From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Sat Jan 17 1998 - 01:19:30 EST
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:57:06 -0600 (CST) Carl William Conrad
<cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> writes:
>On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>>
>> I agree that the grammar is nondeterminative. So, any interpretation
>> here which posits a teaching foreign to scripture, such as a
>> post-resurrection preaching to the departed, must remain at least
highly
>> suspect.
>
>Highly suspect indeed, with the added difficulty that this text is
itself
>scriptural and on the basis of its possible interpretation may posit a
>teaching of a post-resurrection preaching to the departed. This gets
into
>hermeneutics, which is not an appropriate subject for discussion here.
>I note only that this text, with all the problems it involves, IS part
>of the canon.
I love your answer, Carl, and agree with it, as well. How many times
does something have to appear in scripture in order for it to be true?
Once? Twice? I am not now premillennial, but when I was, it used to
grate against me to hear the argument usually raised that Rev 20 should
not be taken premillennially because a thousand year reign is never
mentioned any where else in scripture. Actually, now that I am amill, it
still grates against me. Aargh. But, this is not a list for theology,
as you say. Sorry. Well, sort of.
Paul DIxon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:57 EDT