When reading preterist answers to dispensational interpretations, I see things often ruling out a dispy interpretation because the language could only fit the context of the ancients (warfare with bows and arrows and horses). This makes sense to me, taken the passage in the literal way and not seeing it as a reference to future missile attacks and all that, but when I approach a passage like Isaiah 2, where the future peace of the world is prophesied, I encounter the same kind of language.

Isaiah 2:4 (ESV)

He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

Does this passage have to have a past fulfillment, since it describes beating swords (which are no longer used for most warfare today) into plowshares, and not machine guns? From what I understand most see this as unfulfilled as of yet. Why are the interpretations different?

(Forgive me for the lack of references concerning the passages I mentioned in the first paragraph. They don't come to mind, but I figure most people who deal with eschatology will recognize them as the passages about people invading israel from the north, can't recall the passage though. Think it's somewhere in ezekiel).

Originally posted by A Cup of No

When reading preterist answers to dispensational interpretations, I see things often ruling out a dispy interpretation because the language could only fit the context of the ancients (warfare with bows and arrows and horses). This makes sense to me, taken the passage in the literal way and not seeing it as a reference to future missile attacks and all that, but when I approach a passage like Isaiah 2, where the future peace of the world is prophesied, I encounter the same kind of language.

Isaiah 2:4 (ESV)

He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

Does this passage have to have a past fulfillment, since it describes beating swords (which are no longer used for most warfare today) into plowshares, and not machine guns? From what I understand most see this as unfulfilled as of yet. Why are the interpretations different?

(Forgive me for the lack of references concerning the passages I mentioned in the first paragraph. They don't come to mind, but I figure most people who deal with eschatology will recognize them as the passages about people invading israel from the north, can't recall the passage though. Think it's somewhere in ezekiel).

Understand the context he was writting to also. He was writting to the 7 first century churches in Asia ... would they have in any way been able to comprehend "turning the machine guns and missiles into farm tractors" ?? The letter had to be able to be understood by the audience, let alone John himself.

Originally posted by A Cup of No

When reading preterist answers to dispensational interpretations, I see things often ruling out a dispy interpretation because the language could only fit the context of the ancients (warfare with bows and arrows and horses). This makes sense to me, taken the passage in the literal way and not seeing it as a reference to future missile attacks and all that, but when I approach a passage like Isaiah 2, where the future peace of the world is prophesied, I encounter the same kind of language.

Isaiah 2:4 (ESV)

He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

Does this passage have to have a past fulfillment, since it describes beating swords (which are no longer used for most warfare today) into plowshares, and not machine guns? From what I understand most see this as unfulfilled as of yet. Why are the interpretations different?

(Forgive me for the lack of references concerning the passages I mentioned in the first paragraph. They don't come to mind, but I figure most people who deal with eschatology will recognize them as the passages about people invading israel from the north, can't recall the passage though. Think it's somewhere in ezekiel).

The reason that passages talking about arrows, swords, etc. can not (consistently) fit a futurist paradigm is because dispy hermenutics "demands" a literal interpretation. (except when arrows = nuclear missles).



It is the inherent inconsistancies that cause dispy eschatology to collapse IMO. They say that passage X can not have taken place becasue at no time in history has 1/3 of the water in the world literally turned to blood, yet they don't blink claiming that arrows can really mean nuclear missles.



Yes, preterist (and other eschatological paradigms) take some passages literally and some symbolically. But we do so based on context, literary style, etc.



The presence and/or absence of ancient weaponry is IMO not a good sole criteria for determining the timing of an eschatological passage.



The first thing I look for (esp. in Isa.) is an indication of who the prophecy is directed toward (i.e. "an oracle against Babylon" "a prophecy concerning Tyre") since these cities are 1. no longer occupied and 2. were enemies of Israel at the time of the writing and 3. were devastated shortly after the time of the writing. I place those passages in the past, shortly (relative to say 2000 years any way) after they were written.



IOW, I usually use the fact that Ezek. et al mention ancient weaponry to show the starkly and clearly obvious to all but them inconsistency in DF hermeneutical method, and as one (though not primary) reason why the passage is past fulfilled.



Exegesis is not an either/or activity (well not good exegesis anyway). Ancient weapons do not always have to imply past fulfillment of prophecy. Now absent any other textual reasons to think so, I would say that it is a good indicator of past fulfillment.



Good exegesis takes into account the literary style, the historical context, the context of the book the passage was written in and many other things.



If we were to adopt a black and white exegesis you would end up with something like…well…dispensationalism. ()

And I would suggest that said passage began in the first century wherein those descriptions were perfectly descriptive

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

And I would suggest that said passage began in the first century wherein those descriptions were perfectly descriptive

Indeed.

9And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

10And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

12And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

13And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

15And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

Thanks

Originally posted by Faramir

The reason that passages talking about arrows, swords, etc. can not (consistently) fit a futurist paradigm is because dispy hermenutics "demands" a literal interpretation. (except when arrows = nuclear missles).

It is the inherent inconsistancies that cause dispy eschatology to collapse IMO. They say that passage X can not have taken place becasue at no time in history has 1/3 of the water in the world literally turned to blood, yet they don't blink claiming that arrows can really mean nuclear missles.

But a lot of dispensationalists do not make such applications, Faramir. And btw, yes we do demand the literal interpretation that warfare will cease during the kingdom age... so try "spiritualizing" that fact.

-Tim

Actually I think you do Tim C.

and welcome back, we missed the fork

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

Actually I think you do Tim C.

Where have I ever said arrows = missles?

Don't be silly. But the fact the passage speaks of an end to warfare is very obvious. So, how do ya'all spiritualize that one?

-Tim

Okay Tim - let's back up - what do you think "arrows" mean? (and my comment was poorly worded, I didn't mean you in the personal sense but you as in the majority of dispensationalists - I don't think a "lot" make that passage to indicate ancient weapons, whether or not you make arrows missles, bullets, or laser guns isn't really the point - the point is that it is not "arrows" as meant by "arrows" in the time setting that the passage was written - sheesh I forgot we had a dispensationalist in the room [sorry Bill], this is worse than having to explain a joke to a blonde)

And to answer your question - I don't. I said it was being progressively fulfilled. Over the course of Christian conversion many have literally ceased warfare and other violence. Eventually the whole world will.

BTW Tim, Eschaton made the claim that all of the ECF were amillennial. I think that would make a fine debate challenge for you.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

Okay Tim - let's back up - what do you think "arrows" mean?

It means "arrows." The prophet was describing warfare. Warfare will cease during the Messianic Kingdom age.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

(and my comment was poorly worded, I didn't mean you in the personal sense but you as in the majority of dispensationalists - I don't think a "lot" make that passage to indicate ancient weapons, whether or not you make arrows missles, bullets, or laser guns isn't really the point - the point is that it is not "arrows" as meant by "arrows" in the time setting that the passage was written - sheesh I forgot we had a dispensationalist in the room [sorry Bill], this is worse than having to explain a joke to a blonde)

???

The prophet is describing warfare, Dee Dee. That is not very hard to understand. Why do preterists like Faramir need to grab hold of strange statements by VanImpe to bash the historical-grammatical hermeneutic in general? Are you folks so desparate for an argument that you are willing to sink to such levels?

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

And to answer your question - I don't. I said it was being progressively fulfilled. Over the course of Christian conversion many have literally ceased warfare and other violence. Eventually the whole world will.

lol! Full blown warfare on every continent on the globe will permeate the entire Messianic Kingdom age, and it will suddenly cease at the close of the Messianic Kingdom age. Yeah, sure Dee Dee, thats what the prophets foretold. Reality is a thorn in the side of the Scripture spiritualizers.

-Tim

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

BTW Tim, Eschaton made the claim that all of the ECF were amillennial. I think that would make a fine debate challenge for you.

Its pure nonsense I've already refuted too many times to count.

-Tim

Originally posted by Tim C.

Its pure nonsense I've already refuted too many times to count.

-Tim

I would be interested in seeing a formal debate. Interested?

Originally posted by Tim C.

Its pure nonsense I've already refuted too many times to count.

-Tim

I took him to task too on it. Many were Chilliasts

Originally posted by Tim C.

[size=2]

It means "arrows." The prophet was describing warfare. Warfare will cease during the Messianic Kingdom age.

The Ezekiel 38 (?) Gog and Magog battle, those weapons are arrows? And it is fought on horseback? (I don't have my Bible in front of me, but I think you can find the passage)

The prophet is describing warfare, Dee Dee. That is not very hard to understand. Why do preterists like Faramir need to grab hold of strange statements by VanImpe to bash the historical-grammatical hermeneutic in general? Are you folks so desparate for an argument that you are willing to sink to such levels?

We also eat babies for breakfast. Don't forget that. I don't like my wells half-poisoned, if you are going to go for it, don't do it halfway.

Preterists do follow the historical grammatical hermeneutic BTW, I have proven that here more times than I can count

lol! Full blown warfare on every continent on the globe will permeate the entire Messianic Kingdom age, and it will suddenly cease at the close of the Messianic Kingdom age. Yeah, sure Dee Dee, thats what the prophets foretold. Reality is a thorn in the side of the Scripture spiritualizers.

See above as to my critique of your well-poisoning techiques. Tsk, tsk. I expect better of a fork-bearer. Second, who said anything about suddenly? I certainly didn't. Modern Jews says the same things BTW about the nasty NT writers, those dirty rotten spiritualizers.