Is there a consistency with "you begin with literal when determining the virgin birth" but not with "Ezekiel 40 is 'spiritual' and not to be taken literal - the future temple of Israel is not to be taken as literal" ?
@@PastorTanner I would think you would agree that there are multiple interpretations to the virgin birth, or a non-virgin birth, of Christ. Same with Ezekiel 40. Does it not come down to hermeneutics?
i think someone’s individual hermeneutical approach will severely dictate how they interpret that issue, yes. Like someone who has no interest in literal or historical hermeneutic would definitely tend to interpret the text more naturalistically.
Wait - you missed the "6th" view", which should be the first - and that is, "how did the Lord Jesus interpret the Old Testament" - did He take the Old Testament as Literal, or no?
This is a good question. I think the nearest approach that is represented here is the grammatical historical. However, these 5 were the only ones presented in the book.
Man this was good stuff! Thank you for the time spent preparing and creating this content
My pleasure! Thanks for the feedback.
Good work, sir ☺️👍
Many thanks
Great I have that book in Logos I just moved it up my list of books to read. I love the subject.
Awesome, Antony! Enjoy! :)😊
thanks for the vid PT interesting stuff to delve into.
Thanks, Liam. I appreciate you.
Is there a consistency with "you begin with literal when determining the virgin birth" but not with "Ezekiel 40 is 'spiritual' and not to be taken literal - the future temple of Israel is not to be taken as literal" ?
This ties into Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology I think. I worthwhile endeavor, but outside the scope of this study.
@@PastorTanner I would think you would agree that there are multiple interpretations to the virgin birth, or a non-virgin birth, of Christ. Same with Ezekiel 40. Does it not come down to hermeneutics?
i think someone’s individual hermeneutical approach will severely dictate how they interpret that issue, yes. Like someone who has no interest in literal or historical hermeneutic would definitely tend to interpret the text more naturalistically.
Why am I the first to give this a thumbs up? Do you not want/need content like this in your private study/groups? God is watching.
Thanks for the encouragement, Baxtah. Take care. ❤️
Wait - you missed the "6th" view", which should be the first - and that is, "how did the Lord Jesus interpret the Old Testament" - did He take the Old Testament as Literal, or no?
This is a good question. I think the nearest approach that is represented here is the grammatical historical. However, these 5 were the only ones presented in the book.
Active reliance and guidance of-on the Holy Ghost is key to interpretation of God’s Word.
Agree wholeheartedly, Molinda. Thanks for sharing.