Announcement

Collapse

Eschatology 201 Guidelines

This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.


Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.

However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.

End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.

Millennialism- post-, pre- a-

Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.

From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.

OK folks, let's roll!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What is the Preterist take on Ezekiel 36-39? If fulfilled in the past, when?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
    The “literal interpretation” is the one intended by the original human author (whatever authorship may mean in a given case). In that sense, passages like Ezekiel 38-39 are to be “taken literally” - even though the events described are fantasy. The literal truth of Rev 12 is, not that a Great Red Dragon will fall down from the skies, but that satan and his power will be overthrown. The fantastic details of the texts in these books are not the theological meanings intended by the sacred authors, but are the vehicles of the meanings intended. This distinction between vehicle and meaning is not a reason to disregard the letter of the text - because the letter is what gives access to the meanings and their vehicles. So the concept of “literal meaning” is a bit more complex and ambiguous than is sometimes realised.
    The concept of 'literal meaning' is rather less complex when one sticks with the actual meaning of 'literal'. Words don't mean what we think they should mean.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      The concept of 'literal meaning' is rather less complex when one sticks with the actual meaning of 'literal'. Words don't mean what we think they should mean.
      The concept is unhelpfully ambiguous - which often leads to over-extending the use of the concept, and applying it when a concept like historicity, or truth, would be more illuminating. There is also the question of the use of language, which leads to things like literary genres, idioms, and rhetorical figures. These all convey meaning - but not in the same manner.

      Not to forget that not all texts are written in letters, *literae* : Chinese & Sumerian come to mind. Yet both have left a large literature. Cuneiform signs are polysemous, but the notion of literality cannot cope with polysemy; a polysemous sign has more than one value; and most cuneiform signs have several. Which of them one chooses depends not only on the language being translated, but also on the semantic function that the sign is intended to serve in a given context. These complexities caused a lot of problems - and mistakes - in the early days of cuneiform decipherment, between about 1850 & 1900.

      So the “literal meaning” of a text has quite a few aspects.
      Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 11-26-2019, 09:39 PM.

      Comment

      widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
      Working...
      X