Tom has asked you many, many, many times to answer Yes or No. Why, if it is that important to him, you do not just answer it? 'What is up with that???' Why would it be unreasonable to ask you to explicitly clarify your position on that question? Especially considering your previous comments about taking a text as it reads, unless it is paraphrased, unless there is an obvious (to you) other meaning, unless.....etc., etc.
Though it appears you have now confirmed his question, why do you even yet resist giving a simple yes or no answer?

What is so hard about that?

I don't know about anyone else, but it causes me to consider, well, that you may not be straight forward. Which may be an understatement. I mean, why couldn't you just answer a "yes" or "no" several posts ago? Why, for someone who pretends that one should take 'texts as they read', do you intentionally create a vagueness in your answers, a 'weasel' clause so to say?

Why not just answer a simple "yes" or "no", unless you are saying texts may not read as what they say depending on how your opinion is at the time.

Otherwise, why not a yes or no?

Likewise, maybe you have now admitted that one cannot accept a text as it reads. Maybe we are to understand from your vague and cryptic responses, or the failure to respond, that you are now in agreement that accepting a text as it reads, may mean different things to different people.

For instance: You said that some paraphrasers interpret the original text according to their ideas. If others can interpret original text, it would follow that we are interpreting interpreted text according to our ideas -- as you have demonstrated.

Would it be worthwhile to ask for a "yes or a no"?

Isn't it likely the swords were chosen as the representation in the vision because they're mentioned in the Bible?

I'm not an expert in weaponry, but from my research it seems very clear that by the time Ellen White started writing, guns had far in a way surpassed swords as a common weapon. Thus it would be far more likely the wicked would be chasing the righteous armed with guns than swords.

spears yes --

Swords -- actively used in the war of 1861-1865? why would she or her readers "imagine" that the reference to swords currently in use were 'imaginary'?

Since support for your argument does require a great deal of imagination -- let us try imagining a scenario that would help make your point. "Suppose" that Ellen White said "In the end of time their spears of unkind words and wordy denounciations fell like straw". Surely we could all agree that here is a simile in the use of spears (real weapons but not likely to be used) that really stands for NO WEAPON in the classic sense -- just long wordy denouncements of the saints.

But in your version of this what we have is REAL weapons standing in place for even MORE deadly and REAL weapons. Which would be like saying that the "fire and brimstone of Rev 20 is REALLY focused laser beams weapons directed at each one of the wicked but is being stated as FIRE and BRIMSTONE so that we can get the general idea".

As bad as that is for your argument - it is the analogy you seem to be reaching for at the moment, for reasons that to me continue to be innexplicable.

In Christ,

Bob

Swords were not widely used when she was writing. Guns were. People were much more likely to have guns than swords.

Single shot guns would have been useless in close combat once the "one shot" was fired. (AS already pointed out in my prior posts). That is WHY they used swords in the civil war - for close combat fighting.

Just "continuing" to point out the obvious as your argument appears to have run aground.

in Christ,

Bob

A better slogan for pure eisegesis could hardly be imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

1. I prefer the more detailed answer that fully exposes the flaw in his argument's assumption -- that Ellen White must have rejected her own "soon coming" teaching as she described the time of trouble. An impossibly self-conflicted position for his argument to recover from.

2. I then enjoy the response that says "we only understand simple yes" - so that I can repeat the point in number 1 above - showing where Tom's argument requires Ellen White to take a self-conflicted position and where he appears to have no answer.



Quite simply. It is that as much as Tom enjoys seeing me repeatedly post the details exposing the flaw in his argument -- I love obliging him on that point.




I have repeatedly asked for someone to show which words or sentences are confusing to you. So far - no one coming up with an answer.

If can identify some area of my answer that was confusing to you - please provide it.

in Christ,

Bob

But people didn't have swords, Bob. They had guns. In modern warfare, armies still use bayonets, but that's not a weapon people have in their homes. The fact that a weapon was used by the military is meaningless in terms of the vision, unless you think the wicked pursuing the righteous were in the military.





Your methodology is not like any method of exegesis I'm familiar with. Where did you learn it? What do you think exegesis is? Were you trained to do exegesis somewhere?

Why can't you have a more detailed answer that answers the question clearly, in a way that people can easily understand? Like an answer, repeatedly asked for, that starts "yes" or "no" with an explanation? You can see I wasn't the only one who had trouble with your answer. I first asked this 9 pages ago, and it took that long to get an answer to the question intelligible enough to where we can start discussing the content.



It wasn't an argument. It was a question.



How can you possibly get an argument that involves Ellen White's rejecting her own "soon coming" teaching from a question regarding whether the swords in a vision are symbolic or not? How would such an argument go? Could you construct it please?



What position? It's a question I asked. I didn't state a position. If you wish to infer a position, go head and state it. Like this:

"I perceive from your question that you appear to be inferring BLAH, BLAH, BLAH" and then present arguments as to why you think BLAH, BLAH, BLAH is an incorrect inference. But the way you're going about communicating is extraordinarily difficult to follow. If you disagree with me on this, ask anyone else taking part in this thread.

It's fine to have a differing opinion, but can't it be expressed in a way that's pleasant and easy to follow?



What argument?!? Please post some argument I've made that you're rebutting. Really, it's impossible to make sense of what you're saying when you infer some argument that's not been stated, either by me, or by you (stating what you think my argument is).



ALL of the words are confusing. If you really wish to be clear, you've been given suggestions.

1.Start with an answer "Yes" or "No," and present whatever explanations you wish to give.
2.If you think you're rebutting some argument, state what the argument is that you are rebutting.
3.Also, before stating said argument, it would be good to state why you are inferring the given argument, given its not an argument explicitly stated by someone which can be posted (if so, that's the best thing; just quote the argument, and then offer your rebuttal).