HOME
BIBLE
STUDIES
ONLINE
MEDIA
BOOKSTORE
MISSION
CONTACT
US
LINKS
![](http://rightlydividingtheword.com/images/RDTW-Audio-Tape.gif)
|
PROPER HERMENEUTICS AND THE FOLLY OF THE
"TWO CONVERSATION" ARGUMENT - Part 4
Studying Grammar and the Contextual Flow of The Olivet Discourse to
Disprove the Doctrine of Dispensationalism
Michael F. Blume
©
2010 Michael F. Blume
All
Rights Reserved
Let
us summarize so far the facts that refute the ridiculous claim by
futurists that Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 present two totally
different conversations.
- An
antecedent for any given account's pronouns (in this case, for the
pronoun "these" in the disciples' first question to Jesus in all three
accounts) must be included in the writing itself without forcing the
reader to look elsewhere in another book. When a dispensationalist whom
I know stated that the antecedent for THESE THINGS in Matt 24 and Mark 13 is missing and must be
found in Luke 21:27, he showed rife
violation of the rules of common reading and grammar. Hermeneutics
(manner of interpretation) requires one to not abandon the rules of
grammar. He attempted at one point to say the original writings were in
Greek so that means it is not a matter of English grammar but Greek
grammar. That is a bloating red herring. In Greek grammar or any other
language's grammar there are pronouns preceded by antecedents as well.
No language would refer you to something indicated by a pronoun without
having first stated what that pronoun actually was by way of an
antecedent. Languages would make no sense if they presented thoughts
the way he is implying the Greek does.
- Since
there is no other antecedent mentioned between the first question the
disciples asked and the next one, then the next question's reference to
the SIGN must likewise be the same as for the pronoun "these" in the
first. As Matthew speaks of the SIGN of His coming, Luke and mark both
speak of the SIGN when "these things" shall come to pass. Nothing
indicates more than one conversation, but rather the same conversation
recounted by the three writers using variation of terms. I repeated
this many times, but this is the case for any given common account
found in all three gospels. If one example of ANOTHER ACCOUNT that is
SIMILAR in pattern and layout can be proved to be speaking of MORE THAN
ONE EVENT, as futurists claim is the case with this issue, then
futurists might have a case. But to say all the accounts that are
similar in layout and pattern in the three synoptic gospels (Matthew,
Mark and Luke) all are accounts of one and the same story in all cases except Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, is
suspicious to say the least!
- The
pronouns "ye," "your" and "your" are indicated by futurists to refer to
the people actually hearing Jesus in Luke 21, but not referring
to the same people in Matt 24 and Mark 13, since they think
Matt 24 and Mark 13 are about people who would
not even be born and live for another two thousand years. No writer is
that inept to refer to people who have nothing to do with the audience
to whom words are spoken such as "Ye," "you" and "your". A child could
recognize this!
But alas, recently a dispensationalist whom I know has violated his own
argument that formerly said the statement about "Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord" was not the topic of his second
discussion on the mount of Olives, but rather the first discussion at
the temple grounds. He formerly claimed that the long distance from the
temple to the Mount of Olives brought a pause in the overall context,
and the questions the disciples asked on the Mount of Olives are
recorded in Mark 13 and Matt 24, but the
discussion at the temple grounds is only recorded in Luke 21. Anything said at
the temple grounds was what was asked about in Luke 21's series of
questions. And although the same series of questions are found in Mark 13, he declared those
questions were not from the same conversation, and did not refer to
anything said at the temple grounds. Because Luke 21 did not say they asked
those questions on the Mount of Olives, he contends this is evidence
that they were not asked there. But he then argued that Luke 21:24 ends the conversation at
the temple grounds and begins the second conversation in verse 25. But
he said only the last half of the second conversation is recounted in
Luke. Meanwhile, if you look at the whole record in Luke (where
futurists claim are two conversations), the whole record matches the
overall single conversation related in Mark and Matthew!
BACK |
NEXT
RDTW
|