I'm not sure if you realize this...but throughout your reply you've stayed away from what was specifically addressed in scripture.
The Deut 30 bit reads out as "among all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee" which means "to all the nations God scattered you to". Without Mat 24:31's reference to "from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" this really does not mean "gathered from every nation on earth".
Mat 24:31's "elect" is clearly talking about Christians, and the use of "elect" can be seen elsewhere in scripture pointing to Christians (e.g. Col 3:12).
So if the "from every nation" context was necessary for your argument that this was a future event, it falls short and very well could be attributed to Josh 21:43 where that promise was fulfilled. And because it was promised prior to Josh 21:43, it was necessarily fulfilled in Josh 21:43.
In order to justify your Deut 30 premise at this point, you would have to establish something along the lines of a recurring promise or something to that effect, which is not present in the Deut 30 prophecy. The rebuttal to "specifically address this" would be simply to bold the section of the verse that states "
whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee"
and appealed to what "might be" the reason, "may have" been the motivation, "could have" been possible, "can be" the interpretation. I'm not sure if these are considered appeals to ignorance or to exception, but if we allow such fallacies in this conversation essentially anything and all things are possibly true, which gets us nowhere because nothing specific can be locked down. Hopefully you agree.
They aren't fallacies. The approach is just uncomfortable to anyone that would like to 'shortcut' to their favourite answer without providing reasoning and logical justification. And it is not the case that all things are possible. There are interpretations that can be demonstrated to be necessarily true, and ones necessarily false.
I've been transparent about my approach:
I think the best approach to this topic would be to 1) identify the passages containing the prophecies and their requirements, 2) evaluate all possible/valid interpretations that could be applied to fulfil those requirements, and 3) to make determinations from all of the possibilities as to what appears to be the most compelling interpretation.
Ok, yes I think this is fair.
Either you called the process fair without understanding the process, or you have changed your mind somewhere along the way.
There are three primary categories that an idea is going to fall into:
1) necessarily true;
2) necessarily false, or;
3) possible
And within that "possible" category, we can make a case regarding whether a possible interpretation should be considered:
possible but...
a) compellingly true;
b) compellingly untrue, or;
c) uncompelling.
The claim that Christ is recipient to the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel is necessarily true. A claim that Moses' staff was exactly 5'6.276" high is possible but uncompelling. The claim that only a remnant of Israel will be saved is necessarily true. The claim that all of Israel will be saved is necessarily false.
If you are familiar with axioms, we are subtly accepting two axioms in our exploration of exegesis here, and those are:
1) Biblical infallibility, and;
2) Acceptance of key early Church concepts such as the Trinity.
There are three types of arguments that someone can present:
1) An argument from ethos (an argument that speaks from an authority, e.g. "the Bibles states that this is true" or "a teacher I respect stated this view")
2) An argument from pathos (an argument that appeals to feeling, e.g. "It's not explicit in the passage but love feels like the right answer for this")
3) An argument from logos (a logical argument derived from some kind of syllogism, e.g. "Magenta is a type of purple, magenta is a type of red. One gospel says red robe, a different gospel says purple robe. Therefore it stands that the robe could have been magenta")
Pathos and ethos arguments aren't by themselves invalid simply because they are not arguments from logos. But, any valid interpretation must be logically consistent with scripture. Pathos can be a great way to resolve personal interpretations of scripture when faced with many unresolved possibilities (e.g. "per Rom 14, what is unclean to me?" will most likely be most meaningfully addressed with a pathos argument: "I feel this is unclean to me, therefore it is unclean to me"). Ethos and pathos have their time and place, but if someone were to misrepresent an ethos or pathos argument as a logos argument that is exactly when a logical fallacy occurs. Claiming something is a logical fallacy when it isn't actually a logical fallacy is itself a logical fallacy.
All we have are what the scriptures specifically say and should trust that men inspired by the Holy Spirit meant what they wrote.
In fairness, I think we've bounced back and forth specific interpretations of scripture broadly, but only talked about one OT prophecy (Deut 30).
There has been so many doctrines I was taught that I've had to let go of once weighed against what the pages of scripture actually said.
There are many prophecies. Deut 30:1-5 is addressed by Josh 21:43, but if you had some passages about the day of the Lord, or recurring promises, etc. I think those would be worth a look.
Maybe Acts 17 would help illustrate a perspective that you are trying to express?
"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" - Acts 17:24-26 KJV
If you use "nations of men [...] bounds of their habitations", and then found something that talks about nations... maybe?
1
1
1
