Talk:E. W. Bullinger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Earlier comments[edit]

I removed the second external link, as not only did it not work, but I found a site with the complete set of Appendices. Perfect77 06:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the redirects, Someone else. I'm new at this. Leaving out the periods in the title was inadvertant. ô¿ô

Not a problem at all, there's always someone about to rearrange things here <G> -- Someone else 00:43 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Did he not use periods when refering to himself by his initials? RickK 22:33 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Other people did, which is why I've moved it to E. W. Bullinger. I'll make redirects for other spellings of his name too. -- Someone else 22:46 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Was Bullinger really a vicar ?[edit]

Though he was ordained in 1862, was he ever made a vicar of a particular parish? If so, where? DFH 20:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partial answer to this are in the book review of the biography by Juanita S. Carey at [1], which includes, "she continues by exploring his early parish work (Ch.3), years spent living and working at the Bethnal Green Workhouse School (Ch.4) and Walthamstow (Ch.5), his involvement in the Trinitarian Bible Society (Ch.6), and last parishes (Ch.7). She concludes the book by discussing his monthly scholarly publication Things to Come (Ch.8), his relocation back to London (Ch.9) and life at Bemgarten (Ch.10); ....". DFH 21:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Companion Bible (Electronic Versions)[edit]

As the site still has "coming soon", I am about to move the last external reference here. DFH 19:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the links on the site that's supposed to have the Companion Bible appendices [2] don't seem to be working. On my computer, the main page pops up again in a new window. ô¿ô 00:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and Accuracy Problems[edit]

I started this article the summer of 2003, and I'm glad to see the thoughtful and important additions and edits. The way I see it, though, an NPOV problem or two has cropped up, along with some inaccuracies. Viz:

Under "Theology," the first paragraph now states: "Bullinger's theology was extreme dispensationalism..." What does "extreme" mean? Not only is it a relative term, it's use here hardly appears neutral according to Wikipedia's NPOV Policy guidelines.

Likewise the wording of, "The term hyper- or ultradispensational refers to..." is problematic. IMHO, the statement would fit NPOV better if expressed something like, "The term hyper- or ultradispensationalism has been used by some theologians and expositors, such as Harry A. Ironside, to refer to..." Such an edit would have the added benefit of moving the one entry in the "See also" section up into the main article, where a substantive and influential figure such as Ironside belongs (even if he only touches E. W.'s theology and never names him by name).

The same paragraph may contain an inaccuracy. I think Things to Come was a publication of the Trinitarian Bible Society [3]. I seriously doubt that the journal was, what we call now days, "self published," but maybe it was. I'll check. Whatever the case, Bullinger's extensive involvement with that Bible society deserves coverage in the "Life and Work" section.

The paragraph in the same section which begins, "He described seven 'administrations' in the Bible...," has inaccuracies in it. Yes, Bullinger described seven, of what he almost invariably called "dispensations." But he did not describe a "Christ Administration" or Dispensation, as the paragraph states (he put Christ's earthly ministry under the Dispensation of Law). Meanwhile he did describe a Millennial Dispensation, which the paragraph fails to note.

This paragraph might be better served with a citation or two on the subject of dispensations from The Companion Bible, rather than just giving a reference. Or better, perhaps, since that work contained indeterminate (and as far as I know indeterminable) contributions from others after his death, from his book How to Enjoy the Bible ISBN 082542027X .

Another inaccuracy in this same paragraph has produced a contradiction in the article. This paragraph says, "The Fifth, Grace, or Church Administration began on the Day of Pentecost and is governed by the truths set down in Romans through Thessalonians." Then the very next paragraph says, "Bullinger places the beginning of 'the church' (the 'Body of Christ') not at Pentecost but at a point in Paul's ministry after his arrival at Rome (as described in Acts, chapter 28)..." It is the latter assertion that is correct.

I've also got problems with the section's and article's final, one-sentence paragraph:

"Bullinger also taught a form of annihilationism."

So what? Does that make him grow ten feet tall or something? He taught a lot of things Biblical -- from Greek lexicography, to figures of speech, to eschatology, to numerics, to the use of the word Jehovah in the book of Esther.

I'm familiar with much of his work, including his Commentary on Revelation ISBN 0825423937, and I've never read anyplace where he made that particular deviation from orthodoxy (whatever that is). So-called annihilationism was certainly no mainstay of his theology, that's for sure. The statement either needs to be documented with a specific citation or omitted altogether.

I'm not ready to do any edits yet on these issues. I'll get a round tuit in the near future. In the mean time I'd be glad to hear others' two cents. ô¿ô 03:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't substantiate this right now, but I believe that the term "extreme dispensationalism" is a technical theological term and not a pejorative one. In other words those who use the term are not calling him or his views "extremism", but more like "extreme" as in Montauk is on the extreme eastern edge of Long island. I'll try to find documentation for this opinionTen of Swords

Incorrect Breakdown of Dispensations[edit]

Regarding the mislabeling of Bullinger's Dispensations: he broke them down as follows:

1. Edenic

2. Patriarchal

3. Law (which included Christ's ministry)

4. Grace

5. Israel/Judicial

6. Millenial

7. Eternal Glory

The editor inserted a "Christ" adminstration between Law & Grace and combined Israel/Judicial & Millenial. This is the way VP Wierwille, late founder of The Way International, divided his dispensations. It also appears that Bullinger consistantly called these time periods "dispensations", not "administrations", although he used "adminsiration", as well as "economy" and "stewardship" as part of his definition and in his examples. Ten of Swords 22:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I edited the theology section so that the breakdown of the dispensations match what Bullinger actually wrote, based on his own writings in "How to Enjoy the Bible" in the section on dispensations. Perhaps when I have time later I can add a section explaining what Bullinger taught about each. Ten of Swords 18:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I went through and corrected revisions that did not line up with Bullinger's theology. For anyone who learned dispensationalism by way of The Way International: Wierwille and Bullinger had slightly different views of how the dispensations should be broken up. They line up in some areas, but not in others. There is a comprehensive breakdown on the Philologos website online version of "How to Enjoy The Bible".

If you're going to make changes, please make them accurate.

If you want to have a debate on whether Wierwille or Bullinger was right about the dispensations or adminstrations, this isn't the place to do it.

Oddly, the wording that I deleted was identical to the description of Wierwille's administration in the article on The Way, down to the misspelling of "Patriarchal" as "Patriarcal".


Please do your homework!Ten of Swords 23:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some differences: For example, the article clearly (and correctly) states that Bullinger put the start of the current dispensation, not at Pentecost, but at the end of Acts. Bullinger did not describe a "Christ" administration between The Law and Grace. The post-Gathering Together/Pre-Glory time period is divided by Bullinger into two distinct dispensations. Ten of Swords 02:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Bullinger was RIGHT or not is not the isssue, this article is about HIM, and not those who disagreed with him.

The section on how the dispensations is OF COURSE how Bullinger broke them down, adding "according to Bullinger" is redundant; following up Bullinger's breakdown with how OTHERS expalined and taught them introduces inaccuracies. Ten of Swords 21:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC) . . . and oh yeah...please sign your edits!207.91.61.98 23:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Ten of Swords 18:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethelbert of Kent[edit]

The article is about Bullinger. There is insufficient reason to link his first name to Ethelbert of Kent. Where would you stop with other notable moderns named after ancients? DFH 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor until 1915 when he died in 1913?[edit]

Since dead people generally don't work as editors of Journals, there is some problem here. Please find out when he was actually the editor of that Journal (I don't know) and correct it. Thanks! -- 77.189.92.102 (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullinger's View on the Fate of the Lost[edit]

It was stated under "Theology" that Dr. Bullinger did not express any views concerning the final state of the lost. This is false. Dr. Bullinger wrote in his article "The Rich Man and Lazarus" found on this link here: http://bibleunderstanding.com/richmanandlazarus_contents.htm Click on "Rich Man and Lazarus" link on that page which is http://bibleunderstanding.com/richmanandlazarus14B.htm Then look around the 7th paragraph which begins with "It is of course" where he has written: "The unsaved do not possess “eternal life,” for it is declared to be “the gift of God” (Romans 6:23). No one is responsible for them, to raise them up. True, they will be raised (Revelation 20:12,13), but it will be only "the resurrection of damnation" (John 5:29); for judgment, and to be cast into the lake of fire." I can attempt to make the change but it's been a while since I've posted on wiki. Please, would someone do this for me? Thank you! DKVictor (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can be careful to put what he said and wrote and not put in our own scriptural interpretation of "Eternal life" with God and 'eternal' life, meaning everlasting life, but not with God. -- AstroU (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on E. W. Bullinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bullinger's gematria mathematics shown to be erroneous[edit]

On reading Number in Scripture by E. W. Bullinger I found numerous mathematical errors and confirmation bias suggesting his book was not peer reviewed prior to publication. These findings have since been published and are available at the link below. This is informative to the reader of the main article page, although is not currently included. As I cannot add a self-citation to the Wikipedia page, I include it here for the moderator or others to consider adding this link to the main article page. Abrahamisaacs (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Abrahamisaacs, and I hope you don't mind me rearranging your edit a little, to prevent your reference slipping downward and becoming attached to quite unrelated comments. I agree that Bullinger's ideas on this matter, and on others, such as that a group of five crucifixes put together a couple of centuries ago is confirmation from tradition of his statement that Jesus was crucified along with four (not two) others, are, objectively speaking, nonsense. However, I doubt if the proposed source qualifies by Wikipedia standards as a {{WP:RS]]. Bealtainemí (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply Bealtainemí. It seems we are letting E. W. Bullinger off the hook as regards the mathematical errors in his book Number in Scripture. Given that this has been overlooked for more than a century (nothing on Wikipedia nor Google Scholar) is there another way we can inform Wikipedia readers of the flawed mathematics in the main article on E. W. Bullinger? Abrahamisaacs (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there isn't in Wikipedia. Outside the small circle of people who like such ideas, Bullinger isn't taken seriously enough to bother criticizing him in particular, with regard either to his gematria ideas or to his flat-Earth ideas, and so you won't find reliable sources to cite in Wikipedia. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If E. W. Bullinger isn't taken seriously, it seems unfortunate he has been given his own page here in Wikipedia. Given he HAS been given his own page, it then seems unfortunate we don't publish criticism of his poor mathematics Abrahamisaacs (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was Bullinger a flat-earther?[edit]

It's often claimed that Bullinger was a flat-earther. I've investigated the claim, and I find it wanting. Could we add a sentence at the end of mention of flat earth mentioning that I can't find clear evidence that Bullinger was a flat-earther? Here is my discussion of what I've found:

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/danny-faulkner/2020/09/24/was-e-w-bullinger-a-flat-earther/

Perhaps it could be worded this way: "From this some have concluded that Bullinger was a flat-earther, but it is not clear that he was." with my article referenced.

Thanks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:E._W._Bullinger&oldid=1196143741"