Literal Interpretation

he does have a good valid point though, as "rightly dividing" the Bible allows us to see Dispy theology in it!

 

Taught

I am so glad God could teach us not like a people who could not understand what He was saying. That He could teach us as Intellectuals. If people do something stupid as cut their hand off or pluck their eye out, then they have something wrong mentally and need a straight jacket and a rubber room.

 

Dispy theology is defective at it's very foundation; you've yet to address the scriptures I presented to you showing that.

 

I agree with all of this.

 

I agree 100%.

 

The "Nowadays" item is not true in the circles I run in.

Why must you rail against dispensationalism every single time you get on the Internet? (hyperbole )

Frankly, this whole post about dispensationalism is irrelevant to my position. My grandfather was not a dispensationalist, but wrote 8 commentaries (including Rev. & Dan.) from a grammatical-historical hermeneutic. I find the idea that this hermeneutic always leads to dispensationalism, and only dispensationalists use it, to be way too narrow in focus. You can't see the forest for the trees! (idiom )

Besides that, the scholars don't agree with you. According to the non-dispensational seminary text on hermeneutics mentioned above (Klein, Blomberg, Hubbard), "Dispensationalism has taken great strides away from the excesses of past generations toward a more 'centrist' position" (footnote, p. 348).

Please source this. The subject is hermeneutics. Is he a scholar in this? Never heard of him.

The fact that you apparently don't recognize my sources (sensationalist? hah!) leads me to believe that you are not very educated in the area of hermeneutics. Bernard Ramm is the classic in the field, yet he was not dispensationalist to my knowledge. In fact, his textbook doesn't even mention the term, and only mentions premil on one page.

Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard is also not a textbook on dispensational theology, but a straight up seminary text on hermeneutics. I really don't think these guys are dispensationalist.

And I don't know all of the men you mention, but I don't recognize any of them as having written books on hermeneutics. And that's what this thread is about, isn't it?

 

It's quite easy to discern hyperbole. The definition is standardized. Here is what my college English textbook says (still have it): "Hyperbole is deliberate over-statement or fanciful exaggeration" (Harbrace College Handbook, 6th ed., by John Hodges & Mary Whitten, 1967, p. 232).

Take the case of the cut-off hand and cut out eye in Matt. 5 and 18. How could that be anything other than hyperbole? Surely no one would take the words of Christ as being a literal way of salvation? So what did Christ want? People to believe on Him, not cut off their hand! Hyperbole, with no doubt whatsoever.

 

I think the point Jesus was making is that you have to value him more than all other things. Our hands and eyes are very precious to us. You might have a sin you love like drugs or alcohol, some folks do not want to get saved because they know the Lord is going to ask us to give that up. You must be ready to give up all these things for Jesus.

 

It's hyperbole, naturally.

 

Resistance if FUTILE!!!!

 

Common sense, maybe?? I am sorry for your loss. :saint:

 

Yes. What's your point?

 

Well, at least you didn't get blood all over your computer keyboard, so you can still type. :thumbsup:

 

Um, the bride symbolism is called a simile.... (Come on, I know it's hard, but you can remember your high school English.:applause But John said he actually saw the city, and described it in detail--without a wedding dress.