A Defense of Biblical Literalism by Joey Faust

Author:Joey Faust [Faust, Joey]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Fundamental Publishing
Published: 2013-12-13T00:00:00+00:00

Therefore, the Millerites are not an example of the dangers of Biblical literalism. They are one more example of how figurative interpretation can be used (even by sincere people) to teach great errors. None of their date setting errors were based on literalism.

At the same time that the Millerites were contending against literalism, Robert Govett, in 1843, authored, The Revelation of St. John, Literal and Future. He taught that the prophecies of the Bible - even those concerning future days - were strictly literal. He taught that periods of time in the Bible, like the 1260 days (Rev. 11:2-3, 13:4, etc.), refer to literal days in the future. William Burgh (in the 1820s), and others, also taught this view (as did the earliest Christian writers in the centuries directly following the time of Christ). This is called the doctrine of futurism. On the other hand, William Miller believed that the various days in the Book of Daniel (and the Book of Revelation) actually were symbolic for years, and that they were already being fulfilled in history. This is called historicism. It is not based on literalism, but on "days" in the Biblical prophecies being symbolic for "years."

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.