Re: The Whole Bible Revealed in Zechariah (was Re: NT truth (formerly inerrancy?))

From: Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 23:53:27 EST

Richard McGough wrote:

"Concerning the Word of the Lord as refering to the Bible - of course it does
not *always* refer to the Bible, but that certainly does not mean that it
*never* so applies."

Some years ago I did a concordance study on "Word of God," etc., and as I recall I was unable to find a single instance where that and like terms referred unambiguously to Scripture. There were a couple of cases where that was a *possible* meaning. Can you cite instances where Scripture is the *only* reasonable meaning?

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: richard@biblewheel.com
  To: Michael Roberts ; Robert Schneider ; Don Winterstein ; Gary Collins ; asa@lists.calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 3:43 PM
  Subject: Re: The Whole Bible Revealed in Zechariah (was Re: NT truth (formerly inerrancy?))

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
  To: <richard@biblewheel.com>; "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>;
  "Don Winterstein" <dfwinterstein@msn.com>; "Gary Collins"
  <gwcollins@algol.co.uk>; <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
  Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 3:02 PM
  Subject: Re: The Whole Bible Revealed in Zechariah (was Re: NT truth
  (formerly inerrancy?))

> I note that the scholars you cite are of the Dispensationalist school,
> except of course Foxe (I would like to know what he actually said). I do
  not
> have much respect for Dispensationalism with it n dispensations and
> virtually ignoring chunks of the bible for us in this "dispensation". They
> have gone overboard on taking prophecy literally and adopting a gross
> typological approach as George Murphy highlighted recently. The result is
> that though they aimed to defend scripture they have reduced it to
> absurdity. (Typology in the bible is important provided it is not
> overblown.)
> If you want to read more see "The Intellectual Disaster of Fundamentalism"
> in Mark Noll's wonderful book "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" and
  read
> all of the book.
>
> Incidentally you cite Coffman and Unger on the word of the Lord in
  Zechariah
> but in the OT prophets The Word of The Lord is NOT synonymous with the
> bible.
>
> It is interesting to note that a modified dispensationalist approach is
> developing now which is more in line with scripture. However the Left
  Behind
> series still sells well and does the Gospel no favours.
>
> Michael
>

  Wow! An intelligent response. Thanks Michael, it is greatly appreciated.

  First of all, I am not a dispensationalist. Not that it matters, since not
  everything a dispensationalist says is wrong. To assert such is known as the
  Genetic Fallacy.

  I could write a dissertation on the question you asked, but I need not,
  since I have a witness from the eight century who is clearly NOT a
  dispensationalist. I refer to the Venerable Bede's Explanatio Apocalypsis
  (written about 710 AD). Here's what he has to say about the Two Olive Trees
  in Revelation (which are clearly correspond to those in Zechariah):

  olive trees. The Church is irradiated by the light of the TWO TESTAMENTS,
  and ever waits upon the commands of the Lord. So also the prophet Zechariah
  saw one candlestick with seven branches, and these two OLIVE-TREES, that is,
  TESTAMENTS, pouring oil into the candlestick. This is the Church with its
  oil, which never fails, which makes it shine for the light of the world.

  Note the profound and perfect integration with my Kerygma. Here's an online
  source:

  http://www.apocalyptic-theories.com/theories/bede/bedeii11.html

  Of course, it is a big mistake to appeal to authority as a proof of an
  interpretation of Scripture. I felt it necessary to cite others because you
  were ignoring the evidence. The only question that really matters is if I
  succeeded in making my case. Curiously, no one has yet to address the
  evidence I give.

  Concerning the Word of the Lord as refering to the Bible - of course it does
  not *always* refer to the Bible, but that certainly does not mean that it
  *never* so applies. To assert such is to impose a HUGE limitation on the
  interpretation of Scripture. Concerning its use in Zechariah 4, Coffman
  specifically asserted that it did indeed mean the whole Bible. I quote: "Nor
  should the meaning of it be restricted to that immediate portion of the word
  of the Lord addressed to Zerubbabel. (See a full discussion of this
  candlestick as the word of God in my commentary on Hebrews, pp. 181-183.) "

  Here's the source:
  http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=zec&chapter=004

  Good chatting Michael,

  In service of the Everlasting Word,
  Richard Amiel McGough
  Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
  http://www.BibleWheel.com

  PS - I don't like the Left Behind series at all. Neither it, nor
  Dispensationalism, have anything to do with my understanding of Scripture.
Received on Tue Jan 6 23:49:54 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 23:49:54 EST