a Christian way to act.
It does nothing to edify the group.
It certainly does not please God!
I never have any objection to "derailing." As long as it is real and attempts to find a constructive direction. Although those don't seem to always be *Stranger's* objectives, he has a right to go down any trail he wishes. I just wish he could be a bit more "real", instead of just being confrontational to be combative.
Riekertlily
New Member
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
an important diff being imo that the first is almost universally believed to occur in some tomorrow, whereas the GofT premise is at least supposed to be in today
It is stranger that people do not understand that the language translations that we read, and call "the word of God," are fallible translation based on the interpretational ability of the people involved in the said translation.
Now when people tell me that the bible can only be interpreted by what is found in the "word of God," then I am confused because, in the theological training that I received, I was told to read what other people had written first, and of course, referenced within the papers that I had to generate for any accreditation to be received, before I could begin presenting any theory that I was expanding on, whether my own or others. I had to demonstrate my ability to think about what I had read and to draw conclusions about what I had come to understand.
Now when I begin to question the traditions of the translation and the words created to convey the "intended" meaning of the referenced texts being translated, then I should accept without questioning the abilities of the ones who have created the tradition and those who have subsequently followed the spirit of that tradition in a more modern language form. These books are called the "modernised word of God" and sadly do not always reflect the past theological traditions contained in the old forms of the "word of God."
My belief system comes into question if I do not conform to the tradition of understanding of "God's word," as understood by others to be the whole "truth" of the matter. But when usage of words transforms the meaning and subsequent understanding of "God's word" how do we proceed towards understanding. Do we allow the "tradition" confirmed by referencing the source, forge our understanding irrespective of the final outcome that results so that those of the "traditional" faith can feel comfortable in their delusions.
These people call themselves the protectors of "God's word" and believe that they have this God ordained calling on their lives, even though God has no need of them protecting His "word" and its contextual meaning. But it does elevate them to a higher calling than the one which the "common" people might have.
So obviously, this makes what we are doing and believing more interesting.
Shalom
Now when people tell me that the bible can only be interpreted by what is found in the "word of God," then I am confused because, in the theological training that I received, I was told to read what other people had written first, and of course, referenced within the papers that I had to generate for any accreditation to be received, before I could begin presenting any theory that I was expanding on, whether my own or others. I had to demonstrate my ability to think about what I had read and to draw conclusions about what I had come to understand.
Now when I begin to question the traditions of the translation and the words created to convey the "intended" meaning of the referenced texts being translated, then I should accept without questioning the abilities of the ones who have created the tradition and those who have subsequently followed the spirit of that tradition in a more modern language form. These books are called the "modernised word of God" and sadly do not always reflect the past theological traditions contained in the old forms of the "word of God."
My belief system comes into question if I do not conform to the tradition of understanding of "God's word," as understood by others to be the whole "truth" of the matter. But when usage of words transforms the meaning and subsequent understanding of "God's word" how do we proceed towards understanding. Do we allow the "tradition" confirmed by referencing the source, forge our understanding irrespective of the final outcome that results so that those of the "traditional" faith can feel comfortable in their delusions.
These people call themselves the protectors of "God's word" and believe that they have this God ordained calling on their lives, even though God has no need of them protecting His "word" and its contextual meaning. But it does elevate them to a higher calling than the one which the "common" people might have.
So obviously, this makes what we are doing and believing more interesting.
Shalom
@Jay, I don't have much theological training & I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying, but I am giving this a like and also a big grin.
Naomi25
Well-Known Member
- Aug 10, 2016
- 3,199
- 1,801
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Forgive me, but I have never really understood how people standing on the hill of "literal interpretation" can get there through all the interference in the way. You say that people do not have the right to spiritualize or allegorize at will, and yet...you guys seem to. You (and here I'm applying that term generally) say that in Revelation we are told when something is to be taken symbolically, for instance, in Rev 1:20 Jesus tells us what the seven stars are and the seven golden lampstands, etc. And later on we are told who the dragon really is: Satan. The rest, however, should be seen as literal. But you seem to be able to swap to symbol at will. For example, I don't think anyone thinks an actual sword is coming out of Jesus' mouth. No, it's his word. Or, when John turns to see the Lion of the tribe of Judah, but see's a slain Lamb instead, we are not told it is Jesus, but of course we know it is him, the Lion and the Lamb are both symbolizing who he is.
You get my point. Dispensationalists seem to try and stand behind literalism, but they actually can't and wobble too and fro.
You say, in a previous post (#12) that we are to "take everything in its plain literal sense, unless there is good reason to believe we are dealing with a metaphor or a parable". Who makes that call? It seems that when anyone other than a dispensationalist does it, they get accused of not taking God's word seriously.
Because in Revelation, which is apocalyptic literature, a well established genre to the Jewish people, if we try and take everything strictly literally, then things start blowing up in our faces, like Mr Ryrie or Hal Lindsay trying to find helicopters instead of demons (thereby breaking their own hermeneutics).
In essence, what you are doing is taking a genre and making it something else. It would be like receiving a note from your child's school and reading it like it was a play script, or a love letter. There is no way that it would make sense to you. Apocalyptic literature functions by explaining spiritual truths through symbols and visions. That is why John is told he will be shown what will happen. It doesn't make it any less real or essential, it just means we understand it differently.
So here's the thing. I'm not going to plant my flag and declare how I see Revelation is right and you are wrong. It could be that you are indeed correct. But the fact that 'literalists' like to accuse people like me of not taking God's word seriously, of 'spiritualizing' it..which seems to mean dismissing it, is just not so. You guys need to realize that your hermeneutical principle is not flawless, so a little less finger pointing would be nice. Ta.
To take everything in its plain literal sense is to also recognize metaphors and symbols as such. For example Satan is identified as, and with, the Serpent and the Dragon, which goes back to Eden. The Lion of the Tribe of Judah and the Lamb of God are metaphors. So what's the fuss? The Word of God is also called the Sword of the Spirit, so that is what is meant by a sword going out of the mouth of Christ.
But this is quite different from allegorizing the 1000 years in Rev 20 to an indefinite period of time, or spiritualizing it as the Church age and resorting to Amillennialism. There is no justification for that since "a thousand" or "the thousand" is repeated six times in seven verses. There's no symbolism here.
As to "apocalyptic literature" and "genre" and other such terms, they are simply misleading, since it is very clear that Revelation is a prophetic book for Christians, which is clearly identified as "the revelation (ἀποκάλυψις = apokalupsis) of Jesus Christ", taking us from the first century to the New Heavens and the New Earth. "Revelation" means "unveiling", "uncovering", or "revealing", and Christ unveils for us the critical future events leading to His second coming.
I think the Church was reluctant to include Revelation in the Canon because of all the misinterpreted symbols. What mistifies me is that no one sees the Great Schism or the Reformation in the prophecy. You can fit either event into a "thousand year" scheme.
Question: do you find comfort in the prophecy? Or does it make you worry?
Some advice: don't interpret Revelation with just Daniel & other prophetic scripture, use the whole Bible. God is, first & foremost, a loving Deity. He gave us the parable of the virgins & their lamps for a reason. He also told us not to worry about dates & genealogies & the like.
No one actually knows what will happen until it does. You are supposed to find comfort in the prophecy. If you don't, ask God why.
Question: do you find comfort in the prophecy? Or does it make you worry?
Some advice: don't interpret Revelation with just Daniel & other prophetic scripture, use the whole Bible. God is, first & foremost, a loving Deity. He gave us the parable of the virgins & their lamps for a reason. He also told us not to worry about dates & genealogies & the like.
No one actually knows what will happen until it does. You are supposed to find comfort in the prophecy. If you don't, ask God why.
Naomi25
Well-Known Member
- Aug 10, 2016
- 3,199
- 1,801
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Really? Because it seems like you are just swapping between symbolism and literalism to suit your own program of interpretation, rather than actually coming at the book of Revelation as the genre itself asks us to. As John and Christ intends us to in the way they write it. Why would they write it in a particular manner if they intended us to read it in another?
Yes, but the name of the book does not really tell us what the genre it. Does Genesis-Chronicles tell us that it is to be read as history through their names alone? Does Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, etc tell us to read them prophetically just from their names? Not really. You have to look harder than that and be a little more discerning. And also, just because something is prophetic, does not mean that it is written in apocalyptic style. There was a lot of apocalyptic genre in Jewish literature that was not considered scripture, but we do find another example in Daniel. The distinct difference between the two is: in books like Ezekiel God just outright says: this is what will happen to Israel because of their disobedience. In Daniel, and Revelation, God uses extreme imagery and symbolism to depict truths. For example in Daniel he see's these beasts that represent kingdoms. We see that repeated in Revelation. But it's quite obviously different to Ezekiel's "here's what will outright happen", and that's because it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be read and understood through these images. To try and take it literally is, like I said before, like trying to read Genesis as a love sonnet, or the Psalms like prophecy. It's not meant to be read that way, and it's a mistake to try and do it. Don't you wonder why God gave us the different portions of his word in different genres? It had to be for a reason. We need to be responsible readers and come to each book and ask how he wanted us to read it...how did he write it?
Yes! For when the Spirit of Truth shall come and He will guide you and teach you all things....even the hidden wisdom of God...the mysteries of God....todays churches call it revelation knowledge!
ScottA
Well-Known Member
- Feb 24, 2011
- 11,741
- 5,593
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
The context of the book of Revelation is key. "What you have seen, what is, and what is to take place after this" encompasses, past, present (at that time), and future...in other word, it includes - everything.
As such, the language that was used did not specifically describe "what you have seen" and "what is" in plain language, and therefore it should be obvious that the language needs to be interpreted...which we now know must be discerned spiritually.
As such, the language that was used did not specifically describe "what you have seen" and "what is" in plain language, and therefore it should be obvious that the language needs to be interpreted...which we now know must be discerned spiritually.
And, some of these people can actually find their way home from the grocery store by themselves. I am awed!
That's why John tells us to read it as it is given. John has already given us the clue: Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. (Rev 1:3)
Did John say blessed is he that readeth it symbolically, allegorically, metaphorically, or parabolically, or any such thing? But if that is your preference, have at it. Confuse yourself and others. We already know that the Preterists and the Amillennialists are thoroughly confused.
John expected his Christian readers to simply read this book in is plain literal sense, "hear" or understand this prophecy, and then do what is written therein.
Similar threads
- Locked
