Tin Can Tango
Tin Can Tango
Having now read over the entire 7 pages thus far of this discussion, I've decided to zero in on the following...and not cross paths too much with that which has already been sufficiently answered by others...
First these words from a little brown mouse named Jerry...who reminds me rather of the folks at church who think "apologetics" means "I'm sorry I'm a Christian" and who would accuse me of heresy and disrespect for saying Deuteonomy was modeled after a Hittite suzerainty treaty...
Common sense tells us that if the “great tribulation” had in fact occurred in AD70,then men living so close in time to this event would know for sure if it had occurred or not, and if the antichrist had come or not!
To quote that equally great philosopher, Bill the Cat: Ack, pfft. "Common sense" tells us no such thing. If it did we would never have people today blindly ignorant of history who think that the "Sermon on the Mount" was so called because it was delievered on horseback.
And this despite the fact that some of them were pupils of one who had studied directly at the knee of the Apostle John--the very author of the Revelation!
Heck, some of the worst heretics were supposed to have studied at the knees of Apostles as well.
Now for Sir Tinpants of Dispensalia:
Mat 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. One would think an event such as described above might get more than a one sentence description in a common encyclopedia.
Even if "such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be." were a figure of speech (as you assert) the figure of speech would have meaning. That meaning would be that the Great Tribulation would be a INCREDIBLE event! Huge, massive and certainly close to one of the worst events on the face of the planet!
We need not hear further talk of your ego exploding, Sir Tinpants.
DD has started out well here with talk of ancient hyperbole. Why not reinfornce the point? I would recommend that all non-preterists read the work of that awful heretic G. B. Caird entitled
Languge and Imagery of the Bible to get a clue that when reading the Scriptures they are not reading modern news reports.
Pardon some self-plagiarization if I may...
Um. A people here recorded as being "utterly destroyed" comes back making trouble just a few chapters later in 1 Samuel. Isn't that funny. Well, compare this to an inscription offered by Pharaoh Ramesses III:
Cleary when Ramsses tells us his enemies were "made non-existent," he was not meaning this literally, since he goes on to indicate that they were captured. Try some of these lines from the Victory Stele of Merneptah:
Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
Canaan is captive with all woe.
Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
Yanoam made nonexistent;
Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
All who roamed have been subdued.
Pretty seasoned trash talk, and if you take it all literally you'll be in a heapin' world of semantic and historical hurt. Yanoam made nonexistent? No seed left for Israel:? Golly. In ancient context, such claims as 1 Samuel 15:8 and Dan. 12:1 make are not to be taken literally, as though God or Daniel had taken out some historical yardstick across eternity and actually measured things like number of deaths, etc. They are ancient "trash talk" of war -- no more.
Such rhetorical emphasis typifies ancient and even modern Semitic cultures.Caird [110ff] notes the frequent use of hyperbole among Semitic peoples, and notes that "its frequent use arises out of a habitual cast of mind" which tends to view matters in extremes, or as we would say, "black and white." The Semitic mindset is dogmatic, and despises doubt; things are either one way or another, and there is no room for introspection. When the Scriptures speak of an event in terms like Dan. 12:1 and the other verses noted, you need to get off your Western glasses and ead with Eastern eyes.
More examples may be found from Rihbany's The Syrian Christ [108ff]. I think this quote from Rihbany are sufficient:
Rihbany offers other examples of such sayings from daily life. Here is a welcome he received from an old friend when he came to his home: "You have extremely honored me by coming into my abode. I am not worthy of it. This house is yours; you may burn it if you wish. My children are also at your disposal; I would sacrifice them all for your pleasure." The Westerner who hears this might well be shocked and offended, but what is being said behind the verbiage is no more than "I am delighted to see you; please make yourself at home."
Want more? Pilch and Malina in the Handbook of Biblical Social Values concur [52]. They note that in modern Western society, culture is tied to precision; time is a commodity, and dramatic orientation wastes time by not getting to the point. Unlike in the ancient world, when dramatic speech and eloquence were held in high esteem, "Creativity, imagination, and boasting are activities that waste precious time" and "have no place in a society driven by productivity: machines will tolerate no exaggeration, imprecision, or tardiness."
In short, Sir Tinpants, you have signed on the dotted line of the wrong semantic contract. The statement: "....apocalyptic language is the answer when the text flies in the face of preterism but literalism is the preterists best friend when the preterists want to battle the futurists" is an 18 wheeler loaded with naivete, to say nothing of the sort of accusation that Farrell Till would throw in the air. Someone like Josephus knew better, which is why he saw no problem in using those very words to describe the events of 70. Now as to this bit of hermeneutical homicide:
Unfortunately, Sir Tinpants, "mankind" is a wee bit of a jaundiced translation. The word there is just "men"/"man". There is no delimiter specifying all of the human race here.
Further proving my point that preterists haven't a clue as to what dispensationalism is all about. Thanks for the demonstration JP!
Goldurn, how can we get a clue when dispys keep shifting the goalposts to explain away all their problems?
Yoikes and away,
JP
Tin Can Tango
Having now read over the entire 7 pages thus far of this discussion, I've decided to zero in on the following...and not cross paths too much with that which has already been sufficiently answered by others...
First these words from a little brown mouse named Jerry...who reminds me rather of the folks at church who think "apologetics" means "I'm sorry I'm a Christian" and who would accuse me of heresy and disrespect for saying Deuteonomy was modeled after a Hittite suzerainty treaty...
Common sense tells us that if the “great tribulation” had in fact occurred in AD70,then men living so close in time to this event would know for sure if it had occurred or not, and if the antichrist had come or not!
To quote that equally great philosopher, Bill the Cat: Ack, pfft. "Common sense" tells us no such thing. If it did we would never have people today blindly ignorant of history who think that the "Sermon on the Mount" was so called because it was delievered on horseback.
And this despite the fact that some of them were pupils of one who had studied directly at the knee of the Apostle John--the very author of the Revelation!
Heck, some of the worst heretics were supposed to have studied at the knees of Apostles as well.
Now for Sir Tinpants of Dispensalia:
Mat 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. One would think an event such as described above might get more than a one sentence description in a common encyclopedia.
Even if "such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be." were a figure of speech (as you assert) the figure of speech would have meaning. That meaning would be that the Great Tribulation would be a INCREDIBLE event! Huge, massive and certainly close to one of the worst events on the face of the planet!
We need not hear further talk of your ego exploding, Sir Tinpants.
DD has started out well here with talk of ancient hyperbole. Why not reinfornce the point? I would recommend that all non-preterists read the work of that awful heretic G. B. Caird entitled
Languge and Imagery of the Bible to get a clue that when reading the Scriptures they are not reading modern news reports.
Pardon some self-plagiarization if I may...
Um. A people here recorded as being "utterly destroyed" comes back making trouble just a few chapters later in 1 Samuel. Isn't that funny. Well, compare this to an inscription offered by Pharaoh Ramesses III:
Cleary when Ramsses tells us his enemies were "made non-existent," he was not meaning this literally, since he goes on to indicate that they were captured. Try some of these lines from the Victory Stele of Merneptah:
Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
Canaan is captive with all woe.
Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
Yanoam made nonexistent;
Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
All who roamed have been subdued.
Pretty seasoned trash talk, and if you take it all literally you'll be in a heapin' world of semantic and historical hurt. Yanoam made nonexistent? No seed left for Israel:? Golly. In ancient context, such claims as 1 Samuel 15:8 and Dan. 12:1 make are not to be taken literally, as though God or Daniel had taken out some historical yardstick across eternity and actually measured things like number of deaths, etc. They are ancient "trash talk" of war -- no more.
Such rhetorical emphasis typifies ancient and even modern Semitic cultures.Caird [110ff] notes the frequent use of hyperbole among Semitic peoples, and notes that "its frequent use arises out of a habitual cast of mind" which tends to view matters in extremes, or as we would say, "black and white." The Semitic mindset is dogmatic, and despises doubt; things are either one way or another, and there is no room for introspection. When the Scriptures speak of an event in terms like Dan. 12:1 and the other verses noted, you need to get off your Western glasses and ead with Eastern eyes.
More examples may be found from Rihbany's The Syrian Christ [108ff]. I think this quote from Rihbany are sufficient:
Rihbany offers other examples of such sayings from daily life. Here is a welcome he received from an old friend when he came to his home: "You have extremely honored me by coming into my abode. I am not worthy of it. This house is yours; you may burn it if you wish. My children are also at your disposal; I would sacrifice them all for your pleasure." The Westerner who hears this might well be shocked and offended, but what is being said behind the verbiage is no more than "I am delighted to see you; please make yourself at home."
Want more? Pilch and Malina in the Handbook of Biblical Social Values concur [52]. They note that in modern Western society, culture is tied to precision; time is a commodity, and dramatic orientation wastes time by not getting to the point. Unlike in the ancient world, when dramatic speech and eloquence were held in high esteem, "Creativity, imagination, and boasting are activities that waste precious time" and "have no place in a society driven by productivity: machines will tolerate no exaggeration, imprecision, or tardiness."
In short, Sir Tinpants, you have signed on the dotted line of the wrong semantic contract. The statement: "....apocalyptic language is the answer when the text flies in the face of preterism but literalism is the preterists best friend when the preterists want to battle the futurists" is an 18 wheeler loaded with naivete, to say nothing of the sort of accusation that Farrell Till would throw in the air. Someone like Josephus knew better, which is why he saw no problem in using those very words to describe the events of 70. Now as to this bit of hermeneutical homicide:
Unfortunately, Sir Tinpants, "mankind" is a wee bit of a jaundiced translation. The word there is just "men"/"man".
There is no delimiter specifying all of the human race here. Further proving my point that preterists haven't a clue as to what dispensationalism is all about. Thanks for the demonstration JP!
Goldurn, how can we get a clue when dispys keep shifting the goalposts to explain away all their problems?
Yoikes and away,
JP
