The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum BestEvidence

Originally Posted By: Hitch
1. I have already stated that I do not embrace in any way, shape or form a "DF interpretation" of the Bible. Your argument is so innane that if applied across the board, you could be accused of being a Roman Catholic because you recognize the word "Trinity" which the Catholic church also does. You really need to temper your remarks and dispense with the ad hominem slurs.

It a simple matter of reading the opening of the Revelation and taking the plain statements at face value or reading the latter parts of the book and claiming 'that couldnt have possibly happened yet' therefore verse one must take on a meaning that has no connection to the text. Meaning 'soon' and 'at hand' cannot set the context for understanding the overall meaning of the work and implying that insofar as those events coming to pass ,there was and is no first century relevance. 'Symantec gymnastics' indeed. Like it or not that is exactly what Walvoord & Co have done and , as I said before , for the same reasons.
If you want to leave it here thats fine but this is only shining a light on the obvious and not the ' ad hominem slur' you tried to make it.



Oh, and as to your question whether I have read Boettner's The Millennium, the answer is a decidedly, "Yes!". In fact, I bought my copy from D[color:#CC33CC]r. Boettner himself, along with all his other works. grinI cant help but wonder whether you rolled your eyes while reading chapter nine.



2. I have already stated that I hold to historic, biblical Amillennialism, a tenet of which is the "already but not yet" principle. Yes, there are certain events which came to pass which were either a full or partial fulfillment of some prophecies. What I reject is the Postmillenialist idea that the majority of prophecy was fulfilled pre-AD 70, which is akin to hyper-Preterism. From David Engelsma's excellent series, here is a quote from some of the more well known authorities of the Postmillennarian camp: That is a given. It is important to me that anyone reading understands that my conclusions are not conjured up from thin air but based on and very nearly identical to those of Boettner and Gentry, authors you cited as opponents of 'Hyper-preterism'. It is even more odd to me that you would go on and post What I reject is the Postmillenialist idea that the majority of prophecy was fulfilled pre-AD 70, which is akin to hyper-Preterism with your personal knowledge of Boettner and Gentry's positions.
Looking back ,without re-reading every post, it seemed to me at the time ,as it does now you were trying to present my argument as someting at the least tarnished by hyper -preterism, and I think your quote leaves out any question. that wasnt kosher of you and it disturbs me.
Right now I cant tell what you rare trying to convey; Are, in your view Boettner and Gentry orthodox opponents of hyper-preterism or akin to it or somehow both ?