Abraham fighting Moses: All on the Same Side - A Historicist view of the War in Israel.

[chevyontheriver]

locust of daniel 9 and islam - Google Search

This passage speaks of locusts emerging from a smoky abyss. Anglo-American scholars in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries almost universally believed that this passage referred to the rise of Islam in the early seventh century.

From the very article you cited, "Evangelical Christians have been too eager to gloss biblical prophecy with extra-biblical assertions".

So sure some Protestants were all captivated by 'locust thinking' as extra-biblical assertions. They went way beyond the text.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

From the very article you cited, "Evangelical Christians have been too eager to gloss biblical prophecy with extra-biblical assertions".

So sure some Protestants were all captivated by 'locust thinking' as extra-biblical assertions. They went way beyond the text.

I did not quote the article, I quoted the Google search response. it may have been referenced in an article, but I did not. The only point was to show that this was not made up by me. this view has been around for a long time.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I did not quote the article, I quoted the Google search response. it may have been referenced in an article, but I did not. The only point was to show that this was not made up by me. this view has been around for a long time.

I actually read the article that you used to bolster your position.

Lots of absolutely crazy ideas have been around for a long time. Lots of goofy Biblical interpretations have been around for a long time. Doesn't make them true that you didn't make them up but someone like Ellen Gould White or Martin Luther made them up. Eisegesis is STILL eisegesis no matter whether made up by a famous eisegete. Popularity among some 18th century Protestant theologians doesn't do anything to make it true.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I actually read the article that you used to bolster your position.

Lots of absolutely crazy ideas have been around for a long time. Lots of goofy Biblical interpretations have been around for a long time. Doesn't make them true that you didn't make them up but someone like Ellen Gould White or Martin Luther made them up. Eisegesis is STILL eisegesis no matter whether made up by a famous eisegete. Popularity among some 18th century Protestant theologians doesn't do anything to make it true.

i did not use the article to bolster my position, I used the quote to show that I did not make up the interpretation. That is all. anything more than that is your interpretation and extrapolation of whatever you want it to mean.
As far as eisegesis, you show me how drew the wrong conclusion? I showed you mine now you show me yours. fair is fair. just because you don't like the interpretation does not mean it is wrong.
As far As Ellen White goes I don't believe in her, that is why I am the Adventist Heretic. popularity in the 18th century and unpopularity now does not make it false.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

So sure some Protestants were all captivated by 'locust thinking' as extra-biblical assertions. They went way beyond the text.

maybe, but I did not. and that is not an indication of the rightness or wrongness of the interpretation.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Judges 6:1

1 The Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD, and for seven years he gave them into the hands of the Midianites. 2 Because the power of Midian was so oppressive, the Israelites prepared shelters for themselves in mountain clefts, caves and strongholds.

Judges 7:12

12 The armies of Midian, Amalek, and the people of the east had settled in the valley like a swarm of locusts. Their camels were like grains of sand on the seashore—too many to count!

 

[Adventist Heretic]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1799222980517812?s=yWDuG2...

 

[chevyontheriver]

maybe, but I did not. and that is not an indication of the rightness or wrongness of the interpretation.

Going way beyond the text IS wrong interpretation. It is speculation. It is not what the Bible says. Now maybe it's true, but don't pretend the Bible text in any way supports that interpretation. If you want to concoct a theory, or pick up on someone else's old theory at least don't say that's clearly what the Bible says. 'Cause in this case it just doesn't. The text is inadequate to support your eisegesis. Which is normal for eisegesis.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Going way beyond the text IS wrong interpretation.

exactly how did i go beyond the text and how is it wrong. Stating that you don't like the interpretation is a preference, stating that it is wrong implies you know what is right. so what is the right answer?

It is speculation. It is not what the Bible says.

if you are going to take that approach then you cannot interpret the symbols. Then there is a literal Dragon running around chasing a Pregnant woman on the moon. There are Locust that have faces like women spewing fire. There are horses flying around that have different colors. There is a Prostitute Riding a Dragon Beast of some kind and the City of Babylon is going to be destroyed by fire.
now if we take your view then we must take it literally and it is complete nonsense. If you take my view and let the bible tell what the symbols mean then it allows us to venture an interpretation. this view is well within the bounds of interpretation.

Now maybe it's true, but don't pretend the Bible text in any way supports that interpretation. If you want to concoct a theory, or pick up on someone else's old theory at least don't say that's clearly what the Bible says.

I didn't say it clearly says that. I said there was an interpretation that is the Historicist view, don't put words in my mouth.

'Cause in this case it just doesn't. The text is inadequate to support your eisegesis. Which is normal for eisegesis.

I think you need to go back and learn what eisegesis actually means because you are using it wrongly. I am not reading anything into the text. The text is telling me how to interpret it. 1. Literally or Symbolically. you must make that decision first. 2. Then what does the Book of Revelation say about the topic? 3. Then how does the bible use the symbolism in the rest of scripture? That is how the conclusion is reached. Just because you don't like it does not mean it is wrong.

 

[chevyontheriver]

if you are going to take that approach then you cannot interpret the symbols. Then there is a literal Dragon running around chasing a Pregnant woman on the moon. There are Locust that have faces like women spewing fire. There are horses flying around that have different colors. There is a Prostitute Riding a Dragon Beast of some kind and the City of Babylon is going to be destroyed by fire.
now if we take your view then we must take it literally and it is complete nonsense.

That's funny.

I didn't say it clearly says that. I said there was an interpretation that is the Historicist view, don't put words in my mouth.

You have put words into the mouth of Rev 9. Now you complain that I have put words in your mouth? Rev 9 says nothing in particular about Islam. Your speculation gets you there. If you would just call it your speculation, a non-infallible speculation at that, all would be fine.

I think you need to go back and learn what eisegesis actually means because you are using it wrongly. I am not reading anything into the text. The text is telling me how to interpret it. 1. Literally or Symbolically. you must make that decision first. 2. Then what does the Book of Revelation say about the topic? 3. Then how does the bible use the symbolism in the rest of scripture? That is how the conclusion is reached. Just because you don't like it does not mean it is wrong.

Just because you call it an interpretation does not make it right. I was trying earlier on to merely say I don't share your interpretation and leave it at that. That wasn't good enough for you though.

 

[chevyontheriver]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1799222980517812?s=yWDuG2...

Poor old Taylor Marshall has discredited himself in the past year and you marshal a link to him talking? Sorry. That flies like a lead balloon.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

That's funny.

You have put words into the mouth of Rev 9. Now you complain that I have put words in your mouth? Rev 9 says nothing in particular about Islam. Your speculation gets you there. If you would just call it your speculation, a non-infallible speculation at that, all would be fine.

Just because you call it an interpretation does not make it right.

nor does it make it wrong

I was trying earlier on to merely say I don't share your interpretation and leave it at that. That wasn't good enough for you though.

you should have just said that. but you didn't

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Poor old Taylor Marshall has discredited himself in the past year and you marshal a link to him talking? Sorry. That flies like a lead balloon.

Exactly what did he say that was wrong?

 

[chevyontheriver]

you should have just said that. but you didn't

I did. You wouldn't let it go.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I did. You wouldn't let it go.

if you say so, it did not come across like that.