The importance of a literal interpretation

Now please don't tell anyone that I agree with Sproul on this.

One can say it but not abide by it. Sproul in my opinion is subject to say whatever it takes to support his RT thinking, but it is sad that he claims to use what I personally don't think he follows, for if he did he would be a dispensationalist.

Just because I am a dispensationalist does not mean I am biased. :laugh:

 

Then you are unique!

Unique has no qualifiers and means: Existing as the only one or as the sole example; solitary in type or characteristics; having no like or equal; standing alone in quality.

 

Not being "biased" is similar to "white lie" they don’t exist. I guess that is why they are unique.

 

I completely forgot about this thread! d'oh!

howdy

I don't buy the verbal dictation theory of inspiration of the Scriptures. I believe God used various people throughout history, empowered and enlightened by the Holy Spirit to write accurately and authoritatively the Bible. As these various authors did so they used language, customs, and other literary characteristics of their day to mold their presentation of God's written revelation to mankind.

I don't believe God just dictated it to them sans the influence of their context, culture, and personality.

Yeah, but I don't think a literal translation is possible. Particularly given the major differences between the inflected languages of the Old and New Testaments, English being a non-inflected language, and how Scripture is repleat with many idiomatic and arachaic phrases.

Finally I've never seen an English translation that actually, literally (word-for-word) translates the Hebrew from its form into English consistently. One major reason is the style of Hebriac sentences which are verb-subject-object whereas English is subject-verb-object.

Well one more thing, I'd love to see how you translate an aorist middle or passive participles into English in one or two words. The concepts are HUGE and implications ranging. As for Hebrew even a simple Niphal or Hithpael there are significant implications that get greater as prefixes such as a waw-consecutive are added or suffixes like a mem or nun.

Translation isn't easy, and literal translation is really really hard to get our arms around.:type:

 

Just for the record I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. Words have meaning and God caused those who recorded Scripture to write exactly the words He wanted.

 

"I once had the misfortune to listen to an excellent friend of mine who was preaching upon this very text [Rev. 20:6 "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."] . . . . All the while he was preaching, I could not help wishing that I could propose to him the difficulty, how he would make this metaphorical interpretation agree with the literal fact, that the rest of the dead lived not till the thousand years were finished? -For, if the first resurrection here spoken of is a metaphorical, or spiritual, or typical resurrection, why the next where it speaks of the resurrection of the dead must be spiritual, and mystical, and metaphorical too. Now, no one would agree to this. You know, when you read a chapter, you are not to say, "This part is a symbol, and is to be read so, and the next part is to be read literally." Brethren, the Holy Ghost does not jumble metaphors and facts together. A typical book has plain indications that it is so intended, and when you come upon a literal passage in a typical chapter, it is always attached to a something else which is distinctly literal, so that you cannot, without violence to common sense, make a typical meaning out of it. The fact is, in reading this passage with an unbiassed judgment, having no purpose whatever to serve, having no theory to defend,—and I confess I have none, for I know but very little about mysteries to come,—I could not help seeing there are two literal resurrections here spoken of, one of the spirits of the just, and the other of the bodies of the wicked; one of the saints who sleep in Jesus, whom God shall bring wilh him, and another of those who live and die impenitent, who perish in their sins." ---Charles Spurgeon

 

13. Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?'' 14. And I said to him, "Sir, you know.'' So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15. "Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them. 16. "They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat; 17. "for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.''


I see not reason to not understand these verses as they read. Normal Literal

 

We see here in black and white a major problem with dispensationalists. They think everyone else lies. Some even go so far as to question the veracity of God if he see things according to their doctrine.

 

The solution is quite simple. I am surprised that Spurgeon did not understand. The first resurrection and only resurrection to date was that of Jesus Christ. No one can dispute that fact and claim to be a Christian. Those who have part in the first resurrection are those who are the elect who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

 

I am a dispensationalist and I have never made that claim, be careful of the brush you paint with. If you have a problem with what someone says take it up with them but don't accuse everyone of the same thing - "they think everyone else lies", not true.

Darren

 

The truth of this matter is that it is true. All sides see that of the other. Some are more polite than others but it is what it is.

You believe something to be true and others don't then in all reality you and me and all others see the other side as "FALSE" or "LIES" if you will.

We should not be shocked or disillusioned by this.

Dispensationalism has made a big issue of normal literal / historical / grammatical interpretation and as such others are now claiming the same. The argument took and stuck and caused some heat and as such everyone else has moved into this argument but their theology has not changed.

Dispensationalism is the more consistent to Scripture than all the others. They all have issues but far less are those of Dispensationalism.

 

Do you have any proof of the above statement? If so then present it.

 

There is much disagreement about the beginning of the dispensational system of theology. Perhaps most debated is the origin of the two event Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the insistence on a removal of the Church prior to the so-called seven year great tribulation, generally called the pretribulation rapture. The English word rapture does not appear in the New Testament. It comes from the Latin translation of the Greek word used in Thessalonians 4:17.

It is generally, though not universally, conceded that dispensationalism as a system of Biblical interpretation was formally promulgated about 1830 by John Nelson Darby, a member of the Plymouth [England] Brethren. It is further conceded that the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible, which made the system of dispensational interpretation an integral part of the Bible notes, had a significant impact on the spread of dispensational thought.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his book, The Church and Last Things, asserts that Darby was influenced by Edward Irving, a charismatic Scottish preacher, who established a new church in London called the Catholic Apostolic Church. As reported by Lloyd-Jones [page 138] the origin of ‘the secret rapture’ is the result of a prophetic utterance in the Catholic Apostolic Church. This utterance was supposedly in tongues, interpreted by someone and considered “a revelation”. There is much dispute as to whether the so-called revelation occured in Irving’s church or elsewhere and was then discovered by Irving. The origin of this ‘revelation’ has been attributed to Margaret Macdonald of Port Glasgow, Scotland. Her revelation was first published in Robert Norton's Memoirs of James & George Macdonald, of Port Glasgow (1840), pp. 171-176. Norton published it again in The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets; In the Catholic Apostolic Church (1861), pp. 15-18. Whether all of this is historical truth is subject to debate. [Anyone interested in pursuing further this ongoing debate may do so by doing an internet search of Margaret Macdonald or The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets; In the Catholic Apostolic Church (1861).] However, it is apparently historical fact that there was a split within the Plymouth Bretheren as the result of Darby’s acceptance of the two event Second Coming and the ‘parenthesis church’. One truth should be evident. If the two event Second Coming is based on a revelation claimed by Margaret Macdonald, Edward Irving, or John Darby, or anyone in the Catholic Apostolic Church it is inherently false doctrine since the special revelation of God to man, the Scriptures, ceased with the Apostolic Age.

Charles C. Ryrie in Chapter 4 of Dispensationalism argues that the beginning of dispensational thought is much earlier. He asserts that Pierre Poiret, a French philosopher and mystic, published a rudimentary system of dispensations in 1687 and that Isaac Watts [1674-1748] developed an outline of dispensations that essentially paralleled that in the Scofield Bible, with the exception of the millennium. There is no indication, however, that either of these men believed that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Israel and the Church which according to Ryrie [page 39] is the basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist. The question is not whether there is a distinction between the nation Israel and the Church, there obviously is. The concern is the relationship between true or spiritual Israel, the believing remnant [Isaiah 10:20-23], and the Church.

It should be noted that dispensational system of interpretation, with its emphasis on Old Testament prophecy, began at a time when many of the established churches apparently ignored Biblical prophecy. Darby’s emphasis on prophecy, therefore, captured the interest and perhaps the imagination of many. Darby visited the United States six times between 1859 and 1874 [John Newport in The Lion and the Lamb, page 100]. His teaching apparently exerted considerable influence on his contemporaries, particularly E. I. Scofield, and resulted in the publication of the Scofield Bible.

 

Given the history of dispensational doctrine the above statement is questionable at best and false when considered logically.

 

Here is what prominent Baptist pastor Morgan Edwards wrote in the 1740s:

". . . my text, “The saints shall reign with Christ [on earth] a thousand years." Other texts say, that all "kingdoms and dominions under the whole heaven shall be given to the saints." (Dan. Vii-- 18. 27): That the saints "shall judge men and angels." (1 Cor. vi, 2. 3). Miserable work do the Antimillenarians make of these texts. And as miserable of the following; "When the son of man shall sit on his throne, ye [my twelve disciples] shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes Israel." (Matt. xix. 28). "I appoint unto you a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom." (Luke xxii. 29, 30.) "Hence forth I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my father's kingdom." (Mat. xxvi. 29.) "To sit on my right hand and on my left [in my kingdom] is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them " for whom it is prepared of my father." (Matt. xx.23). The meek shall inherit the earth." (Matt. v, 5. " Thy kingdom come" &c. (Matt. vi. 10) Literal millennarianism alone will do justice to these texts and many others;"

". . . Another event prior to the Millennium is the binding of Satan and shutting him up in the abyss for a thousand years (Rev. xx. 1, 2, 3.). An event this long foreseen and dreaded by the devils (Matth viii. 29.). Poor work do the Antimillenarians or spiritualizing Millenarians (who are much the same) make of this matter: They say that the devil was bound when Christ came in the flesh; because (surfeit) oracles were silenced, and possessions checked: but if the Devil has not been loose these thousand years past, and for seven hundred and forty–two years besides, he never was loose in his life."

 

Of course the above was penned years before dispensationalism came on the scene. Notice that the writer states the so-called millennium wil be Christian not Jewish.

 

Actually you use weak and irrelevant arguments. Do you really want to argue for the existence of "rapture" as a basis for correct doctrine? Be sure and think this through. Its a trap.