« first day (884 days earlier)      last day (2700 days later) » 

12:27 AM
@JonEricson, I attempted an edit on this Q; however, I am concerned it still is proof texting which I believe is off-topic. So, I thought I might run it by someone else. Feel free to delete my comments if they fall short as well.
 
 
14 hours later…
2:01 PM
@Sarah The question as you have edited it looks great to me, well done.
 
 
1 hour later…
3:06 PM
7
Q: How should we handle historicism?

Jon EricsonIf there's one thing that drives me nuts about my fellow Christians, it's how we sometimes are so certain that some prophecy is associated with some historical event. It reminds me of the Midianite soldiers who dream about barley bread and say, "Surely this can be none other than the sword of Gi...

^^^ does this mean that questions should not ask about the referent of symbols in apocalyptic/eschatalogical literature (such as the book of Revelation), or just that answers should not go past the time period of the time of writing to find a referent (i.e. Babylon = USA), or something else altogether? Thoughts? (I'm not sure what to make of this)
@jas3.1 since you wrote the current top answer, care to weigh in?
or perhaps we need more folks to weigh in on this question
Specifically, how might it apply to this question?
 
3:53 PM
@Daи It doesn't mean either as far as I can tell
The question is neutral and the top answer says: it's OK as long as the question and answer aren't completely divorced from the text
which wouldn't be allowed anyway
if you think the Pope is a anti-Christ, you should reason from the text to support that
anyone else?
 
4:39 PM
it is a confusing answer since it says, "questions about whether entity X is the true fulfillment of Prophecy Y are off-topic" and then proceeds to give examples of that that are considered acceptable
 
4:49 PM
I think it needs more answers... any takers?
 
@Daи "unless the answer can be determined exegetically." The examples illustrate what he means. Makes perfect sense to me
 
@JackDouglas not clear enough for me :P
@JackDouglas depending on how you interpret that, exegetically could mean not reading anything into the text it doesn't say (i.e. you couldn't say the USA = Babylon since USA is not in the text and thus can't be drawn from it, which is the literal meaning of 'exegetical')
but as some interpret it, you can make the text say anything you want as long as you claim you are doing exegesis....
it's another undefined term that carries no clear meaning here
 
5:14 PM
It's meaning is clear from the examples
Words don't have a absolute meaning that can be taken out of context
Giving examples is a most excellent way of communicating: I've noticed even legal documents like laws and EULAs doing it increasingly
Check out the "insignificant private use" bit of this I had to get to grips with a few years ago
 
5:34 PM
@JackDouglas nice
well, I'm hoping some others weigh in with answers as well
 
 
4 hours later…
9:34 PM
= preparatory (? chip off workbench for?) :
The discomfort, imo, is essentially with pesher exegesis.
"This is that", when there is no "rational" connection between the "this", and the "that".
When that takes place withing the bounds of scripture (e.g., 1 Cor 10:4b, or 1 Peter 1:25b), that is Scripture, and part of the world of those who wrote the Bible.
The problem comes when "this" and "that" get linked in the post-biblical period -
because this has been a mode of reading that has been going on for a long, long time.
Another problem is nailing down what we mean by "historicism":
in the meta cited by Daи, Gone Quiet raised a valuable point,
in an attempt to get to grips with what was intended by the use of "historicism".
As I understand it, "historicism" in (philosophical) hermeutics is quite a different beast. See for example:
Herder, Hegel, Kant, Schleiermacher ... frankly, I'd rather do Hebrew.
Oh - and I meant to say, my thoughts on "pesher" were the reason for the initial pointer to the Longenecker article from Tyndale Bulletin - should have clarified that earlier.
Hope y'all have a good weekend! :)
 
10:30 PM
@JackDouglas, thank you for looking at the edit for me.
 
@Davïd thanks for sharing!
 

« first day (884 days earlier)      last day (2700 days later) »