AssemblyBoard

   In his book, Misquoting Jesus, Mr. Ehrman relates his experience of growing up in a nominal Christian home, being "Born Again" during his teens while attending a "Youth for Christ" meeting, attending Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College and finally Princeton University. During his first semester at Moody he became aware of the subject known as "Textual Criticism". This is taught in order to enable Bible students to ascertain what the original manuscripts said. Apparently it is common knowledge that no known originals of the Bible letters etc... are in existence. What manuscripts are available are "...error ridden copies that have been shown to be altered inadvertently and/or intentionally. Thus he set out on a long journey in order to "...know His word."   Mr. Ehrman set out to learn Greek, Hebrew, Latin, French and German.  He begins his book by pointing out some interesting facts. One being the literacy of the early church. The societies in which they existed were somewhere between 5 and 10%. Given the fact that the early Christians were  "..not many learned..." it is very improbable that educated men copied the first letters that were passed throughout the churches. He points out the earliest manuscripts available demonstrate the highest number of errors, changes etc.... It wasn't until much later that professional scribes began copying the available manuscripts (now many copies removed from the originals.)  Mr. Ehrman continues his book by addressing some of the specific errors, changes identified in the manuscripts. Again these manuscripts are the only sources available of what is known as The Bible. In conclusion, he no longer believes that the Bible is inerrant. (This happened during his first semester at Princeton.)  I feel ashamed that while I was a Christian I never really seriously asked the question, "How do we know that we have the original words as dictated/written by the apostles ("Stewards of the mysteries...") I remember having the questions pass through my mind but just as Billy Graham, I just left this alone and chose to believe what I was continually told, "The Lord is able to keep his word!".  I would like to chat with anyone, who has read this book, and hear your argument as to why you disagree with his conclusions.  Please no name calling, foolish or childish behavior.

Hi Dave:
Dr Bart D Erhman is an excellent example of a man who while clearly having outstanding academic credentials, is unquestionably not a Christian.
His supposed Christian pedigree is entirely irrelevant.
What matters is what a man believes, not what schools he attended, or how many degrees he has.
My guess is that no serious or reasonably well-instructed believer, the popualarity of  Dr. Ehrman's book notwithstanding, will take him too seriously. For example, his argument about the transmission of the Scriptures of the early church appears to be woefully ignorant of the Hebrew Scribal tradition, and the fact that most of the early chuch believers were Jewish!
If you are really interested in this topic, I suggest you read the debate between William Lane Craig and Erhman that took place on Mrach 28 this year at College of the Holy Cross.

Progessor Bart is a man who denies the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ!

According to him, the faith of countless Christian men and women throughout history is naught but a vanity. It seems to me that the man has an agenda, don't you think?

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

If you want the PDF file e-mail me and I will send it to you. God bless.
Verne

I have not read the book. 

Here is a link to a review by an evangelical scholar.

Here is a sample:

"Why all the hoopla? Well, for one thing, Jesus sells. But not the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus that sells is the one that is palatable to postmodern man. And with a book entitled Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, a ready audience was created via the hope that there would be fresh evidence that the biblical Jesus is a figment. Ironically, almost none of the variants that Ehrman discusses involve sayings of Jesus. The book simply doesn’t deliver what the title promises. Ehrman preferred Lost in Transmission, but the publisher thought such a book might be perceived by the Barnes and Noble crowd as dealing with stock car racing! Even though Ehrman did not choose his resultant title, it has been a publishing coup."



http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4000

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Folks,

Here is a link to the text of the debate between Craig and Ehrman.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Vern,

        "Mr. Ehrman.. is unquestionably NOT a Christian..."

    By this I take you to mean that anyone who turns from the faith has lost their salvation or never really was saved?   

      It is my experience that a person can have a religious experience and later depart from what is considered to be the fundamentals of "The Faith"  (I think many Christians believe this.)


      "What matters is what he believes not what schools he has attended"

  Surely you aren't saying his accomplishments at Moody, Wheaton and Princeton, his mastery of language had no bearing on his research?


      "...his argument appears to be woefully ignorant of Hebrew Scribal tradition"



      Gee I wonder?  Have you read the book? 

               He discusses at length the literacy rates and the transcription practices of the early church.


    "Professor Bart...denies the resurrection..."


                I thought this was obvious?  My guess is after he came to the conclusions that the Bible doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny that it must be bunk.


   Again, read the book!   He clearly presents and argument that the originals are not available for examination, he continues by showing that the copies are filled with numerous changes, omissions, errors, insertions etc..


   Read the book!

                         

Tom, 

     Did your evangelical scholar read the book?  Mr. Ehrman quotes Luke 22: 17-19 These are specific words attributed to Christ  p 166. 

 

    Read the book.

Unless someone wants to really read the book and have a discussion I find it pointless to continue.

David,

I hope you really didn't expect folks who frequent this site to have read this book.  Reading books that re-hash old objections against the veracity of the Bible is not  major preoccupation of most Christians.

If you really did think you would find anyone who had read the book, you might be just a tad naive.   

If you didn't, and demanded that no one could say anything unless they met your requirements...you might be just a tad disengenuous.  "Winning" by fiddling the rules is a kiddie game.

By the way, I probably won't read the book.  Just as I research cars on the web before I decide to buy, I do the same with books.  One can find enough of Ehrman's ideas on the web to know what he is about.   His book is designed to convince laymen.  Sort of what the Jehovah's Witnesses do, throw up weak arguments to an unsophisticated audience.

He has failed to convince his wife of his ideas....not a good sign y'know.  She says:

Recognized evangelical scholars have commented on his book...for example Ben Witherington, who says:

Dave, if you really wish to argue that this man is correct in his conclusions, why don't you summarize some of his arguments for us.

Thomas Maddux


 

Tom,

               Could you direct me to your source "evangelical scholar" it really looks like you just pulled it out         
          of some black hole.

     "..you might just be a tad naive"

                   As far as you go I guess I am!  I would have expected you (the character with all those scrolls) would jump at the chance to crush anyone who dare question the faith. 

      "If you didn't and demanded no one could say anything unless they met your requirements...you might be a tad disingenuous. "Winning" by fiddling the rules is a kiddy game"


                    Wha?  (I have no idea where you got this?)


       Tom, let me help you.  When you read a book the first thing you want to do is identify the author's thesis.  For example, in Darwin's "Origin of Species",  you could conclude that Mr. Darwin is asserting that all living organisms have a common ancestor. Next you read the book with the intention of seeing how well he supported his thesis. At the end of the book you can critique his work. Ex. "Darwin has clearly failed to support his claims..."


        Does this seem so terrifying?  Would the Apostle Paul say "I'm not going to read it cause you won't play fair!" 


   As far as expecting others on this board sure why not?  Would I be disingenuous to say I expected someone to show me something that I hadn't considered before?

Dave,

You said,

The black hole is known as the internet.  Google tells all. 

Dr. Ben Witherington is a professor of New Testemant Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary, and studied under many of the same professors as Bart Ehrman.

Here is a link to his comments.

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html

What is new about Ehrman's book is that he has tried to bring textual criticism to the level of the man in the street. But then he starts making claims about the falsity of the documents.  This sort of thing has been going on for about 300 years now.  Back in the 1700's they were claiming that Babylon, Assyria, the Hittites etc. weren't real.  Just legends made up by the guys who wrote the Bible, which is nothing but mythology.

Then Layard excavated Nineveh and subsequent discoveries demonstrated the reality of ANE history as found in the Bible.  Last Saturday, btw, I took at a look at a six-sided clay object that records a proclamation of good old king Nebuchadnezzer, star of several chapters in the book of Daniel.

Currently, there have been a number of books that make the claim that the early church made up Jesus as the need arose.  When disputes arose about who was in charge or what we must do, the leaders just made up some new statement of Jesus and the Gospels were modified to include this.

This idea has several problems, among which are: 1. The lack of any documents from the period that support this.  This forces them to row upstream against even skeptical scholars in order to re-date second and third century documents like "The Gospel of Mary" and "The Gospel of Judas".  2. The large number of quotations from and testimony to the gospels found in the writings of leaders of the early church from the early second century on. 3. The fact that the epistles of Paul, which were written before the gospels, contain a highly developed christology that includes His divine nature, His vicarious death and the resurrection.  Odd that Paul believed things that supposedly hadn't been made up yet, what?

Now, regarding reading Ehrman's book.  I have read quite a bit of this type of literature.  I did an analysis of claims by the Jesus Seminar when I was in grad school.  They say pretty much the same thing.  It is not that I am afraid to read it Dave, or that I don't know how to read a book...it is that I am occupied with other things.  Plus I am not about to spend $24.95 to read the same old same old.

If you wish to bring up specific arguments that seem to you to be good ones, I would be interested in reading them. 

Here is a question for you.  (btw, I asked you this back when you were talking about the Egyptians and circumcision)  Have you ever read the answers of evangelical scholars to these skeptic's claims?

On this particular topic, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable" by F.F. Bruce is a good, short lay-level treatment.   

At a more scholarly level, but still quite readable, "Reasonable Faith" by Willaim Lane Craig or "The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ" by Gary Habermas are good.

Dave, what kind of claims does Ehrman make that impressed you?

Thomas Maddux

I listened to about 24 hours of lectures on the New Testament by Bart Ehrman a year or two before he sprung to celebrity status with all the interest surrounding the Da Vinci Code.

He is a very good communicator.  He presents his arguments in a logical, systematic fashion in a way that is not degrading to others.  Compared to someone like, say, George or even many Evangelical preachers who come across snotty or “believe this because I said so”, he is very compelling.

Because of the presentation of his arguments, I did have to face honestly some of the things he had to say.  He created a completely different context of how to look at the Bible and I had to ask the question as to whether or not this was a better context than the one I was used to.

His arguments go as follows (and I am not doing justice to the way he is presenting them.  If you really want them from his mouth, you will have to get the tapes from the Teaching Company): 
1.   There are discrepancies between gospel accounts.
2.   This implies that the gospel writers were not as much intending to be accurate but to convey a certain perspective or propaganda.
3.   Therefore, we need to analyze the Bible based upon historical techniques to determine what really happened and what are embellishments.  For example, if it furthers Christianity, it might be something that the writer added to further his cause.  If it is something confirmed by a secondary source or might be less positive to the Christian message (such as Joseph being a “blue-collar” carpenter or construction worker), it is probably true.
4.   From this Ehrman believes that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who gained a following and got caught up (like hundreds did) in the Roman judicial system that killed him without giving it a second thought.
5.   Since pseudonyms were common in that time, Paul’s epistles are categorized in some he probably wrote, some he probably didn’t write, and some he may have wrote.
6.   Paul was instrumental in that he moved Christianity from being the religion of Jesus to the Religion about Jesus - something Jesus himself never intended.

As been stated, this is Higher Criticism 1A though Ehrman does come to the same conclusions as the Jesus Seminar.

What much of this comes down to is a matter of assumptions.  Which ones you make determines where you will end up.

For example, in Ehrman’s view, it is hard to know what the Bible teaches because of thousands and thousands of variances between manuscripts.  An Evangelical would counter that it is true that there are thousands and thousands of variances.  However, many are things like spelling variances (there was no standardized spelling because folks did not run around with dictionaries).  What is important is what variance is significant.  What changes the meaning of a passage?  Of these, there really are very few.

Another example would be that Ehrman would argue that a fisherman like Peter wouldn't have the capacity to know how to read or write.  An Evangelical would counter that 1) it is not impossible that Peter did know how to read and write and 2) there are some argument that Luke was an interpretor of Peter and helped him get his thoughts on paper.  Again, your assumptions will determine how you look at this issue.

Take the issue of Biblical contradictions and difficulties.  Are there some?  Of course.  Do a Google search on “Biblical contradictions” and you will find lots of folks who have compiled long lists.   The atheists make the assumption that these lists are “smoking guns” that discredit the foundation of Christianity.  Christians, on the other hand, will point to books such as “The Encyclopedia of Biblical Discrepancies” by Norm Geisler and argue that with a little thought these problems are reconciled – at least there is no “smoking gun” that brings the historic faith to its knees.

While I thought Ehrman’s lectures were mind-expanding and provocative, I am not persuaded that his assumptions are better than Evangelical assumptions that the gospels were an accurate collection of the Jesus stories circulated about the church and things happened as stated.  N. T. Wright (in spite of his controversial “New Perspectives on Paul”) argues in the context of scholarship that the resurrection of Christ is the central point of the gospels and the authorship of Paul is authentic.

So while Ehrman is a good communicator and well-respected, I think he merely brought to the table a different set of assumptions that I don’t think are better than the assumptions the church has made for two thousand years.

-Dave Sable (not Mauldin)

Dave,

Thanks for your excellent post.  However there is one thing that I would like to comment on.  You said:

It is quite true that assumptions tend to drive conclusions.  But all assumptions are not equal.  The belief that we know who wrote the gospels rests upon excellent textual and historical evidence.  The belief that we do not rests upon an a-priori rejection of the supernatural and a set of arbitrary rules for detecting the "layers" of accretions in the gospel accounts.

I have an article from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society that analyzes J.D. Crossan's application of these rules.  (He made them up himself)  The article shows that when supernatural events or Jesus' claims of divinity are found in the "early" layers, (according to his rules), he still rejects them as later additions.

In other words, these guys have decided what the gospels are allowed to contain, and then if it contains something they don't like they throw that out anyway.

Go figure.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

J. P. Moreland has a chapter on "The Historicity of the New Testament" that is available online http://www.apologetics.org/books/historicity.html (http://www.apologetics.org/books/historicity.html). He addresses some of the issues Dr. Ehrman raises.

I would like to compliment Dave Sable for his honest approach to this issue.


Here is a quote from Mr. Ehrman's book,

     "How do millions of people know what is the New Testament? They "know" because scholars with unknown names, identities and backgrounds, qualifications, predilections, theologies, and personal opinions have told them what is in the New Testament. But what if the translators have translated the wrong text? It has happened before. The King James Version is filled ultimately from Erasmus's edition which is based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst manuscripts that we now have available to us."


    What I find so telling about the evidence presented by Mr. Ehrman is the obvious Monty Python scenario.  We have millions of people, alive today and through-out history, boldly proclaiming what they believe to be "The Inerrant word of God!"  The truth is they think they have the Word of God!  Just as you and I "thought"
that George Geftakys was "The Lord's Servant!"  Why would a personal God who lovingly cared for his followers allow them to be deceived?  I commend Mr. Ehrman for having the courage to just admit, This Christianity stuff is nothing what we proclaim it to be!


Tom, your arguments about 'textual critisicm" are in no way associated with the kind of work in "Misquoting Jesus"  Are you trying to say, "Look," "These guys were proven wrong!"  "So Mr Ehrman is wrong!"?  Mr. Ehrman does point out the discrepancies regarding the roles of women in the book of Acts (leadership etc...) and the restrictions placed upon them in 1st Tim. He believes, and I agree, that these restrictions were added because people didn't like women having equality. He also points out clearly where word changes have been made in a text that just so happen to coincide with the racial feelings toward Jews in that period of history. Also Mr. Ehrman's book is filled with quotes attributed to Jesus christ. Also I can't believe that an "Evangelical Scholar" would make such a quote. please post the address.(Or did you just make it up?)

   

Dave,

You said:

It is not completely clear to me which quote you are referring to.  I have posted links to more than one article.

But here, for the second time, is the link to the Evangelical scholar's critique of Ehrman's work.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html

Thomas Maddux

Greetings from Tortola in the incredibly beautiful BVI.
I finally got to a computer and wanted to acknowledge your comments Dave.
Having a religious experiece, which udoubtedly many people have, is unfortunately not the equivalent to the kind of salvation of which the Bible speaks.
I fully realise that I am now in a very precarious position as I am attempting to adduce a source of authority which you seem to reject outright, namely the Bible.
Nonetheless, Biblical salvation, which issues in eternal life, is precisely defined as a knowledge of God, and Jesus Christ, whom He (God) has sent.
If you, or anyone else for that matter, denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the same Bible which assures such salvation proclaims that if you are correct, then the faith of all Christians is a vain one.
So you see that a denial of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and saving faith are mutually incompatible things.

I do agree that many who once made a profession of faith subsequently renounced it.
Keep in mind that there is a monumental difference between admission of sin and confession (which involves repentance).

I personally do not believe that any one who has come to saving faith by a personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ can ever truly renounce Him.
There may be doubts, yes, failures, yes, even terrible sin and rebellion, but my own opinion is if that God saves you, that condition is irrevocable.




I think that it does in fact have substantial bearing on his research.
Faith must be held in a clear conscience Dave.
There is nothing more deadly than a capable mind in possesion of facts, even truth, but is in a state of enmity with God.
I do not know Dr. Erhman personally, but I can tell you with great confidence based on much experience, men in his position do not have a head issue, it is one of the heart.
Dr Erhman's rejection of the faith has nothing whatsoever to do with the findings of his own research. His rejection of the faith in my view preceeded any such findings.


 
Portions of it for self education, but not in its entirety.



He is of course entitled to his opinion. You must keep in mind that countless equally able scholars hold a different position, and the real issue is whether you are personally willing to base yours on what Dr. Erhman's asserts in his book.
It might be helpful to you do do a brief investigation of the number of extant documents relating to the NT, and the degree of consistency shown to exist among them.
It will do a lot for your head issues.
The heart is another matter entirely.
I go swimming!
In Christ,
Verne

There is now a new section on the ga.com website, "Faith After the Assembly," http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Reflections/FaithAfter.htm (http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Reflections/FaithAfter.htm). Its purpose is to provide help for the struggle with faith that is experienced by many who have left the Assembly. There are a few articles that refute the current misinformation promulgated by The Da Vinci Code and Dr. Bart Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus. One is "Misanalyzing Text Criticism" http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html (http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html). There is also a fascinating article on the psychological motivation for atheism, among others.

I have started reading thru the "Why did God let it happen" section in the "Faith After the Assembly link"

I really like the story of Job. I can look back and see that through the trials and testing God was teaching me to trust him more. Below is a paragraph mentioned there in the link Margaret provided.

" Job did not come through triumphantly. He was angry at God, he whined, he was full of self pity. He did not look like an "overcomer." But the important thing was that he did not lose his faith in God. The simple fact that Job's faith survived was pivotal to the cosmic controversy between God and Satan. Afterward, God poured out blessings on Job. But what remains for posterity as the most important aspect of Job's life was his faith that endured the terrible testing.

God's part is to hold on to us through the trial and the struggle, and to work it all together for good, as He has promised."

Folks,

The Internet Monk has a good article about the recent fans of Gnostic documents, among whom he includes our friend Bart Ehrman.  He expresses his opinion as follows:

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-stupids-do-new-testament-101

The title is "The Stupids Do New Testament 101"

Thomas Maddux

Margaret, I saw your blog nice job. Its good to see your picture.  Thanks for all your efforts on GA. I have a question is your Reformed Theology the same as Replacement Theology? (which I've heard is anti-semitic) Anyone with this knowledge can reply. Thank-You. Summer

Hello Summer--

I've never heard reformed theology called "replacement theology." What we believe is that the kingdom of God spans both the OT, NT and the present. Israel as a nation was God's "picture book," so to speak, to show the world what the kingdom is like. Not all Israelites were true believers, as we know from Elijah's experience when God showed him that among all the Israelites at that time there were only 7,000 that remained faithful. Paul says, "Not all Israel is Israel indeed," referring to the same concept. Israel fulfilled its purpose as a picture of the Kingdom, as a demonstration of our need for a saviour, as a vehicle through which the righteous law of God was revealed, and as the bloodline through which Christ would come. The church was established by the Holy Spirit and is a pre-fillment, I guess you could say, of the Kingdom of God as Christ reigns over the church and in our hearts by faith. At His second coming His Kingdom will come in its fullness and everything will be subject to it.

I don't think it's correct to say the Church replaced Israel; rather, the Church is the reality, of which the nation Israel was a picture, and believing Israelites were and still are a part. Paul believed that before the second coming of Christ there will be a work of God among the Jews to bring many to faith, and all believing Jews from the OT until now will be part of the Kingdom when it comes in its fullness.

Thanks Margaret I see Reformed Theolgy is more like Calvinism. I just was'nt sure if there was a connection between the two. I did look on-line and there's plenty there. I appreciate your in-put. Summer

I came across the following article, What's A Thousand Years Between Friends? that explains the amillenial view of Christ's return held by most in the reformed tradition.  It briefly mentioneds "replacement theology" that apprently is a term of derision used by those who do not agree with this view.

Whether you agree with it or not, I think it is a good primer for that view.  I first heard of amillenialism from Harold Camping on family radio and laughed at it - only because Mr. Camping was so inept at explaining it in a compelling way.

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/theological-essays/amilllecture%20revised.pdf (http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/theological-essays/amilllecture%20revised.pdf)
(Note:  Adobe Acrobat is required).

-Dave

Dave,

Thanks for the link to an interesting article.  His argument is essentially that the application of the analogy of faith removes Revelation 20:1-10 from consideration as describing events on the earth.  As I said, interesting.

This sort of thing is the result of making the analogy of faith the primary interpretive principle of biblical exegesis.  In other words, once you have decided what the Bible clearly teaches, any passage that seems to contradict this must be re-interpreted in order to fit what you already believe is clearly taught.

This can be quite useful in many cases.  A good example is where I Corinthians 15 refers to people being "baptized for the dead".  No one really understands exactly what this refers to.  We do, however, know that they were not being baptized in order to save their departed relatives, based on the clear teaching on salvation and baptism in other passages. 

Revelation 20:1-10 presents Amillenialists with a sticky problem. If it means what it seems to mean when one reads it, their position is refuted.  So, they believe it must mean something else.

This article removes it to heaven.   The Reformed authors of my textbook on Hermeneutics dealt with it by saying that it refers to "a future golden age".  (It doesn't seem particularly golden to me.   ;)  )  I once asked a Reformed theology professor this question: "If this passage does not mean what it seems to, how do I access the meaning of the passage?"  The professor looked me in the face and gave me an honest answer. "I don't know."

When an expositor raises the analogy of the faith to the primary principle of interpretation, he falls into circular reasoning.  "I believe the Bible clearly teaches this, therefore it cannot teach that." What is "clear" or "unclear" involves a subjective judgement. The problem with a passage like Revelation 20:1-10 is that it seems pretty clear to a lot of other folks.  So the Amillenialist's version of the analogy of the faith might be incorrect to start with.

This is why books on prophecy will continue to be written for a long time to come.  Eschatology is the most interpretive area of biblical studies, and must deal with a tremendous amount of data.

There is no doubt that the apostolic church took the passage quite literally.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,


The one thing I have a question about is the quote above.  One thing I did learn from Dr. Ehrman (though I have heard this from other sources) is the idea that Revelation is of apocalyptic genre - a form of literature that we don't have today.  This kind of literature is known for wild and vivid symbolism as well as a strong sense of good vs. evil where good ultimately prevails.  The symbols referred to things that the reader would understand but it was not understood in the same way a historical narrative would be understood.

If we were to read that New York was devastated with an atomic bomb and the source was the Orange County Register, we would be very concerned.  If we found the source was a Stephen King novel, we might get a different meaning from it, but we wouldn’t panic.  So also, would a first century Christian reading Revelation take it to be simply a strong encouragement using vivid symbols and strong pictures or would he see it as a roadmap to the future?

This is why I have wondered if our practice of taking the symbols of Revelation and trying to fit them into a historical timeline of literal future events is doing injustice to this type of literature.  I certainly don’t have enough ammunition to argue this point, but it is a question I do entertain.

If nothing else, we Christians certainly believe that Revelation is encouraging the believer to remain faithful in times of persecution and intense distortion of the truth as Christ will ultimately prevail.

-Dave

Dave,

This:

Does not mean the same thing as this:

It is quite true that we are unclear as to exactly what the people the Book of Revelation was addressed to understood by the symbols.  However, one must first show that a particular element is a symbol before one needs to interpret it. 

Believing in a millenial reign does not mean one must believe that Anwar Sadat was the "king of the South" as GG taught.  Nor does it mean that one must read the Book of Revelation with newspaper in hand. 

Chiliasm was the prevailing view in the earliest years of the church.  Those who knew the apostles seem to have believed it.  It faded from view as the church strayed farther and farther from the practices of the apostles.


Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

It seems to me Dave that the book itself is quite clear on this point, namely, how we should "take" (understand) it.

 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

While it may be difficult to delineate the precise timelines ( I personally think a pattern is discernible ), confusion about the historicity of the narrative seems unwarranted...unless of course the Lord was mistaken.



In my opinon, justifiably...
Verne

Dave,

I think that those who dismiss Revelation 20:1-10 as "symbolic" need to explain just how they know that it is, indeed, symbolic.

My first awareness of this happened some time in the 1970's.  I had gone into a bookstore called the Religious Book Discount House.  The chain was owned by a fellow named Jay Green, who seems to have been an aggressive proponent of "Reformed" theology.  (Not reformed enough IMHO  ;) )

I picked up a tract that contained an attack on the Schofield Reference Bible.  This study Bible was probably the most important means of propagating Dispensationalism of the 20th Century.  The tract contained all the usual silly
criticisms: Dispensionalists believe in two different salvations; Darby learned Dispensationalism while attending the meetings of a "prophetess" in England; and so on.   (BTW, I do not believe that Schofield had it all correct myself)

The tract stated that the usual understanding of the Revelation 20 passage was "an excessively wooden interpretation."   I have encountered this phrase in other places, I have never quite understood what it means. 

What is a "properly" wooden interpretation?  A plastic interpretation?  A hardwood versus softwood interpretation?  Cloth?  Iron?

Actually, this is an ad homenem attack on the people who believe it simply means what it seems to say.  Ad homenem attacks usually mean the person doing it simply does not know any good arguments against a postion, so he resorts to name calling.

 The article you linked at least makes a positive argument that is plausible.  He does not, however, point out any reason in the passage itself for taking it as a symbol.  Hence, his appeal to the Analogy of Faith.  It simply, in his view, could not be literal.

If you read the passage carefully though, it is evident that the thousand year period is mentioned no less than six times in the first seven verses.  It is contrasted with a "short time", which seems to mean a period much shorter than a thousand years.  It is also said to come to an end.

So, I see no reason to assume a symbol is being used.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Here is a brief article that's been on ga.com for some time--http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/BiblicalExposition/ThousandYearReign.htm (http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/BiblicalExposition/ThousandYearReign.htm)

The author's contention that the translation of martyred souls to heaven constitutes a "first resurrection" is in my view extremely problematic, from both a etymological and hermeneutic point of view. I realise that this is absolutely required for the theory to be consisistent but it strikes me as a rather weak argument for the reasons I cited.
If one argues that those described as reigning with Christ are only the martyred dead, one might well ask what became of those faithful believers who died in their sleep?
The premise would further appear to conflict with the teaching of 1 Thessalonians 4 in which departed believers are referred to as being "asleep" (as opposed to resurrected) with no distinction whatsoever being made as to the manner of their departure.
Paul stated explicity in that passage that at Christ's return, the dead in Christ shall rise first...
Verne

Folks,

In Hendriksen's article he says:

I see several fuzzy ideas in this line of reasoning:

1. Location of the thrones.  The text does not say these are in the same location as other thrones mentioned in other texts.  Hendriksen merely assumes it. Just because all the people mentioned in a book live in Texas, does not mean that everybody lives in Texas.  This is a hidden premise fallacy.

Also, it says the angel "came down from heaven", which seems to mean to the earth.

2. Location of the disembodied souls.  Just where is a disembodied soul located?  Do the limits of physics apply to souls?   The argument Hendricksen presents here assumes a very close analogy of the physical and spiritual realms.  How does he know?

3. Location of Jesus at this time.  This argument commits the fallacy of "begging the question"  The location of Jesus is what is in dispute!  Chiliasm is the belief that Jesus returns to the earth to reign for a thousand years.  So Hendriksen is assuming what he is trying to prove, that Jesus is still in heaven at this point, and then uses it as a premise in his argument.

There is another really big problem with his argument that he does not address..the word year.  The only place that word has any meaning is upon the surface of the earth.  So why use a term used for delineating the annual orbiting of the earth around the sun if the earth and sun are not even involved in the events described?

As I said earlier, eschatology is the most highly interpretive of theological fields of study.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I don't know what a wooden interpretation is either.  I suspect this person was preaching to those who already agreed with him.

On the other hand, taking a person from the other camp that is clearly inept at articulating their position and setting him forth as the champion of their cause strikes me as a bit of an ad homonym attack on them.  There are, after all, those who can explain the issue in ways that the writer of this tract clearly incapable or unwilling to do.

This discussion reminds me of the movie Galaxy Quest with Tim Allen.  Allen played the captain of a space TV show that looked an awful lot like Star Trek.  He and his aging crew ran into these space aliens.  These aliens did not have the concept of fiction so they assumed that television shows such as Star Trek and Gilligan's Island were actually recorded historical records.  As a result, based upon these "historical record", they built a ship much like the Star Ship Enterprise and wanted these washed-up actors to run the thing.  The movie is worth a rent for a good laugh.

We moderns, who no longer write or read apocalyptic literature, look back at Revelation and assume that we read it like we would read a newspaper, a historical narrative, a doctrinal book or a brief.  We, as you say, "assume that it is all historical unless there is something to indicate something might be a symbol".

It seems to me that the opposite would be true.  Since apocalyptic genre is, by nature, symbolic, I would think that we would assume that it is all symbolic unless there is some overriding clue that something is to be taken as a literal, historical fact.  If we read fiction, we assume it is all "made up" unless there is something in the story clueing us in that it is true.  If we read poetry, we assume that it is imagery and word-picture unless the author gives us a clue they are talking about something literal.  If we read apocalyptic literature, we assume that it is wildly symbolic giving encouragement, a general vision of being on the winning side, and hope for the future of the church - not necessarily a detailed historical blueprint.  Unless, of course, we are like those space aliens who never heard of that type of literature and assume everything is historical.

I think what the author of the a-millenial paper is saying by "analogy of faith" (a term that I think is very poor) is that you base your doctrinal understanding about the end times upon propositional statements of epistles and the Lord's sermons.  You use these propositional statements to interpret the symbolism of Revelation.  He isn't just saying that we interpreter the book of Revelation based upon what we happen to want to believe.

One thing that I highly agree with you is that end-time interpretation requires grasping and understanding a great amount of detail.  In short, it requires a mind I simply don't have.  So, don't expect me to defend either the pre-millenial or the amillenial.  I simply don't know enough to draw those conclusions.