Several that matter have already asked me, and I told them.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
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!
Several that matter have already asked me, and I told them.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.
I think I clearly named the two people of interest in the topic discussed.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.
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.
Foolish talk for a critic.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
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.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.)
Yes, Ryrie also said: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.
Foolish talk for a critic.
What do you have to say that is better?
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.
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?
And you're only getting one answer.You gave two quotes.
Stranger.
And you're only getting one answer.