Eschatology and Purple Cows

[dizzle]

I remember as a futurist the first time that I heard the orthodox preterist view of the Great Tribulation. My reaction went something like.....

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR COTTON-PICKING MIND?!?!?!?!?

I mean come on now!!! It was so obviously wrong. When was the whole planet wrecked two thousand years ago?
When did the sun turn black and the moon turn to blood and all that other dreadfully nasty stuff happen?

Well now that I am on the other side of the fence, I fnd myself constantly :argh: against these very same presuppositions that I once held. Very often what happens is that a futurist will simply assume that his interpretation of the scope of this event is correct and then write off the preterist as a nut.

Well in one of these recent conversations, Automatthew brought forward this very clever illustration which to me cuts through the very thick question begging that can sometimes completely overwhelm some futurists' responses.....

Analogy:
---
Someone who is considered an Authority prophesies a certain event to come. The prophecy reads, in part, "On the day of the great event, a purple cow's hide will be displayed for everyone to see."

Two schools of interpretation soon arise with very different ideas of the prophecy's meaning; on one side, the Globalists; on the other, the Sacrificialists. The Globalists believe that, on the day in question, the whole sky over the entire world will have the appearance of purple fur. The Sacrificialists believe that a purple cow will be sacrificed and flayed, and the hide will be nailed to the roof of a Volkswagen Beetle and driven to the town square "for everyone to see." The Globalists hold that the day of the great event has not yet arrived, but the Sacrificialists believe that the day has long since come and gone.

Now I, the ignorant observer, cannot judge between the interpretations because I am not sufficiently familiar with the prophecy or the history of the society. But I can fairly judge whether or not the arguments of each side are being addressed by the other side. Here's how the Globalists are arguing:

G: How can the Great Event have already happened? Wouldn't you remember if the sky had turned into purple fur in your lifetime? And wouldn't you expect that at least one historian would write at least an entry in his diary saying, "Ho hum, boring day. Oh, yes, the sky did briefly turn purple and furry today."?

S: No, you don't understand. The great event that was prophesied did not involve a purple, furry sky. I can say that the great event has already passed because we believe that the prophecy concerns the sacrifice of a purple cow and the subsequent display of the cow's hide. This happened in 1963, shortly after the Beatles first number 1 single.

G: So you think that the Great Event took place within living memory, in the 1960s? So why didn't the Beatles write a song about it? This is the Great frickin' Event, you know. Why wasn't the whole world talking about it?

S: Because the sacrifice and flaying of a purple cow in Abilene, Texas, is not considered to be a noteworthy event in most of the rest of the world. Maybe PETA would be interested, but who else?

G: But, dude, the Great Event would have been seen by the whole world, because the whole sky turned purple and furry. Don't you remember how the prophecy says "a cow's hide will be displayed for all to see?"

In short, the Globalists are not just begging a question, they're begging the root question, i.e. "What does the prophecy say is going to happen."
---

Dispensationalists: You're begging the root question. If the preterists' interpretation of Olivet and Revelation is correct, then asking why the whole world didn't realize that the prophecies had been fulfilled is foolish. "But their interpretation is not correct," you say. That's begging the question.

[efta777]

Interesting analogy...

[Lizard]

I think I like it better the second time. :thumb: :thumb:

Two thumbs up.

[joelkaki]

Pretty good analogy--never heard it like that before.


Joel

[dizzle]

This month's Biblical Worldview magazine has an article, "Limited Geograhy and Biblical Interpretation." Sweet.

[Carl Smuda]

"I never saw a purple cow
I never hope to see one
but this I'll tell you anyhow
I'd rather see than be one."

:rockon:

[dizzle]

bump

[bar Jonah]

02-07-2003 @ 01:59 PM
Carl Smuda:

"I never saw a purple cow
I never hope to see one
but this I'll tell you anyhow
I'd rather see than be one."

:rockon:
A one-L lama, he's a priest
A two-L llama, he's a beast
But I will bet a silk pajama
There isn't any 3-L lllama!

Ogden Nash :dufus:

[Red Rooster]

Dee Dee,

You're right, the Globalist rightly asks, "What does the prophecy say is going to happen?" The prophecy states that EVERYONE will see. The context and grammatical construction in the original language determines what EVERYONE means. The analogy is weak because it doesn't address this fundamental issue for interpreting the meaning of EVERYONE. What was the intent of the author in his use of that word in context? How has the author used the word in other passages? If his use of EVERYONE in other places clearly refers to a global everyone, and the plain meaning of the word is "all people", then the Sacrificialists are in for a purple surpise!

I'll have fun watching this one.

His Peace,
Red Rooster

[dizzle]

Hey Red Rooster, I have something totally devastating on the tip of my tongue, but guess what.. you must "in" on some vibe, because I have asked automatthew to expand upon this piece for a featured article. So let's hold off on discussion until then...... it will be interesting to do it then.

[spl_cadet]

Hey, you posted it on my birthday! :bunny:

[Jaltus]

Interesting analogy, but it neglects that there are also other prophecies that allegedly look the same, but with added stipulations.

More accurately the debate would be:

Sacrificialists: See, it already happened.

Globalists: Then why is it that, at the time of the Purple Cow Crisis (TM), the Great Red Banana did not appear as mentioned elsewhere?

Sacrificialists: Because it is talking about something else.

Globalists: No it's not, it comes in a section that talks about the Purple Cow Crisis (TM).

etc.

[automatthew]

Greetings, all.

I'm going to reply to the points made by Red Rooster and Jaltus in what I'm sure will be a very unsatisfying way.

Reason: I'm firmly planted on the fence.

It is an uncomfortable fence. In fact, I'm chafing like an idiot up here. The firm planting, however, is that of ignorance; I do not know enough about biblical eschatology to argue convincingly one way or another. My analogy was formulated as an ad hoc response to a discourse much darkened by words without knowledge. The Parable of the Purple Cow addresses a procedural problem, a logical problem, with the discussion that was in progress.

Red Rooster:
The analogy is weak because it doesn't address this fundamental issue for interpreting the meaning of EVERYONE. What was the intent of the author in his use of that word in context?



Jaltus:
Interesting analogy, but it neglects that there are also other prophecies that allegedly look the same, but with added stipulations.



The analogy was intentionally limited in this way to avoid proving either view. Let us stipulate that a rich body of prophecy exists that supplements the Purple Cow bit and that would definitively prove one interpretation over another if only the disputants would consider it. Well and good. But my parable's thrust is in a different direction entirely.

What was it trying to prove? That the futurists were assuming elements of their own interpretation to be correct and applying those assumptions to the preterist framework, then crowing "Contradiction!"

I purposely made the whole thing silly to show an equal respect for both interpretations. This parable does not favor one view over the other, nor should it be taken to denigrate allegorically either futurism or preterism; the parable convicts some particular disputants of logical impropriety. I would not expect present company to offer the kind of fallacious arguments that were absolutely dominant among the futurists in that thread.

Your questions, gentlemen, were the kind sorely needed in the original discussion. Remember, though, the reason given by Dee Dee for reproducing the parable here:

Very often what happens is that a futurist will simply assume that his interpretation of the scope of this event is correct and then write off the preterist as a nut.

[This] illustration . . . cuts through the very thick question begging that can sometimes completely overwhelm some futurists' responses.



Matthew

[dizzle]

Does anyone else find it funny that we have a Red Rooster talking about a Purple Cow?

And Matthew, I loved the idea in your email. I will get with you by email further.

[Bill the Cat]

I heard a lady out in Montreal saw a vision of the sky turning into purple wool... The city was swarmed!! :rofl:

[automatthew]

I heard a lady out in Montreal saw a vision of the sky turning into purple wool...


Within hours, M & M Enterprises CEO Milo Minderbinder had purchased most of the available real estate in Quebec, citing a desire to "corner the burgeoning purple wool market."

[Jaltus]

I purposely made the whole thing silly to show an equal respect for both interpretations. This parable does not favor one view over the other, nor should it be taken to denigrate allegorically either futurism or preterism; the parable convicts some particular disputants of logical impropriety.

Actually, the way it is written, it mocks futurists. I see nothing of even-handedness.

[dizzle]

I believe Matthew meant even-handedness in not advocating one point of view over another, but he defintiely was critical of the methods some futurists employ when debating preterists. In being critical of the method, he was not critical of the correctness of their view or incorrectness.

[automatthew]

No mockery is present in any form. Accusation, yes. Mockery, no.

Two silly interpretations of a silly prophecy are described. Then an argument between the two sides takes place. Finally, the connection is made between the allegory and the discussion preceding the analogy. At no time are futurist views or their proponents mocked.

The point of the entire exercise was to illustrate the gross question-begging perpetrated by a specific group of futurists in a specific thread on another website. Dee Dee resurrected the parable to illustrate a more general difficulty present in futurist-preterist relations.

Jaltus,
I'm interested in knowing what parts appeared mocking toward futurists or futurism, so I can rewrite the parable accordingly. The last section, where I told certain futurists that they were begging the question, is not a part of the parable; it is merely the application to a particular time and place.

[Jaltus]

I believe Matthew meant even-handedness in not advocating one point of view over another, but he defintiely was critical of the methods some futurists employ when debating preterists. In being critical of the method, he was not critical of the correctness of their view or incorrectness.

That I'll buy.

[dizzle]

Today @ 05:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146853#post146853)
automatthew:

The point of the entire exercise was to illustrate the gross question-begging perpetrated by a specific group of futurists in a specific thread on another website. Dee Dee resurrected the parable to illustrate a more general difficulty present in futurist-preterist relations.

Exactly my point was no longer geared towards some past debate because what happened, happens frequently, and this is a common barrier in meaningful futurist/preterist dialog, so I resurrected here to use as a foundation to have meaningful dialog here.

Let me use another prevalent example to demonstrate automatthew's point. I am not OV,yet I get frustrated at the question-beggign and improper assumptions that are foisted upon OVers without proper predicate by nonOV. The immediately point to predictive propehcy and say hey, that proves God "sees" the future. Of course from the nonOV perspective it does, but that argument talks right past the OVer and the nonOVer must at least try to meet them where they are at, and accurately represent/understand their position before attempting to defeat it. I find there are precious little futurists who debate me that understand my position, and my nights are alight with blazing strawmen. This definitely was not resurrected by me as a slam against futurists, or even as a reference to the ad hoc situation in which it was written but as a general philosophy piece. It struck me as jsut so true when I read it, that I so appreciated automatthew for it, especially considering that he is not (yet) a preterist and saw the disconnect in communications, and this principle is transferable to numerous other debates, not just eschatology.



I'm interested in knowing what parts appeared mocking toward futurists or futurism, so I can rewrite the parable accordingly. The last section, where I told certain futurists that they were begging the question, is not a part of the parable; it is merely the application to a particular time and place.

Yes that would be helpful to see where it was seen that way, especially if you do agree to do the rewrite/expansion as it certainly is not intended to be a viewpoint slam.

[automatthew]

Yes that would be helpful to see where it was seen that way, especially if you do agree to do the rewrite/expansion as it certainly is not intended to be a viewpoint slam.


I'm excited about writing an article, but I suspect that I'm about to bite off more than I can chew with my current teeth. Time to get out the file and sharpen them, eh?

[Thomas2003]

Excuse me, but didn't Cornelius Van Til settle this matter of presuppositionalism 50 years ago?

I'm a little slow sometimes, but aren't you simply arguing that each position is based upon pre-theoretical axioms that then determines their presuppositions and thus guides their Biblical interpretation - hence it is impossible to actually have a meaningful discouse between the two sides on interpretation without first addressing their presuppositions?

Cordially,

Thomas

[automatthew]

I'm a little slow sometimes, but aren't you simply arguing that each position is based upon pre-theoretical axioms that then determines their presuppositions and thus guides their Biblical interpretation - hence it is impossible to actually have a meaningful discouse between the two sides on interpretation without first addressing their presuppositions?


Yes, mostly, but I'm going to quibble.

In theory, this should be trivial; both sides of a dispute over interpretation ought to be familiar with the claims of the other side. In practice, you frequently find at least one side arguing about leaves when they should be looking to the branches or the trunk. Such was the case in the original context of my parable.

Disputants must be aware of their opponents' premises, or at least that the other side has differing premises. I'm not sure that the conflicting premises must be addressed before critical discussion is possible, if addressed means resolved. I don't think that the premises of disputing interpretations have to be axioms, pre-theoretical or presuppositional. Ideally each side recognizes the implicitly conjectural nature of its theory. If every dispute is grounded in divergent, pre-cognitive, unexamined axioms, what hope is there of critical discussion? All discourse devolves into conflicts of frameworks.

Karl Popper argued against this idea in The Myth of the Framework. He defines the myth so: "A rational and fruitful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions..." Against this cornerstone of cultural relativism, Popper argues that rational discourse is possible even between groups that disagree radically. At the very least, critical discussion teaches each side the strengths and weakness of its own theories--no small gain. At its best, a culture of critical discussion allows the holders of clashing frameworks to address common problems, avoiding tiresome argument over conflicting premises. This is not to say that challenging frameworks and their set of assumptions is off limits at all times; we should be wary of doing so in discussions where specific frameworks and assumptions are not the primary topic. When a framework is challenged, it should be done on its own terms, not using conclusions that follow from the other guy's framework.

[automatthew]

Excuse me, but didn't Cornelius Van Til settle this matter of presuppositionalism 50 years ago?



I'll confess to having been ignorant of presuppositionalism until about 5 minutes ago. The website I found tells me this:



Van Til's distinctive approach is 'presuppositionalism', which may be defined as insistence on an ultimate category of thought or a conceptual framework which one must assume in order to make a sensible interpretation of reality: 'The issue between believers and non-believers in Christian theism cannot be settled by a direct appeal to "facts" or "laws" whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to the debate. The question is rather as to what is the final reference-point required to make the "facts" and the "laws" intelligible. The question is as to what the "facts" and "laws" really are. Are they what the non-Christian methodology assumes they are? Are they what the Christian theistic methodology presupposes they are?' (Defense of the Faith, Philadelphia, 1967).

Not only to 'prove' biblical Christianity but to make sense of any fact in the world Van Til holds that one must presuppose the reality of the 'self-contained' triune God and the self-attesting revelation of the Scriptures. From this basis, the redeemed person then reasons 'analogically',' attempting 'to think God's thoughts after him'. This means humans may know reality truly (for God, in whose image they are created, knows it truly), but not exhaustively (for God is infinite and they are finite).

The presuppositionalist endeavors to convince the unregenerate first by demonstrating that, on unregenerate presuppositions of chance occurrence in an impersonal universe, one cannot account for any sort of order and rationality. Next, he tries to show that life and reality make sense only on the basis of Christian presuppositions.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/webpages54/ap/presup.html



I suspect I'm missing something here, because this seems alternately trivial and overreaching. For those less ignorant, is this a fair summation?

Matthew

[automatthew]

After reading a few more pages on presuppositionalism, I realize that this thread is not the right place to raise my questions. To answer Thomas's original post, I have some presuppositions to presuppositionalism :smile:. Namely, I think Popper's methodology of conjectures and refutations is a better starting point. I can agree with the conclusions of the presuppositionalists, for the most part, but my road there diverges.

[Red Rooster]

Automatthew, Cool name by the way,
Thanks for doing the homework on presuppositionalism. I am relieved that there are others who were clueless about this, (and Van Til, I never heard of him either) and that I did not have to confess my ignorance without someone else doing so before me. To certain degrgee, I agree with Thomas. We must strive to set aside our bias when we come to the text to determine its intended meaning. Everyone has their cultural influence, denominational distinctives, faith traditions and life experiences that color how we interpret scripture. The challenge is to minimize those personal biases. Not easy for any of us. As we venture into eschatology in this debate, I hope we can each do this with some degree of success.

His Peace,
Rooster

[automatthew]

We must strive to set aside our bias when we come to the text to determine its intended meaning. Everyone has their cultural influence, denominational distinctives, faith traditions and life experiences that color how we interpret scripture. The challenge is to minimize those personal biases. Not easy for any of us. As we venture into eschatology in this debate, I hope we can each do this with some degree of success.


I almost can agree. As a Popperian critical rationalist, though, I think it's impossible to approach any problem without a preconceived framework. The idea is to be intentional about your preconceptions; consider all knowledge to be nothing better than unrefuted conjectures, theoretical expectations. There is no such thing as a blank slate approach, Popper would say.

Matthew

[dizzle]

Matt wrote the expanded article, featured here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=188735#post188735

Please come participate.

[dizzle]

:grave:

[studyhound]

:sad:

[dizzle]

Why you frowning?

[studyhound]

Why you frowning?
Putting a thread to rest is never a good thing :wink:

[Lizard]

Of all the theads that have been dug up recently......




This one is the bomb. :thumb:

[dizzle]

Do you remember it's original context? It was just prior to the exodus.

[Lizard]

Do you remember it's original context? It was just prior to the exodus.
I remember it quite well. It was in the "No Preterism in the ECF" or similarly titled thread.

The argument went something like this:


Noname Futurist(s): Preterism must be wrong, becasue there was never a world wide tribulation in 70 AD.

Newcomer Faramir (with only a little help from DD :wink:): Hello, Preterism does not teach a world wide tribulation in AD 70. It is local.

Noname: But the bible clearly teaches a world wide tribulation.

Me (and ocasionally DD, JP had already been banned): No preterist say the Bible teaches a local tribulation.

Noname: Aha, you admit that there was no world wide tribulation. See we are right you a wrong nanner nanner nanner.

Solly (who was a righteous preterist at the time :grin:): Hello, preteris say that the tribulation was local and that the bible teache that the tribulation was local.

(repeat about 5 times with slight variation)

Enter Matt: "Puple Cow"


OK , I may be exagerating the lack of help I was getting from Dee Dee, but remember I was only involved at *** for about 3 weeks before the exodus. I was still a newbie caught in the middle of it all. It was a bit overwhelming.


But I remeber well that Matt's "Purple Cow" post made my day. :grin:

[dizzle]

I love the parable. It goes to so many other issues of debate where the opponents or more particularly one side is talking past the other. Generally speaking preterists understand exactly what futurists are saying and arguing, but unfortunately many futurists do not take the time to understand what they are opposing.

I see this in OV debates as well. Iam solidly NOT OV, but it drives me crazy when I see bad arguments against it such as

Non-OV- "You are limiting God, He can do anything, including know the future."

OV - "All of us limit God. He cannot do that which is impossible, such as not exist, or that which is outside His nature. We believe that the future does not exist to be know, and thus impossible. We like you believe that God can do anything that is possible to be done. We don't limit God any more than you do."

Non-OV - "Ah ha, you admit that God cannot know the future, you God-limiter you."

Now that is a simplification as well but not too far from some conversations I have seen. I may be more sensitive to this being a preterist and having inane arguments sprung on me.

(JP was in rare form in that debate wasn't he?)