tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post7051064033089768745..comments2024-02-11T06:57:23.174-05:00Comments on SchansBlog: 1st century literalistsEric Schansberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16147388189415035752noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post-10100836673420766462008-03-14T10:10:00.000-04:002008-03-14T10:10:00.000-04:00Reagan is pre-mill (and pre-trib). By the way, if ...Reagan is pre-mill (and pre-trib). By the way, if you stick with DC, you'll cover those terms in DC403-- about one year from today! ;-)<BR/><BR/>I haven't read a book-length explanation of things from Reagan but have heard him speak. In that setting, he stretched his use of the prophets further than is warranted. He might have good stuff, but I haven't been able to find anyone-- including people manning his booths-- who could point me to a single book of his that would make a summary case. <BR/><BR/>I have read LaHaye's book on this (in essence, the eschatological beliefs behind the Left Behind series)-- and it is incoherent. (Gary DeMar has a book that simply crushes it.) <BR/><BR/>If anyone has a book-length pre-mill case for me to read, I'd love to see it. There may well be a strong case to be made, but LaHaye's book left a very bad taste in my mouth.Eric Schansberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16147388189415035752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post-1008606058689434832008-03-13T23:19:00.000-04:002008-03-13T23:19:00.000-04:00I see, I thought you were talking more on matters ...I see, I thought you were talking more on matters like Jonah, creation, Balaams donkey and other stories that someone like Bill Oreilley would say are completely alogorical.<BR/><BR/>I can see where you're going with the pre-mill vs post mill. I have read David Reagan's book "God's Plan for the Ages"; but refresh my memory, where does he come down on this post/pre issue. I don't have the time to reread it, but I'm very curious.Bryce Raleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627938386522776478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post-64387916502905161182008-03-12T10:22:00.000-04:002008-03-12T10:22:00.000-04:00The first point is that people claim to read the B...The first point is that people claim to read the Bible literally when they make a number of exceptions to that. This isn't a matter of false interpretation as much as good non-literal interpretation that they somehow forget when asked if they read the Bible literally. <BR/><BR/>For example, Jesus is a door, a lamb, a lion, etc. Literally? Uhhh, no. <BR/><BR/>As for improper interpretations, that is, of course, a matter of some debate. One key area is in eschatology. It is clear that Revelation should not be read as literally as other books because its literary style is a combination of epistle, prophecy and apocalyptic. But how literally? <BR/><BR/>One of my favorite observations is that pre-mills read Revelation and supporting passages more literally. But they're not consistent and so their "hermeneutic" and the results are incoherent. For example, they make a lot out of the 70 7's in Daniel 9. But they read "the church age" into an invisible gap between the 69th and 70th 7. You can do that; you just can't say that you read the text literally-- because it's not in there!Eric Schansberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16147388189415035752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post-77947744557342051472008-03-12T09:57:00.000-04:002008-03-12T09:57:00.000-04:00Some examples: I'm curious. The one listed is obvi...Some examples: I'm curious. <BR/><BR/>The one listed is obviously referring to the Catholic sacrament of communion and transubstantiation. As a former Catholic I agree that this should be taken as a metaphore. What are some other literal interpretations you believe to be false?Bryce Raleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627938386522776478noreply@blogger.com