Re:
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 8:51 am
Yes. Do you?
Hosted by Steve Gregg
https://theos.org:443/forum/
Sure. I'd start with the idea that any phrase with absolutes such as "and never shall be", or "ever has been", should be examined for idiomatic exaggeration. It would make sense theologically that when we say that the God of the Bible is the "most high God" that this is an absolute statement without exaggeration. But, Matt's point is rather simple. There are all sorts of descriptions of historical events that are described in absolute, exaggerated ways so it is not unambiguously clear on its face that the phrase we're talking about should be taken that way. Your hermeneutic is completely subjective and as far as I can tell provides no useful guidance on how to determine which statements are to be taken literally.Paidion wrote:Yes. Do you?
A good point, Steve. And an adequate response to the usual preterist argument against futurism, namely, "Why would Jesus prophesy to the people of his day, about some future people, about whom his listeners knew nothing? How would such prophecy be applicable to his listeners?"Steve7150 wrote:But you can say that about any prophecy like Gen 3.15 or Isaiah 53? What understanding would the "original audience" have about these or most prophecies?
Your criterion is to decide that "historical events that are described in absolute, exaggerated ways" are likely to be hyperbole.Doug wrote:There are all sorts of descriptions of historical events that are described in absolute, exaggerated ways so it is not unambiguously clear on its face that the phrase we're talking about should be taken that way. Your hermeneutic is completely subjective and as far as I can tell provides no useful guidance on how to determine which statements are to be taken literally.
Maybe, if you think the genres, contexts, and audiences are similar. I think it's better to take them case by case. I do not think that the verse quoted in the original post is hyperbole even though it appears to be a Jewish figure of speech of some sort. (But the verse after it could be.)steve7150 wrote:But you can say that about any prophecy like Gen 3.15 or Isaiah 53?
That's a good question. I don't know what OT or inter-testamental writings or traditions would have made Jesus' audience hear "this genea" as the Jewish people as a whole. Would be interesting to look into, if I had any time for such things.steve7150 wrote:What understanding would the "original audience" have about these or most prophecies?
You'd have to ask the old Mennonite that question. All I was doing was quoting him. I also gave you examples of how his criterion could be applied. I gave you one example of where the literal sense did not make sense, and one where it did. And I think that makes sense. The criterion itself is the objective standard. Certainly we need to assess whether or not the literal reading makes sense. But if you deem that subjective, then any criterion would be subjective. For you must make some type of subjective assessment in applying it. I asked you how yours was any more objective than his, and I haven't seen a reply from you yet.What objective standard is used to determine what makes "literal sense"?