An apocalyptic exercise.

[Etcetera]

Greetings, all.

A little exercise, or experiment, inspired by Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics.

What I want you to do is to review the events that led David from shepherd to king, toppling the house of Saul while he was about it. These events can be found in 1 Samuel 16.1-31.13 (fin); 2 Samuel 1.1-5.25.

Scan these chapters, if you will, and compile a list of the principal events that turned the kingdom over from Saul to David. I recommend that you set this post aside until you do, but I also know that no one will actually do that. (I myself probably would not do that. I would forge on. Alas, we humans are a stubborn and curious race, often a lethal combination.)

When you are finished, your list might look something like this:

Samuel anoints David to be king, following the will of God himself.
David slays Goliath with a sling and a stone.
The women sing a song for David that ignites the jealousy of Saul.
David flees from the sight of Saul.
David feigns madness in a foreign court.
Rogues of all kinds begin to follow David round the country.
David spares the life of Saul in a cave.
David eats the shewbread.
Saul dies by a Philistine arrow.
David is anointed (again) as king of Judah.
All the tribes come to David.

This list is not meant to even approach the neighborhood of exhaustive. But, I warrant, whatever list you come up with will be brimming with the same kinds of events. Political machinations, acts of heroism, social unrest, battles, allegiances, aiding and abetting, and so forth. I want to emphasize that the hand of God is heavy all over these events. Samuel is not a secular history. The miraculous is not downplayed.

So what is the point of this list? Simply to compare what actually, historically happened with how David himself wrote it up later. I refer the reader to Psalm 18.1-19:

For the choir director. A psalm of David the servant of the LORD, who spoke to the LORD the words of this song in the day that the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul. And he said:

I love You, O LORD, my strength.

The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer,
My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge;
My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

I call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised,
And I am saved from my enemies.

The cords of death encompassed me,
And the torrents of ungodliness terrified me.

The cords of Sheol surrounded me;
The snares of death confronted me.

In my distress I called upon the LORD,
And cried to my God for help;
He heard my voice out of his temple,
And my cry for help before him came into his ears.

Then the earth shook and quaked;
And the foundations of the mountains were trembling
And were shaken, because he was angry.

Smoke went up out of his nostrils,
And fire from his mouth devoured;
Coals were kindled by it.

He bowed the heavens also, and came down
With thick darkness under his feet.

He rode upon a cherub and flew;
And he sped upon the wings of the wind.

He made darkness his hiding place, his canopy around him,
Darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.

From the brightness before him passed his thick clouds,
Hailstones and coals of fire.

The LORD also thundered in the heavens,
And the most high uttered his voice,
Hailstones and coals of fire.

He sent out his arrows, and scattered them,
And lightning flashes in abundance, and routed them.

Then the channels of water appeared,
And the foundations of the world were laid bare
At your rebuke, O LORD,
At the blast of the breath of your nostrils.

He sent from on high, he took me;
He drew me out of many waters.

He delivered me from my strong enemy,
And from those who hated me, for they were too mighty for me.

They confronted me in the day of my calamity,
But the LORD was my stay.

He brought me forth also into a broad place;
He rescued me, because he delighted in me.

Two things ought to be at once apparent to even the casual reader:

1. The psalm is a thanksgiving to God for his hand in events already accomplished. David is praising God for what has already happened in his life.

2. The boldfaced section of the psalm is of a different order than most of the rest of the psalm. Both before and after this section David speaks quite clearly of being delivered from enemies, and he uses language that a Christian general (almost an oxymoron for a semi-pacifist like me...) might well use after an important battle. But within the boldfaced section the language is very different. What is up with that?

The boldfaced section is apocalyptic, pure and simple. This important word comes from the Greek αποκαλυπτω, which means to unveil, to uncover, or to reveal. The noun form of this verb is the Greek title of the book of Revelation.

It is essential to grasp the importance of this term and its actual meaning. It does not in and of itself mean end-time events, the end of the world or of the age or even of the day, or who the Antichrist is supposed to be. It does not intrinsically mean prediction of the future. It means a tearing back of the veil of the heavens so that a mere human can catch a glimpse of the divine. Apocalyptic is an ancient genre that purports to do just that, to reveal what is happening in the heavenlies while human life is going onward on earth. Often this entails prediction; often it does not.

Read that boldfaced section by itself, without its immediate context. Examine the images:


The cords of death ensnared David.
The earth shook.
Smoke and fire came forth from the mouth and nostrils of the Lord.
The heavens bowed down.
The Lord himself came down, treading upon darkness.
Clouds, hailstones, and fiery coals surrounded him in his descent.
The foundations of the earth were laid bare.
Channels of water appeared, and David was drawn out of the many waters.


It ought to be evident that this list is of a very different nature than the list from 1 and 2 Samuel! Do those historical books record any of these tremendous prodigies?

No. And yes. No, because 1 and 2 Samuel record no literal events of this kind. Yes, because 1 and 2 Samuel record the God-guided historical events that inspired the profound apocalyptic imagery of Psalm 18.

I would like at this point to make a few observations so as to draw out some potential principles for interpreting apocalyptic passages:

1. Note how the change from simple straightforward language to apocalyptic language (and back again) is unmarked. The writer does not tell the reader that he is switching modes. It is up to the reader to notice that an apocalyptic mode has been engaged. How can one do this? The same way the ancients did it. By immersing oneself in the literature so much that telling the difference becomes second nature. We recognize our own peculiarities of language without thinking about them. So too the ancient Hebrews recognized when events were being described in apocalyptic mode.

2. This failure to mark off the passage in an obvious way paralyzes literalism. There is nothing in the psalm itself to prevent both the plain parts and the apocalyptic part from having literally happened. Being rescued from enemies and God descending bodily to earth walking on the clouds are not mutually exclusive. We know that the foundations of the world were not actually laid bare when David was running from Saul, but we do not know this from the psalm. It is our overall reading of genre and situation that tells us this.

3. There is in modern English no equivalent to apocalyptic writing. The closest that we get is when we speak metaphorically of earth-shaking events, knowing full well that the globe is not in any danger of splitting open. But this is just an expression. What we lack in modern English is the empowered and sustained discourse that the Hebrews had. They could keep the apocalyptic jargon going for pages when they wished. For us, apocalyptic is an occasional metaphor. For them, apocalyptic was a mode, even a genre. What does this mean for us as students of the text? It means that we cannot afford to be lax. We have to read widely enough to get a grasp of the peculiarities of the genres that confront us in the Bible. If we think that we can just open the book up, pick a passage, and read with understanding without having to take the gulf of time, space, and culture into account, we are sadly mistaken. That does not work for the Greek lyric poets, for the Latin historians, or for the Old English epic Beowulf. Why should it work for the ancient Hebrew prophets? I do not think that God ever grants us the gift of laziness.

Just a few halting strides toward a better understanding of the text.

In the holy name.

Etcetera.

[Ted]

Etcetera,

That's a good exercise, well presented. Please allow me to add a couple of confounding items.

1. I do not think you will get general agreement that the language in Psalm 18 is apocalyptic. Of course, you will have trouble finding an agreed definition to the term!

2. The well-accepted apocalytic literature, both canonical and non-canonical, contains several features. The prophet is carried into vision. He has an angelic guide. He sees incredible things. His report contains notable recapitulations.

3. There is no question that the key language you emphasize is hyperbolic. This is not unusual in Hebrew writing. DeeDee has pointed out "the worst that ever was and ever shall be" passages in other threads. These occur in succession, and on face value would be contradictory, but taken within the cultural context are not.

In sum, I would question the tag "apocalyptic" for this passage. It is certainly "over the top" to our ears, and is unquestionably hyperbolic. It's style is not unusual within the Hebrew literature. Are you sure you are not importing a modern connotation of "terminally cataclysmic" into the term "apocalyptic?"

Ted

[dizzle]

Great post Etcetera. I think I may ask your permission to use this on my site.

[Makarios]

1. The psalm is a thanksgiving to God for his hand in events already accomplished. David is praising God for what has already happened in his life.

While I agree with you that the poetic language in Ps. 18 refers to David's life, how do you know this refers to the entirety of David's life and not to one particular event (whether recorded in 1 & 2 Samual or not)?

[Etcetera]

Makarios:

Greetings in the holy name.

While I agree with you that the poetic language in Ps. 18 refers to David's life, how do you know this refers to the entirety of David's life and not to one particular event (whether recorded in 1 & 2 Samual or not)?

I do not know this, nor claimed to. Perhaps you misapprehended the thrust of my statement, or perhaps I stated it badly. What I meant was that David was referring to something that had already happened. The language that he uses (descending on clouds, laying the foundations of the earth bare) is that which we moderns tend to associate with the end of the physical universe, and often take literally. But it is clear that David is referring to a past event or series of events. So, if he says that the foundations of the earth were exposed (past tense), and we can be fairly confident that nothing quite so tumultuous literally happened in his lifetime, then he must be using highly symbolic language.

That, and not actually counting how many events are actually in view, was my point, for what it is worth. Thanks for the question.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Ted:

That's a good exercise, well presented.

Thank you.

Please allow me to add a couple of confounding items.

You have my permission. :wink:

1. I do not think you will get general agreement that the language in Psalm 18 is apocalyptic. Of course, you will have trouble finding an agreed definition to the term!

Indeed. Of course, as I mentioned that the exercise was inspired by Milton S. Terry, I was using his definition of apocalyptic. This definition of the term is in substance used by most of the scholars that I respect the most, most notably N. T. Wright (see his New Testament and the People of God). J. D. Crossan, while certainly differing in the significance of apocalyptic language, pretty much calls the same passages apocalyptic as Wright does.

In the end the term for it does not matter as much as the stark identification of a certain strain of linguistic wordplay. Whatever you wish to call it, it crops up in numerous spots in the OT and NT alike.

The well-accepted apocalytic literature, both canonical and non-canonical, contains several features. The prophet is carried into vision. He has an angelic guide. He sees incredible things. His report contains notable recapitulations.

You are referring to the apocalyptic genre. I intentionally varied the language in my piece between genre and mode. An entire work may be called apocalyptic if it has the spiritual guide and regular interpretations, but individual passages may be called apocalyptic if they bear the linguistic stamp that tends to characterize those works.

There is no question that the key language you emphasize is hyperbolic. This is not unusual in Hebrew writing. DeeDee has pointed out "the worst that ever was and ever shall be" passages in other threads. These occur in succession, and on face value would be contradictory, but taken within the cultural context are not.

Agreed.

In sum, I would question the tag "apocalyptic" for this passage. It is certainly "over the top" to our ears, and is unquestionably hyperbolic. It's style is not unusual within the Hebrew literature. Are you sure you are not importing a modern connotation of "terminally cataclysmic" into the term "apocalyptic?"

I have given a great deal of thought to the terminology of these kinds of passages, and have concluded, with Terry, Wright, and others (Caird, for instance, though I have read little of his work), that apocalyptic is the least confusing term for such passages. It sure beats the highly ambiguous term eschatological. And it is far more specific than a commonplace term like hyperbole. The term apocalyptic means taking away the veil, and that is exactly what all of these passages and even entire texts have in common. In the great apocalyptic works the veil is pulled back by an angelic guide in a vision; in the shorter passages it is pulled back by the visionary quality of the words themselves. In Psalm 18 David is seeing things, so to speak, that are usually invisible. What was visible was what we can read about in 1 and 2 Samuel (battles, power plays, and alliances). What was not visible to the naked eye was the direct intervention of God behind all of those events (much like a vision makes Daniel aware of direct intervention by God in the affairs of world empires). A term like hyperbole would not make this distinction.

Thanks for the insightful response.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Dee Dee:

Thanks for the compliment. If you want it, you can have it.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Makarios]

Makarios:

Greetings in the holy name.



I do not know this, nor claimed to. Perhaps you misapprehended the thrust of my statement, or perhaps I stated it badly. What I meant was that David was referring to something that had already happened. The language that he uses (descending on clouds, laying the foundations of the earth bare) is that which we moderns tend to associate with the end of the physical universe, and often take literally. But it is clear that David is referring to a past event or series of events. So, if he says that the foundations of the earth were exposed (past tense), and we can be fairly confident that nothing quite so tumultuous literally happened in his lifetime, then he must be using highly symbolic language.

That, and not actually counting how many events are actually in view, was my point, for what it is worth. Thanks for the question.

In him.

Etcetera.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree entirely.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Great post Etc. It just made the Dean's List. :thumb:

[John Reece]

Excellent, Etcetera.

Pure exegesis, honed to perfection.

Makes me :smile: .

[spiritmech]

Good stuff. One of the more interesting uses of Apocalyptic prior to the destruction of the first temple.

SM

[Etcetera]

Faramir, John Reece, and SpiritMech:

Thank you all for your kind remarks. Glad to be of exegetical service.

In the grace.

Etcetera.

[Terral]

Etcetera:
Etcetera: I do not know this, nor claimed to. Perhaps you misapprehended the thrust of my statement, or perhaps I stated it badly. What I meant was that David was referring to something that had already happened. The language that he uses (descending on clouds, laying the foundations of the earth bare) is that which we moderns tend to associate with the end of the physical universe, and often take literally. But it is clear that David is referring to a past event or series of events. So, if he says that the foundations of the earth were exposed (past tense), and we can be fairly confident that nothing quite so tumultuous literally happened in his lifetime, then he must be using highly symbolic language.
Your exercise in the OP will be greeted with applause by the Preterists and viewed a very deceptive by most everybody else. The fact that you are attempting to connect David’s writing to Christ’s prophecies in Matthew 24 is a matter that is buried below the surface. Your work seeks to mold the opinion of the unstable and untaught into accepting your interpretation that Christ is describing already fulfilled events in Matthew 24. We are to view His coming on the clouds and with His holy ones (Zech. 14:5, Matt. 24:30+31) as a past event like the way you have interpreted David’s experiences. The difference is that David is not speaking to his hand picked Disciples and Apostles who have questioned him about “Your coming” and the “end of the age” (Matt. 24:3) back in the OT. Preterism is constantly forwarding explanations about what ‘could be’ given specific circumstances, instead of simply reading the Bible for what is clearly written.

Every symbolic phrase of a prophetic event in Scripture is describing something that is literal. How does John describe an army with tanks and armored vehicles to a people living 2000 years ago? “and the heads of the horses are like the heads of lions; and out of their mouths proceed fire and smoke and brimstone. A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues, by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which proceeded out of their mouths.” Rev. 9:17+18. Are we to believe that John is describing literal horses with fire coming out of their mouths to destroy one third of mankind? No. However, John is describing one third of mankind being killed by something that is very real and literal. We do not take the truths being conveyed in these passages and toss them into the trash over his use of the symbolic language. The reason we calculate that these events are still future is over the fact that none of these things have yet been fulfilled on this planet.

Preterists also enjoy transforming literal language into figurative expressions to prop up their Preterism. A good example is found in the prophecies of Zechariah 14:3+4 where he describes the events leading up to “Your coming” and the “end of the age.”
“Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him!* In that day there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle.” Zechariah 14:3-6.
How many stones shall remain upon the other, when such an earthquake strikes the region of the Mount of Olives at the end of the age? And yet, the Preterists here claim that Zechariah’s twin references to the “Mount of Olives” are to “Peoples” who shall be “split in two” at the “end of the age.” How difficult is it to visualize Christ’s coming in Matthew 24 (30+31) with Zechariah’s statements above*? Even though these are the only two references of the phrase “Mount of Olives” in the entire OT, the Preterists are perfectly willing to dismiss the connections between Zechariah 14 and Matthew 24. After all, the Mount of Olives on the east of Jerusalem was not split in two in 70 AD, when they claim Christ returned and fulfilled the prophesies of Matthew 24. They are far too selective about when, where and why Scripture is literal and symbolic to explain away the truth of Scripture, IMHO. Therefore, your OP exercise is seen as a tool to soften up the minds of the untaught to better receive your claims that even the literal statements of Scripture are some kind of symbolic language. This is all part of the Preterist shell game that must be played in order to deceive the unstable into accepting explanations using redefined terms they pass off as ‘sound doctrine.’

Enough of the smoke and mirror / cloak and dagger exercises . . . If you have an ‘end of the age’ interpretation that the prophecies of Matthew 24 were fulfilled in 70 AD to present on this Board, then just come out and say so.

In Christ,

Terral

[Xavier]

Etcetera:

[font=Georgia][size=3]Your exercise in the OP will be greeted with applause by the Preterists and viewed a very deceptive by most everybody else.

Methinks this has much more to do with your inability to understand the point than anything else...

But hey, we've only been telling you to read up on Apocalyptic literature for about 2 months now...

Yours,
Xavier

[Terral]

Xavier:
Xavier >> Methinks this has much more to do with your inability to understand the point than anything else . . . But hey, we've only been telling you to read up on Apocalyptic literature for about 2 months now . . .
This is where you use this opportunity to explain ‘the point,’ as if you are really talking about anything specific . . . What kind of Apocalyptic literature to you suppose the people of David’s era had in order to understand his writing? Etcetera is describing the differences in interpretations that people can derive from using explanations based upon ‘literal’ versus ‘symbolic’ understandings of passages. I am reading Zechariah 14 as literal descriptions of the “Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east” being “split in its middle from east to west.” Zech. 14:4. Faramir has concocted a “Mount of Olives” = “peoples” interpretation that is based upon transforming the “Mount of Olives” into a figurative phrase representing something else, according to the Etceteraorian principles described in the OP of this thread. In case you are unaware, the term “apocalyptic” means “forcasting the ultimate destiny of the world” http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=apocalyptic (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=apocalyptic) . Ted challenged Etcetera’s use of the term in Post #2 and point #1, and I whole heartedly agree. David is hardly describing the ultimate destiny of the world, and Etcetera is misusing the term in order to try and equate the writings of David with Christ’s prophetic ‘end of the age’ statements in Matthew 24. The exercise in the OP of this thread lays down the foundation for Preterist Propaganda by opening the door for most any literal expression in Scripture to be deemed something symbolic of something else.

In Christ,

Terral

[Xavier]

Xavier:

[font=Georgia][size=3]This is where you use this opportunity to explain ‘the point,’ as if you are really talking about anything specific . . .

If you don't understand, just say so... No one is going to point and laugh. They will, however, point and laugh if you continue in this arrogant display of ignorance.

Try to understand the point being made...

Yours,
Xavier

[Etcetera]

Terral:

The fact that you are attempting to connect David’s writing to Christ’s prophecies in Matthew 24 is a matter that is buried below the surface.... If you have an ‘end of the age’ interpretation that the prophecies of Matthew 24 were fulfilled in 70 AD to present on this Board, then just come out and say so.

Buried below the surface? My post made it clear that I was indeed making connections to all apocalyptic passages, within which I would of course include Matthew 24-25, but also much of Isaiah, some of Jeremiah, much of Ezekiel, much of Zechariah, Mark 13, Luke 17, Luke 21, 1 Thessalonians 4-5, most of Revelation, Didache 16, and quite a few other passages.

Your exercise in the OP will be greeted with applause by the Preterists and viewed as very deceptive by most everybody else.

Your work seeks to mold the opinion of the unstable and untaught into accepting your interpretation....

Preterists also enjoy transforming literal language into figurative expressions to prop up their Preterism.

Therefore, your OP exercise is seen as a tool to soften up the minds of the untaught....

This is all part of the Preterist shell game that must be played in order to deceive the unstable into accepting explanations using redefined terms they pass off as ‘sound doctrine.’

Enough of the smoke and mirror / cloak and dagger exercises....

Terral, whence this animosity? Did I offend you on another board under a different name or something?

I will be happy to exchange views and resources on these matters... just as soon as the sour tone can be remedied. You are a brother in the Lord. I will debate you. I will not argue with you.

In him.

Etcetera.

[dizzle]

Dee Dee:

Thanks for the compliment. If you want it, you can have it.

In him.

Etcetera.

Thank you. I would like to include this with that other piece that another member wrote on purple cows and eschatology.

[Etcetera]

For the benefit of those interested in defining the term apocalyptic, I offer the definition listed in the American Heritage Dictionary under that entry:

Of or pertaining to a prophetic disclosure or revelation.

That is all. No sub-entries. Under apocalypse it has (with an uppercase A) the last book of the Bible, then it has (with a lowercase a):

A prophetic disclosure; revelation.

Again, that is all. This definition is a bare-bones version of that with which I am working. My definition is well supported by competent scholarship, as well as by the Greek roots behind the word, which have nothing inherently to do with either angelic guides or the end of the universe (both of which would fall under, but not circumscribe, the mode or genre of apocalyptic).

Etcetera.

[Terral]

Etcetera:
Again, that is all. This definition is a bare-bones version of that with which I am working. My definition is well supported by competent scholarship, as well as by the Greek roots behind the word, which have nothing inherently to do with either angelic guides or the end of the universe (both of which would fall under, but not circumscribe, the mode or genre of apocalyptic).
Then your work has nothing to do with Eschatology. “A branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of mankind.” http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Eschatology&x=11&y=15 (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Eschatology&x=11&y=15) . In that case your Apocalyptic Exercise is more of a deceitful presentation in this Eschatology Forum than previously realized. The very first Greek term used in the Book of Revelation is “Apokalupsis” (#602) or “The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave . . .” (Rev. 1:1), about things which will come to pass in the future. There is a vast difference between your dictionary meaning and how this term is being used in Revelation. These events include such things as “the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.” Rev. 3:10. All the green grass is burned in Rev. 8:7, and one third of mankind is killed in Rev. 9:18. Heaven and earth itself passes away in Rev. 20:11 to make way for the new heavens and new earth in Rev. 21:1. We know these things are still future, because they have yet to be fulfilled. I believe your definition of this term is as suspect as those you refer to as ‘competent scholars.’

In Christ,

Terral

[dizzle]

:no:

[{Undersecretary of Internal Affairs}]

*** WARNING ** PARODY ALERT ***
I see your work is related to Eschatology. “A branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of mankind.” http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Eschatology&x=11&y=15 . In that case your Apocalyptic Exercise is much more relevant to this Eschatology Forum than previously realized. The very first Greek term used in the Book of Revelation is “Apokalupsis” (#602) or “The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave . . .” (Rev. 1:1), about things which will come to pass in the author's future. There is virtually no difference between your dictionary meaning and how this term is being used in Revelation. These events include such things as “the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.” Rev. 3:10. All the green grass is burned in Rev. 8:7, and one third of mankind is killed in Rev. 9:18. Heaven and earth itself passes away in Rev. 20:11 to make way for the new heavens and new earth in Rev. 21:1, and all of these are examples of apocalyptic writing. As preteists, we know these things are past, because they have already been fulfilled. I believe your definition of this term is acceptable, as you reference competent scholars to support it. :hehe: :poke:

[Terral]

Etcetera:
Etcetera >> Buried below the surface? My post made it clear that I was indeed making connections to all apocalyptic passages, within which I would of course include Matthew 24-25, but also much of Isaiah, some of Jeremiah, much of Ezekiel, much of Zechariah, Mark 13, Luke 17, Luke 21, 1 Thessalonians 4-5, most of Revelation, Didache 16, and quite a few other passages.
Then what are we supposed to do with this series of statements?
Etcetera in Post #19 >> For the benefit of those interested in defining the term apocalyptic, I offer the definition listed in the American Heritage Dictionary under that entry: Of or pertaining to a prophetic disclosure or revelation. That is all. No sub-entries. Under apocalypse it has (with an uppercase A) the last book of the Bible, then it has (with a lowercase a): A prophetic disclosure; revelation. Again, that is all. This definition is a bare-bones version of that with which I am working. My definition is well supported by competent scholarship, as well as by the Greek roots behind the word, which have nothing inherently to do with either angelic guides or the end of the universe (both of which would fall under, but not circumscribe, the mode or genre of apocalyptic).
Etcetera >> Terral, whence this animosity? Did I offend you on another board under a different name or something?
No sir. I am put off by the constant use of 'bait and switch' shell game tactics used by Preterists on this Board. What are you writing about this time, Apocalypse or apocalypse? How can you be using your American Heritage definition (small a) “and that is all,” AND write about the ‘end time’ events of Revelation (big A)? I am saying that you are obviously a Preterist holding a hat filled with interpretations saying the events of Matthew 24 were fulfilled in 70 AD. The exercise in your OP was designed to prepare the way for these explanations based upon ‘symbolic versus literal’ (or visa versa) interpretations associated with “Your coming” and the “End of the Age” (Matt. 24:3). I am saying “enough of the posturing” and “get on with the business of revealing the precepts and doctrines of your Preterism.” There is nothing to debate, because you have yet to say anything. Every Preterist here stands on a soapbox and gives us a lecture leading up to proving that Christ was talking to ‘this generation’ (Matt. 24:34) living 2000 years ago, even though Christ has no clue about when any of those things take place (vs. 36). Since we all know that is exactly where you are heading, just cut to the chase and get there already . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[dizzle]

:no:

[Etcetera]

Hmmm. One last attempt to keep peace in the body of Christ before bowing out....

No sir. I am put off by the constant use of 'bait and switch' shell game tactics used by Preterists on this Board.

Terral, when I wrote the following words...:

I would like at this point to make a few observations so as to draw out some potential principles for interpreting apocalyptic passages....

...I meant for the reader to instantly think of Daniel, and Revelation, and Matthew 24-25, and Mark 13, and Luke 21, and parts of Zechariah and Joel, and other passages. There was no bait-and-switch. It was my intention that the reader compare Psalm 18 with passages of a similar texture.

Whether you accept or reject the connection is, well, up to you. But to accuse me of deception is like a border guard accusing a tourist of smuggling a bottle of tequila, when the tourist is wearing it on a chain around his neck with a big flashing neon sign that says: Tequila. Such an action on the part of the tourist may be a mistake, but it is not smuggling.

Likewise, my piece may be completely mistaken, but it was not a bait-and-switch. What you thought you saw lurking under the surface I meant to be plain as day. The only thing is that I did not have Matthew 24-25 specifically in mind to the exclusion of other passages. When I mentioned interpreting apocalyptic passages, I meant just that. Whichever apocalyptic passages you may prefer to study. If I have mislabelled Psalm 18 as apocalyptic, then my thesis is wrong. But it was not (meant to be) deceptive in any case.

Peace?

Etcetera.

[Makarios]

Hmmm. One last attempt to keep peace in the body of Christ before bowing out....

Etcetera, don't count on Terral being anything but ignorant, arrogant and abusive.

I have had conversations with many atheists and cultists where there was a greater attempt to be civilized than with him.

P.S. I would LOVE to be proven wrong about him in this thread, but I won't hold my breath.