Hi!
Imagine if you will, that you were simply trying
to determine when something was written, whether
before or after a certain date. I'm serious. Forget
about your beliefs and your doctrine and all of that.
Just focus on the scholarly work of trying to figure
out when something was written, regardless of
what it would mean to your beliefs about something.
You see, we don't have to actually be scholars, to apply
some common sense and see where we land. :)
So if you say, "But I'm not a scholar", well then, what
is that but an admission that you aren't qualified to say
whether something is right or wrong here and it is
automatically an admission that you shouldn't enter
the discussion at all then! In other words, you don't
get to say that and then claim that you are capable
of correcting anyone who doesn't believe exactly as
you do. That is the same as saying; "I am not qualified
to judge this, but I am qualified to judge this.". Huh? :)
And after all, isn't that what true scholarship is? Leaving
our biases and preassumed doctrines behind, in the search
of the scientific truth of the matter, using our God given
logic and common sense and using our education about
history (since they were written almost 2,000 years ago)
to try to reach a conclusion? And before you object,
remember, that every time you quote a "church father",
or even a passage from Scripture to show something
that happened, you are quoting history!
Or is it proper to have made your conclusion before
examining the document(s) and then force whatever
you see to fit your preassumed conclusion? Honestly.
Which approach is proper scholarship?
Do you read things that make assumptions and call them
"scholarship"? Or do you look for honesty? I hope it is
the latter!
And just FYI, if you have already jumped to a conclusion
about what I'm going to say, or that I must be wrong
because your doctrine says such and such, then I would
recommend that you stop reading now, since it is obvious
that you cannot be honest and have jumped to a conclusion
before I even presented anything to you and that the only
thing that's important to you, is your closed mindedness
and fighting anyone who says anything that might rock
your little boat, because you have an assumption and
think you're God, since you think you cannot possibly
be wrong, nor could you possibly have anything to learn.
If this is where you are right now, please stop reading
right now and please, don't bother responding, because
I'll just call you an idiot and be done with you! That
doesn't mean we can't disagree. But it does mean that
you don't get to pretend that you making a conclusion
and not caring what the evidence is, or even what
the subject is, is not idiocy and frankly, that simply
doesn't deserve any time wasted on it, period!
Now if you are willing to look at some things and to ask
yourself some questions that I will pose, then you should
keep reading, so that you can try to come to some type
of conclusion, being ready to be open minded enough
to examine the evidence before coming to a conclusion.
So now that we have that straight, let's take a look at
a document and see what common sense tells us. :)
The question I asked is; "Did they just forget?". Well,
forget what? Wouldn't that be the question? I would
think it would, amen? :)
So let's look at the issue of when the Book of Revelation
was written and let's not get too technical and let's not
even bother trying to interpret passages. Let's just apply
some common sense and look at a bit of other documentation
and as I said, see where we land, okay? :)
Much has been made of the differences in the interpretation
of Revelation, based on various eschatological views. And
much of the "hoo ha" has been in regard to the differences
between Preterism and Futurism/Dispensationalism.
So I will post a series of messages about the Book of
Revelation and you can decide for yourself what makes
sense to you, okay? :)
I will start with the next post, as this was just an intro,
to hopefully set the stage for some honest consideration
and may some discussion. :)
A few more messages to follow, which I'm sure
will draw some personal attacks, but zero rebuttal,
from Carl, Chuck, Fred, Rod and Vera, which they
will pretend means that what I show here isn't true.
--
"It is a wise father, who knows his own child."
- William Shakespeare
.
|
