Since we have dispensational framework to defend (in much the same way we construct philosophical frameworks to ‘understand’ and support preexisting ideas— Darwinian selection to understand fossils and rock layers and Hubble’s Law of Universal Expansion to understand ‘ancient’ starlight are two good examples of this principle in action in the scientific world) we must insert the equivalent of the word ‘anti’ so as to modify ‘mashiach’ so we may ‘clarify’ the text to mean that Daniel was not referring to The Messiah but was ‘really’ talking about an agent of Satan. No such modifier is found in the original text but, by golly, we have a position to defend much the same as when Jehovah’s Witnesses insert the word ‘other’ in the New World Translation of Colossians 1 in order to ‘clarify’ the ‘real’ meaning of their text. They have to defend their claim that Jesus is a created being just as the dispensationalists must defend their preexisting (‘charismatically’ obtained) beliefs as well. Well then why stop there? We could in theory invert anything (Heaven/hell, Creator/creature, up/down, reward/punishment, good/evil…) but can we really call this honest scholarship? Or even good!?
Posted on: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:02:35 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015