Hello, this is my first post here. I'll do a proper introduction later, but first I want to throw a question out there that I'm interested in.
A bit of personal background, however, is necessary in order to set the question up. I was raised in a Christian home, fundamentalist Baptist, to be exact, and surrounded by dispensational eschatology. Like many others, I was hardly aware there was anything else (occasionally I'd hear reference to some unidentified "other" Christians who believed other things, but I was never really sure who "they" were). I had never really thoroughly thought through the beliefs (eschatological or otherwise) I had been handed until recently (more on that when I get around to a better introduction). To cut to the chase on this topic, I've been leaning more and more toward an amillenial viewpoint, thanks in no small part to Steve G's recorded lectures (I was primed for this, however, before discovering Steve's material, by people like JP Holding and some others).
So, here I am now, a possible amil surrounded by dispensationalists. The pastoral staff of my church, all my friends at church, other friends besides those at church, my parents, ...even my wife! I have a very close friend who is--like all the rest of them--a dispensationalist. He has a leg up on me in that he has attempted for years to get through the necessary schooling to go into the ministry (and thus has spent more time studying scripture than I who have only thus far aspired to more secular occupations). Though we are very close, I unfortunately don't get to see or talk to him as much as I'd like, but I let it slip once on the phone that my views on eschatology were going in a different direction. I believe that this spurred him on to do more "study" on the topic of eschatology (likely with the intent to straighten me out), and he'd had some time for this during a long interval between our conversations. In my last phone call with him, he started in with a whole list of reasons he's a dispy, including the usual assertions that amils and other non-dispy's "allegorize" too much, etc.
One of the things he brought up was something about a prophecy in the OT (not just one, but several of the prophets) which gave a number of years when it would be fulfilled. He claims to have derived from this the correct number of years to lead up to AD 1948 with some precision. He says that one can only arrive at this if one uses "lunar years" versus the normal 365 day years we use. This might or might not have involved Daniel's 70 weeks. Unfortunately, the phone call was cut short and he didn't have time to go into detail. However, I want to be prepared for this the next time I talk to him.
I heard Steve in one of his lectures talk about someone who claims to have used lunar years in connection with Daniel's 70 weeks in order to get to Jesus' triumphal entry (at the 69th week). Also after doing some searching, saw one of the participants here on this board claim to have calculated from some OT prophecy up until 1949, but that was using 365 day years, not "lunar" years (and in the same thread someone else corrected him saying that the Jews did not use "lunar years" but rather "lunar months.") However, using lunar years to get from some point in the OT to 1948 is a slightly different twist on both scenarios.
Has anyone here ever heard of this particular notion? (or I should say, this particular variation on this notion). If so, what additional information can you add to this? I suppose I could do my own research on this, but my time is unfortunately very limited, so I'm "cheating" a bit, and hoping someone else already has the answer.
Thanks. And sorry for the long-winded first post.
OT Prophets and 1948
OT Prophets and 1948
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Jared,
Almost forty years ago, when I was pretty new to all this stuff, I used to get all excited about those intricate calculations that some people are apparently still so excited about. I guess I had the conception that God used the prophets to reveal His plan, not in words and sentences, but in trigonometry. Nowadays, when I hear a teacher on the radio starting to explain how he found secret chronological codes in the prophets leading to some modern event (usually on the Calvary Satellite Network), it puts my feet to sleep up to the hips.
If your friend is on the same track with what I once heard Jon Courson present, it will have something to do with the dates of the conquest of Canaan, the 390 days that Ezekiel laid on his left side and the 40 days he laid on his right side, the repeated warnings in Leviticus 26, where God said, "I will punish you seven times more"—and I forget what else—all mixed together in entirely random fashion with arbitrary calculations...I was too astonished to be hearing a respected Bible teacher presenting such speculative nonsense to really follow his train of thought.
What ever happened to good ol' biblical exegesis? Whenever I hear people getting into exotic speculations, Bible codes, prophetic timetables revealing end time events, numerology, magic apologetics, etc., I always think (to borrow a line from a 60's-vintage Vitalis ad), "You mean you're still using that greasy kid stuff?"
I wonder when such people will realize that the best proof of the Bible's authenticity is that which can be read right on its pages, and the best way to know what Isaiah, Jesus, John or Paul believed is to read their actual statements.
The very mentality that assumes that God concealed secret dates and messages between the lines of scripture (or in the variable letter sequences), which only those with mathematical prowess (and a lot of imagination) can decipher, is so typical of a certain breed of dispensationalists—that is, a fascination with the sensational, but not quite sufficiently interested in what a responsible exegesis of the text will reveal. It is as if they think Jesus and the prophets were mystical sages, concealing their truths in opaque language (like Nostradamus), which their true followers would still be debating and digging out 2000 years after their departure.
The first dispensationalists (along with the Mormons) were the ones who claimed to have finally uncovered the "mystery" which was taught in scripture, but was lost immediately after the Apostolic Age (John Darby made this specific claim). Once you decide that some of the main prophetic themes remained undiscovered for 1800 years, it is hard to avoid the mentality that there may be a lot more secret stuff in there to discover, and to keep trying to dig out new stuff on eschatology, even though the biblical eschatology was satisfactorily settled, almost unanimously, on most points, from the first century to the nineteenth. You can't easily convince these people that this is not how responsible grown-ups conduct serious biblical studies. It is a level of spiritual maturity that needs to be outgrown.
I am aware of how condescending this must sound to those who hold dispensational views, and I don't mean to offend, but I must say what I see, and have seen for four decades, in the dispensationalist circles with which I am familiar.
I would tell your friend that, no view will impress you if it's demonstration requires doing a complete end-run around responsible exegesis, and in its place requires one to depend upon 100% speculation about numbers and years. I would say that, for my money, I will be holding out for a viewpoint that actually finds support in the statements of the biblical writers. If his view can find such support, I will be interested in seeing it.
Almost forty years ago, when I was pretty new to all this stuff, I used to get all excited about those intricate calculations that some people are apparently still so excited about. I guess I had the conception that God used the prophets to reveal His plan, not in words and sentences, but in trigonometry. Nowadays, when I hear a teacher on the radio starting to explain how he found secret chronological codes in the prophets leading to some modern event (usually on the Calvary Satellite Network), it puts my feet to sleep up to the hips.
If your friend is on the same track with what I once heard Jon Courson present, it will have something to do with the dates of the conquest of Canaan, the 390 days that Ezekiel laid on his left side and the 40 days he laid on his right side, the repeated warnings in Leviticus 26, where God said, "I will punish you seven times more"—and I forget what else—all mixed together in entirely random fashion with arbitrary calculations...I was too astonished to be hearing a respected Bible teacher presenting such speculative nonsense to really follow his train of thought.
What ever happened to good ol' biblical exegesis? Whenever I hear people getting into exotic speculations, Bible codes, prophetic timetables revealing end time events, numerology, magic apologetics, etc., I always think (to borrow a line from a 60's-vintage Vitalis ad), "You mean you're still using that greasy kid stuff?"
I wonder when such people will realize that the best proof of the Bible's authenticity is that which can be read right on its pages, and the best way to know what Isaiah, Jesus, John or Paul believed is to read their actual statements.
The very mentality that assumes that God concealed secret dates and messages between the lines of scripture (or in the variable letter sequences), which only those with mathematical prowess (and a lot of imagination) can decipher, is so typical of a certain breed of dispensationalists—that is, a fascination with the sensational, but not quite sufficiently interested in what a responsible exegesis of the text will reveal. It is as if they think Jesus and the prophets were mystical sages, concealing their truths in opaque language (like Nostradamus), which their true followers would still be debating and digging out 2000 years after their departure.
The first dispensationalists (along with the Mormons) were the ones who claimed to have finally uncovered the "mystery" which was taught in scripture, but was lost immediately after the Apostolic Age (John Darby made this specific claim). Once you decide that some of the main prophetic themes remained undiscovered for 1800 years, it is hard to avoid the mentality that there may be a lot more secret stuff in there to discover, and to keep trying to dig out new stuff on eschatology, even though the biblical eschatology was satisfactorily settled, almost unanimously, on most points, from the first century to the nineteenth. You can't easily convince these people that this is not how responsible grown-ups conduct serious biblical studies. It is a level of spiritual maturity that needs to be outgrown.
I am aware of how condescending this must sound to those who hold dispensational views, and I don't mean to offend, but I must say what I see, and have seen for four decades, in the dispensationalist circles with which I am familiar.
I would tell your friend that, no view will impress you if it's demonstration requires doing a complete end-run around responsible exegesis, and in its place requires one to depend upon 100% speculation about numbers and years. I would say that, for my money, I will be holding out for a viewpoint that actually finds support in the statements of the biblical writers. If his view can find such support, I will be interested in seeing it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_SoaringEagle
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY
I might have missed it, but what does 1948 have to do with dispensationalism?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
SoaringEagle, that date is significant to Darbyists who see the formation of an official Israeli state as a fulfillment of prophecy. In this view, God is much more interested in the politics of the Middle East than in getting his people to follow Jesus. Also, like Steve, I was once a Darbyist and now see things much, much differently. God bless.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I've personally decided not to debate dispensationalists until 2049 (1948+101). I'm curious what their interpretation of "this generation" will be at that point. But should I plan on living that long just to smack Darbyists? 
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Thanks for the replies so far, especially the detailed one from Steve.
Seth, I have pretty much taken the same attitude with regard to debates. I'd really rather not engage in a debate, at least until I'm more knowledgeable, but, unfortunately--to paraphrase Tolkien--open debate is upon me whether I would risk it or not.
This friend with whom I have the disagreement is like a brother to me and we go way, back--all the way to grade school. What I'm trying to avoid is the following scenario:
He bombards me with all these "proofs" of the dispensational viewpoint. I know from the little bit that I've studied that there's something fundamentally wrong, and to me the amil position makes more pieces of the whole picture fit together than does dispensationlism. However, because I've only studied the matter for a limited time, I believe I'll not be able to recall enough specific facts to mind quickly enough to refute the points. Being at such a disadvantage, I have three choices: 1) Just agree with him (insincerely), 2) insist that I don't buy it, but not be able to back that up, or 3) be noncommittal and promise to study the matter further. A fourth option would be to successfully refute the points, but I'm not confident in my own ability to do so (being convinced myself is a different matter than the knowledge or rhetorical skill necessary to win a debate).
Choice #1 would be dishonest (unless he succeeds in changing my mind), so that's out. Choices #2 and #3 would make me appear to be simply stubborn. He's convinced in his own mind and will likely have difficulty understanding how someone else can come to a different conclusion; those who do must--to his way of thinking--have other reasons such as stubbornness, prior theological agenda, etc. "How can you argue with these calculations; its right there in front of you, etc. ..."
I'm leaning toward #3, which, of course, is exactly the case. I'm not completely decided on the matter, but am leaning heavily in one particular direction. I need to know more about the issue before engaging heavily in debate, and would really like more opportunity to study the matter further. However, I have a suspicion that this will turn into something that he can't leave alone until one of us changes our position (I'm not looking forward to that). If it weren't for that I'd be content to just not go near the subject until I'm better able to defend the position. Though less than perfect, I think this is the approach I'll take, combined with Steve's suggested response of not accepting anything that isn't specifically backed up by clear scripture.
Steve, I'm completely with you about this "trigonometry" being so much gobbldy gook (that's one of the reasons I'm leaning toward amil). I wouldn't pay it any attention were it not for this situation. What I was hoping for here, though, was for someone to help me identify (from the unfortunately scant information presented so far) what might be the source of his notions. Perhaps some Bible teacher somewhere who's written a book, etc. This would give me a chance to research and think through my response to that particular point a little ahead of time. Perhaps it has something to do with this Jon Courson fellow that you mentioned. That's a name I've never heard before, but I will look that up. Thanks for that lead!
As I said, I did not ask to get involved in this debate, but it is being foisted on me by my well-meaning friend. This isn't a casual acquaintance that I can just walk away from; this is a life-long friend that I do not intend to break off communication with any time soon (or ever).
A similar situation is starting to arise with my wife, too, but to a much, much lesser degree. She freely admits that she is not well read in the subject, and when I asked her if she would be able to defend OR refute either view successfully, she had to answer "no." But at the same time, she is faced with the dilemma of who to believe: her husband, or those who have provided her upbringing. I don't envision her turning it into a big problem (we have a great marriage and things like this never get in the way of our relationship), but I would like to articulate the position sufficiently to perform my duty of leading my family in spiritual matters.
(BTW, my mother once had a part-time job in the mail-room for Jack Van Impe's ministries, if that tells you anything about where I'm coming from).
Seth, I have pretty much taken the same attitude with regard to debates. I'd really rather not engage in a debate, at least until I'm more knowledgeable, but, unfortunately--to paraphrase Tolkien--open debate is upon me whether I would risk it or not.
This friend with whom I have the disagreement is like a brother to me and we go way, back--all the way to grade school. What I'm trying to avoid is the following scenario:
He bombards me with all these "proofs" of the dispensational viewpoint. I know from the little bit that I've studied that there's something fundamentally wrong, and to me the amil position makes more pieces of the whole picture fit together than does dispensationlism. However, because I've only studied the matter for a limited time, I believe I'll not be able to recall enough specific facts to mind quickly enough to refute the points. Being at such a disadvantage, I have three choices: 1) Just agree with him (insincerely), 2) insist that I don't buy it, but not be able to back that up, or 3) be noncommittal and promise to study the matter further. A fourth option would be to successfully refute the points, but I'm not confident in my own ability to do so (being convinced myself is a different matter than the knowledge or rhetorical skill necessary to win a debate).
Choice #1 would be dishonest (unless he succeeds in changing my mind), so that's out. Choices #2 and #3 would make me appear to be simply stubborn. He's convinced in his own mind and will likely have difficulty understanding how someone else can come to a different conclusion; those who do must--to his way of thinking--have other reasons such as stubbornness, prior theological agenda, etc. "How can you argue with these calculations; its right there in front of you, etc. ..."
I'm leaning toward #3, which, of course, is exactly the case. I'm not completely decided on the matter, but am leaning heavily in one particular direction. I need to know more about the issue before engaging heavily in debate, and would really like more opportunity to study the matter further. However, I have a suspicion that this will turn into something that he can't leave alone until one of us changes our position (I'm not looking forward to that). If it weren't for that I'd be content to just not go near the subject until I'm better able to defend the position. Though less than perfect, I think this is the approach I'll take, combined with Steve's suggested response of not accepting anything that isn't specifically backed up by clear scripture.
Steve, I'm completely with you about this "trigonometry" being so much gobbldy gook (that's one of the reasons I'm leaning toward amil). I wouldn't pay it any attention were it not for this situation. What I was hoping for here, though, was for someone to help me identify (from the unfortunately scant information presented so far) what might be the source of his notions. Perhaps some Bible teacher somewhere who's written a book, etc. This would give me a chance to research and think through my response to that particular point a little ahead of time. Perhaps it has something to do with this Jon Courson fellow that you mentioned. That's a name I've never heard before, but I will look that up. Thanks for that lead!
As I said, I did not ask to get involved in this debate, but it is being foisted on me by my well-meaning friend. This isn't a casual acquaintance that I can just walk away from; this is a life-long friend that I do not intend to break off communication with any time soon (or ever).
A similar situation is starting to arise with my wife, too, but to a much, much lesser degree. She freely admits that she is not well read in the subject, and when I asked her if she would be able to defend OR refute either view successfully, she had to answer "no." But at the same time, she is faced with the dilemma of who to believe: her husband, or those who have provided her upbringing. I don't envision her turning it into a big problem (we have a great marriage and things like this never get in the way of our relationship), but I would like to articulate the position sufficiently to perform my duty of leading my family in spiritual matters.
(BTW, my mother once had a part-time job in the mail-room for Jack Van Impe's ministries, if that tells you anything about where I'm coming from).
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
One more thought in post-script to the above. I'm really not interested in "winning a debate" so much as I am in getting at the truth. If I could figure out how to just side-step the issue with my friend I would do it. But even to do that successfully, I think I have to demonstrate enough reasoned skepticism to make him understand why I'm not just accepting the ideas unquestioningly.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Jared,
Would your wife be willing to listen to Steve's lectures? I thought Steve was a heretic when my husband first told me about him, but once I listened to him speak I realized that that wasn't the case (at least in my opinion).
Would your wife be willing to listen to Steve's lectures? I thought Steve was a heretic when my husband first told me about him, but once I listened to him speak I realized that that wasn't the case (at least in my opinion).
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"How is it that Christians today will pay $20 to hear the latest Christian concert, but Jesus can't draw a crowd?"
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
what difference does it make? i mean- if your friend wants to be a dispensationalist, is it a big deal? and if you want to be amill, that's okay too.
it seems the older i get, the less i care about such things. they just dont seem all that important. we are to be disciples, regardless.
TK
it seems the older i get, the less i care about such things. they just dont seem all that important. we are to be disciples, regardless.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
To him it is. First of all he's not going to let it go, and I'm probably not going to be able to have any sort of deep conversation with him now without him bringing it up. I'm not necessarily trying to convert him to my viewpoint; I just want to have something intelligent to say when the subject comes up. Secondly, I do think its pretty important, because I'm finding out that it does tend to color how you interpret the rest of scripture. Maybe not the most important thing, but important. Also, it just happens to be a personal interest of mine at this time.TK wrote:what difference does it make? ... is it a big deal?
Anyway, it wasn't really my intention to discuss my friend as the focus of the conversation. It was unavoidable to work that in, though by way of explaining what I was getting at and why. I really just wanted to know if anyone could give me a heads-up on the mathematical calculation thing.
Rae, I tried that, but she's just plain too busy to listen to lectures (stay at home mom with three little ones). I'm not worried about her; I just want to share with her the blessings that I've been getting out of the subject lately, but its tough to do that when the wall of "that's not what I've always heard before" comes up. She'll come around eventually, though.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: