Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: The Ignorant Fisherman; topcat54
Again we have the problem of inconsistency. Gary North understands the days in Genesis 1 literally, in their normal sense, as do so many Reformed creationists. However, he understands the years in Revelation 20 in a non-literal way, in a symbolic way. It fits his theology to make the days of Genesis 1 be literal days; it contradicts his theology to understand the millennium of Revelation 20 as a literal millennium of 1000 years. Should not the text of the Bible determine our theology instead of letting our theology govern how we understand the text?

OK, this is mostly a dispensationalist vs. everyone else thing.

I am not at all impressed by the dispensationalist's claim to "literal, plain sense" interpretation. It's rhetoric and bluster, often. They simply can not make good on that, with respect to time texts.

What is your favorite gap?

11 posted on 10/14/2010 8:43:04 PM PDT by Lee N. Field (Dispensational exegesis not supported by an a-, post- or historic pre-mil scholar will be ignored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Lee N. Field

Struck an exposed nerve there ...


35 posted on 10/15/2010 7:16:08 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Lee N. Field
If that your position..so be it.. your wrong....lol... but that is you position..

move on... To have a saving relationship to Christ as the Bible teaches is all important... I.F.

55 posted on 10/15/2010 3:25:16 PM PDT by The Ignorant Fisherman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson