Prophecy in general

[armylngst]

lol

That is not "a lot of tricks." You explicitly stated it took "a lot of tricks" to render Nero as the 666 of Revelation. A Hebrew transliteration of the Greek is nrwn qsr. Add in the vowels and then apply the very common first century practice of gemartia, and 666 is the results. That is a lot of steps. Not a lot of tricks.

What is a trick is this op twisting the methods used to arrive at 666 into "tricks." Logically this is called an "appeal to ridicule." It is a fallacious way of arguing.

The fact is no one knows who is the 666, so everyone is speculating. What we do know is the book of Revelation opens and closes with the unequivocal statements the events described would happen quickly because the time was near (or at hand). If that prophecy is read literally then the 666 guy has long ago died. If that prophecy is not read literally then he could be anybody. More importantly, however, anyone who espouses reading prophecy literally had better be consistent doing so. Otherwise, they open themselves up to criticism for either being hypocritical or having double standards (or fools, or liars). The fact is there isn't a single example in the entire Bible where the word "near" is used to mean "2000 years from now".

So I hope that's not what you believe . I definitely hope that's not what you're trying to persuade everyone in this forum to believe .

You say already that no one knows who is the 666, but you say that if it was literal, then he would be dead. If we don't know who it is, why would you say that he is dead? First of all, his NAME is Nero, not Nero Caesar. Caesar is a position. I agree, we do not know who it is, therefore we don't know if they were even born yet.

 

[armylngst]

lol

They didn't know. The Jewish leader had to ask the priests and they had to go look it up, and even then Herod thought he could circumvent prophecy by killing all the kids even though the Old Testament precedent in Moses' day told him it would be fruitless.

You are using the word "know" pretty loosely.

And you are not addressing the specifics of my posts. The NT tells us the OT was veiled. Your answer to that should be an instant "Amen," and then either a modification of your original statement or discarding it because as written the claim is incorrect. You've done neither. The same holds true for the NT's assertion things were hidden. Presuppositionally, this should be a no-brainer because the fundamental fact of the new revelation is that it reveals things in the older revelation that either weren't made clear or were not correctly understood.

Why doesn't the op contain that information? And why are these facts now being resisted?

Do you really hold the chief priests and scribes as dumb? Do you think Paul had to go back and look up the scriptures he was quoting? He may have, or he was a learned scholar and already knew them. There are people today who have the whole Old Testament so memorized, you can ask them for a word by the location on the page, and they will tell you the word. For what little it will do for them. They knew the prophecies. That is why it says that when Herod asked them in inquiry, they told him. It doesn't say they looked it up. They already knew. You may think it impossible, but there are people alive today who can recite the whole Old Testament. Why? All their life all they did was memorize it.

"3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.

5 So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet:

6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;
For out of you shall come a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.’ ”"

Why did you allegorize the passage to say that there is some secret interpretation that says they looked it up? It isn't there. You may want to update your comment to reflect that they already knew what the prophecy was.

 

[Josheb]

Definition of allegory "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one." What makes this not an allegory. Jonah is dead in a fish. Jesus is dead in the tomb. Jonah is dead for three days. Jesus is dead for three days. Jonah is alive again on the third day. Jesus is alive again on the third day. Is there any special interpretation that needs to be done to here, or is everything a point to point transition from Jonah to Jesus? If you want to make it an allegory, then Jonah dying means that Jesus is going to go far away to where no one can find Him. He'll be alive, but no one can find Him. And as Jonah was dead for three days, Jesus will be unfindable for three days. As Jonah came back to life on the third day, Jesus will be discovered/found on the third day unharmed. That is allegorizing prophecy.

Thanks, but secular definitions that don't apply to allegory in exegesis are not helpful. Jonah is not a "story, poem, or picture". Jonah is history.

Furthermore,

1. Jonah did NOT die in the fish.
2. Jesus did not mention the word "die."
3. Jesus did not mention any tomb.
4. Jesus did say "heart of the earth," which is a metaphor.
5. Jonah was not "alive again," unless his experience is treated figuratively.

You are playing fast and loose with scripture. You are treating prophecy allegorically, so I hope this op is not intended to say prophecy should always be read literally because if that is the case then that is poorly demonstrated.

Now, since Jesus is basically a carbon copy of what happened to Jonah, it isn't an allegory.

There are about 20 different types of figures of speech (alliteration, allusion, antithesis, euphemism, hyperbole, idioms, irony, metaphor, onomatopoeia, paradox, personification, simile, etc.) and scripture uses all of them. None of them should be read literally because they are figures of speech!

Figurative sure, but not allegory.

You might want to read THIS before we proceed further. I can provide Christian sources if necessary.

 

[Josheb]

You say already that no one knows who is the 666, but you say that if it was literal, then he would be dead. If we don't know who it is, why would you say that he is dead?

Why am I being asked a question I have already answered?

I explained why he would already be dead, regardless of who he was.

 

[Josheb]

Literal and figurative actually go together in understanding scripture.

I completely agree.

In Biblical studies, the idea of literal understanding includes symbolic and figurative language, however, it does not include allegory.

Well, not as you assert it. However, if a New Testament writer is allegorizing something in the Old Testament that was previously (erroneously) believed by the Jews to be literal then it is the Jews who were wrong and the Inspired New Testament writer(s) who is correct. This is now the second time I have mentioned this. It is not being addressed.

So if Revelation says the beast went to the store, the beast is symbolic, to the store is the literal event that is being completed by whatever the beast is symbolic/figurative for.

Not necessarily. Just because stores literally exist does not mean the store is not also figurative, or symbolic of something other than a literal store. We would want to look first at the immediately surrounding text in which that verse occurs and then, moving outward through the book, the Testament, and then the OT (beginning with the prophecies) as the verse and its immediately surrounding text indicate. In other words, we don't pick any Old Testament prophet and any verse in his prophecy and wantonly paste the two together - especially not to fit any already-existing eschatological position. That is eisegesis, not exegesis.

Allegory would say that the beast is not actually going to the store, but to some place where he could buy other, ahem, services, to include items he needs.

Again, not necessarily. Many figures of speech besides spiritual allegorizing could lead to both the beast and the store not being literal. When correctly understood the event described would then be occurring but that's literal reading.

Do you know the difference between literal reading and literalization reading?

If we fail to take Old Testament prophecy literally, that God is speaking of something that is literally going to happen, then we lose Jesus.

That one sentence makes two contradictory statements. To read something literally is not the same thing as saying it will literally happen.

For example, Revelation speaks of a third of the stars falling to earth (Rev. 2:14). A literal reading of the prophecy would mean a literal third of all the stars in heaven would literally be swept from the sky and literally cast to the earth. That is a literal reading. Only the most foolish of readers think that is what the verse means.

Whatever that verse means, that meaning will literally occur. We (by "we" I mean all Christians) may debate what the meaning is of that verse, but we can all agree it is indicative of an actual event that will actually take place. The problem here is the problem of "ambiguity" or using a same word with two different meanings. The word "literally" can mean "as stated" or it can mean "actually."

Don't conflate the two.

 

[armylngst]

@armylngst ,

Would you please, for my sake and the sake of those entering the thread later, tell me as succinctly as you can whether or not you think prophecy should be read literally, figuratively, or if there is some other specific "rule" or guideline you're trying to assert with this op? What is the metric by which prophecy should be read?

Thx

Let's use some prophecy as examples.

17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, “Come and gather together for the [h]supper of the great God, 18 that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, [i]free and slave, both small and great.”

19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for [a]a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where[b] the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I understand this prophecy literally, that Satan was bound, cast into the bottomless pit, shut up, and sealed for the purpose that he should no longer deceive the nations until the thousand years were finished. Now, in the verses prior to this it says that he deceived those who received the mark of the beast, and those who worshiped his image. That deception led to this war. The nations were deceived. After the thousand years are completed, he is released again to... deceive the nations to make war against God's people. (The saints and the beloved city). This is a literal understanding of the passage.

Those in A/I say that one has to find the secret hidden message in "deceive the nations" as to meaning that Satan can't hinder the Great Commission. Where did that come from? If one uses that, then that means that Satan is released at the end of the millennium to hinder the Great Commission, right? But it is all over. He is just being released so that Jesus can crush him and bring an end to him. This is the problem with allegorizing.

 

[armylngst]

I completely agree.

Well, not as you assert it. However, if a New Testament writer is allegorizing something in the Old Testament that was previously (erroneously) believed by the Jews to be literal then it is the Jews who were wrong and the Inspired New Testament writer(s) who is correct. This is now the second time I have mentioned this. It is not being addressed.

When did a New Testament writer allegorize something from the Old Testament? The Jews allegorized Messianic prophecies long before Jesus came to Earth. The prophecies were literal/figurative, and they allegorized it. As such they missed His first coming.

Not necessarily. Just because stores literally exist does not mean the store is not also figurative, or symbolic of something other than a literal store.

While it is figurative, it still fits with the literal understanding of a store. Everything that I added went beyond what was present in the task, and was allegory, not figurative.

We would want to look first at the immediately surrounding text in which that verse occurs and then, moving outward through the book, the Testament, and then the OT (beginning with the prophecies) as the verse and its immediately surrounding text indicate. In other words, we don't pick any Old Testament prophet and any verse in his prophecy and wantonly paste the two together - especially not to fit any already-existing eschatological position. That is eisegesis, not exegesis.

So why would you consider A/I?

Again, not necessarily. Many figures of speech besides spiritual allegorizing could lead to both the beast and the store not being literal. When correctly understood the event described would then be occurring but that's literal reading.

The beast is literal, though the beast is a symbol of a literal being. Just as the Dragon was literal, however, the dragon was just a symbol used for Satan/the devil. The beast with the horns where some were removed and others come in its place is just symbolic of the European Union.

Do you know the difference between literal reading and literalization reading?

That one sentence makes two contradictory statements. To read something literally is not the same thing as saying it will literally happen.

The prophecies will be literally fulfilled as written. That is, Satan will be bound, thrown in a bottomless pit, locked up and sealed. And the reason for this will be as written.

For example, Revelation speaks of a third of the stars falling to earth (Rev. 2:14). A literal reading of the prophecy would mean a literal third of all the stars in heaven would literally be swept from the sky and literally cast to the earth. That is a literal reading. Only the most foolish of readers think that is what the verse means.

How is this passage understood? The stars are symbolic of angels. The third of the stars falling to earth speaks of fallen angels. (Wow, kind of literal, when one considers the symbolism.) Swept by the tail of the dragon, well that's Satan as we discovered earlier in one of my comments. So that speaks of fallen angels becoming demons. Again, no special interpretation is required. Once just needs to recognize what the symbols are a stand-in for. (Revelation is apocalyptic after all. Lots of codes and symbols used in place of actual people and places.)

 

[Josheb]

Let's use some prophecy as examples.

17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, “Come and gather together for the [h]supper of the great God, 18 that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, [i]free and slave, both small and great.”

19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for [a]a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where[b] the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I understand this prophecy literally, that Satan was bound, cast into the bottomless pit, shut up, and sealed for the purpose that he should no longer deceive the nations until the thousand years were finished. Now, in the verses prior to this it says that he deceived those who received the mark of the beast, and those who worshiped his image. That deception led to this war. The nations were deceived. After the thousand years are completed, he is released again to... deceive the nations to make war against God's people. (The saints and the beloved city). This is a literal understanding of the passage.

Those in A/I say that one has to find the secret hidden message in "deceive the nations" as to meaning that Satan can't hinder the Great Commission. Where did that come from? If one uses that, then that means that Satan is released at the end of the millennium to hinder the Great Commission, right? But it is all over. He is just being released so that Jesus can crush him and bring an end to him. This is the problem with allegorizing.

You've just violated your own standards. This post is all the evidence anyone needs proving this op is severly flawed and what is being asserted in support of the op are things we should avoid and not embrace.

The passage you select opens with the statement, "Then I saw an angel standing in the sun..." If taken literally, it would mean a literal angel is literally standing literally in the literal sun. That would be a literal reading of the sentence. Do you believe that is what is being communicated? If the answer to that question is "No," then you are NOT reading prophecy literally. If you respond saying, "No, the angel standing in the sun is not literal, but it indicates something that will literally happen" then 1) you are reading the sentence literalistically, not literally, and 2) everyone believes prophecy is indicative of events that will literally happen.

Now I understand this prophecy literally

The evidence you posted in defense of your op proves you do NOT read the prophecy literally. You read it literalistically.

, that Satan was bound, cast into the bottomless pit, shut up, and sealed for the purpose that he should no longer deceive the nations until the thousand years were finished. Now, in the verses prior to this it says that he deceived those who received the mark of the beast, and those who worshiped his image. That deception led to this war. The nations were deceived. After the thousand years are completed, he is released again to... deceive the nations to make war against God's people. (The saints and the beloved city). This is a literal understanding of the passage.

I'd agree but there are a few other matters to be said about this, including but not limited to 1) the fact Jesus explicitly stated that event would happen quickly because the time is near, 2) satan has always been bound according to Jude 1, and 3) the larger passage is so full of symbolism and figurative speech that the "one thousand years" is not likely literal.

Those in A/I say that one has to find the secret hidden message in "deceive the nations" as to meaning that Satan can't hinder the Great Commission.

I, again, think you are appealing to the fallacy of ridicule and suspect your source for that is biased because that's not what I believe.

The problem as I see it is you've gotten persuaded through the deception (or possibly ignorance) of others to believe "literalistic" and "literal" are identical terms when they are not. I think you've also fallen prey to the premise there are only two options, either a literal reading or an allegorical one when that is not the case. Proper exegesis of scripture understands the diversity with which scripture is written, including but not limited to, literal and allegory, and one of the first steps in sound exegesis is discerning the type of text being examined because the literal always renders the figurative and allegorical, NOT the other way around. Furthermore, there are several hermeneutical models or approaches that can be applied to scripture, not just the grammatico-historical hermeneutic you seem to be employing. More importantly, it doesn't matter what tools or model is applied if it is applied consistently and that is not happening here in this thread. There are places where scripture is treated literally and places where it isn't. There are places where figures of speech are accepted as such and places where they aren't. There is very little if any use of scripture interpreting scripture in a way where the scripture itself connects to specific other scriptures.

I can agree with your explanation of satan's binding and I am not limiting my exegesis or hermeneutical to literal reading.






Are you a Dispensational Premillennialist?

 

[Josheb]

When did a New Testament writer allegorize something from the Old Testament?

OOOOOO..... Am I being asked that question rhetorically? Am I being asked that question because the answer isn't already known, and I am genuinely being asked to provide an example of something not previously understood?

Do please clarify that for me because there are numerous places where the New Testament writers spiritualized Old Testament prophecies. You cannot possibly not know at least one. You cannot possibly not know at least one and presume to tell others here in CARM how to examine scripture. Are you really asking me to provide an example where any New Testament writer treated Old Testament prophecy allegorically?

I will gladly do so if that question is sincere.

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

 

[Wordsmith]

@armylngst ,

Would you please, for my sake and the sake of those entering the thread later, tell me as succinctly as you can whether or not you think prophecy should be read literally, figuratively, or if there is some other specific "rule" or guideline you're trying to assert with this op? What is the metric by which prophecy should be read?

Thx

I take scripture as literal unless there is a reason from the text to not do so or if another passage explains obvious symbolism. Example: I will believe the 1000 years of Revelation 20 is literal unless someone can show me a clear reason from scripture that is not. 1000 years is specified in verses 2. 4, 5, 6, and 7. What is in this text to allow us to not take it literal?

 

[Josheb]

I take scripture as literal unless there is a reason from the text to not do so or if another passage explains obvious symbolism.

That is commendable. It is, in fact, one of the most basic and elemental precepts of sound exegesis and it does not matter what hermeneutic or to which eschatology a person subscribes - ALL of them stand firm on that rule.

It is not being well-practiced by the author of this op, and efforts to bring that to his attention are proving difficult.

Example I will believe the 1000 years of Revelation 20 is literal unless someone can show me a clear reason from scripture that is not. 1000 years is specified in verses 2. 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Yep.

What is in this text to allow us to not take it literal?

Everything else in the passage.

Angels actually exist. An actual abyss where those who did not keep their proper abode (Jude 1) are bound may be an actual place, but "great chains" are not literal. Physical chains do not restrain spiritual creatures that can roam the earth and inhabit humans and other animals. The dragon is figurative. The text itself states the dragon is "the serpent of old," and the serpent of old is the satan. The text itself tells us this is figurative, not literal. There are countless examples throughout scripture where numbers are used figuratively, or symbolically. Yes, there are places where numbers are used literally, but there are also places where they are not literal. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills (hills of hills) is not a literal 1000. The beheaded souls are not literal (unless you actually believe those souls are headless and headless people rule in heaven). The mark may or may not be literal but if scripture is used to interpret that mark then it's likely a reference to texts like Exodus 13:16 and Deuteronomy 6:8 and not the 21st century newscast. One thousand years is also the amount of time stipulated in the text for the priests of God to reign. If that is true then the priests' rule is finite, not eternal. If that is a reference to 1 Peter 1:20, then the one thousand years has transpired because Peter plainly stated the royal priests existed in the first century. Are we to believe royal priests were royal but not ruling?

I could go on (and on) but the point is sufficiently made: 1) the rule we should apply is to read the text as written (literally) unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text giving reason to do otherwise, and 2) there is PLENTY in the surrounding text giving reason NOT to read the mention of "one thousand years" literally. I just listed seven of them.

It does not mean the "one thousand years" is not literal, but exegetically there is plenty of reason not to read that way.




Now let me be clear: I am NOT going to get diverted into a discussion or debate regarding the literalness of the millennium. That is NOT what this op is about. This op is specifically and explicitly about "prophecy in general," and how prophecy should be read, whether it should be read literally or allegorically. This op does not offer other options. I think that is a false dichotomy and if we are going to set rules for reading prophecy then there are much, much better alternatives other than the false dichotomy asserted in this op. One is treating the Old Testament in a manner consistent with the New Testament writers of the newer revelation that explains the older one. Another is the well-established and long-held rules of sound exegesis that transcend (eschatological) doctrine. A third would be the multitude of also valid, long-held, and well-established hermeneutical models beside the grammatico-historical method this op appears to employ.

I will say it's difficult to get a handle on the op because its author does not answer any questions specifically about his position on end times. Anyone who is Dispensational Premillennial is working with a view of end times that is less than 200 years old and was literally (no pun intended) invented by one man. He literally invented a new hermeneutic. He literally invented a new way of reading prophecy. He literally invented a new end-times view. Is something new necessarily wrong? No! Of course not. However, anything new that either 1) contradicts scripture or 2) contradicts long-held and well-established Christian thought, doctrine, and practice should at a minimum be suspect, if not discarded outright.

And topics and threads can serve to help everyone understand how to read prophecy because any hermeneutic and any end-times position that doesn't do what they say they do with any consistency or uniformity should not be considered veracious or efficacious. The thousand years mentioned in Revelation was not a very good example to use because, exegetically, there is plenty reason not to read it literally but that does not mean it's not literal.

Try this one:

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

This verse is cited at least a half-dozen times in the New Testament. If read literally then Jesus is going to remain seated in heaven on his Father's throne at/as his Father's right hand until his Father makes a footstool of all his enemies. He's not coming back unless or until that happens. If read literally it is blunt and unequivocal.

It also precludes a lot of end-times views from being true.

The rule is to read the text literally, as stated, as written, unless there is reason provided in the immediately surrounding text giving reason to do otherwise. Is there reason in that psalm warranting a non-literal reading? Can God stretch forth His sceptor from Zion while His Son remains seated in heaven? Yep. Can His people volunteer freely while he remains seated in heaven? Yep. Can the LORD shatter kings, judge the nations, and do everything else described in the psalm while the Lord remains seated in heaven? Yes!

If Psalm 110 is literal, then Premillennialism (both Historic and Dispensational) is incorrect.

Is that how that prophecy should be read?
.

 

[Wordsmith]

Angels actually exist. An actual abyss where those who did not keep their proper abode (Jude 1) are bound may be an actual place, but "great chains" are not literal. Physical chains do not restrain spiritual creatures that can roam the earth and inhabit humans and other animals. The dragon is figurative. The text itself states the dragon is "the serpent of old," and the serpent of old is the satan. The text itself tells us this is figurative, not literal.

There are countless examples throughout scripture where numbers are used figuratively, or symbolically. Yes, there are places where numbers are used literally, but there are also places where they are not literal. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills (hills of hills) is not a literal 1000.

The beheaded souls are not literal (unless you actually believe those souls are headless and headless people rule in heaven).

A lot to un pack in your post, I'll just start with a few things.
1. The first quote above in no way speaks to the literalness or not of the 1000 years. Yes the dragon is a figurative name for Satan that is clear from the text. No such information relating to the 1000 years. Just because somethings are clearly figurative does not create license to make everything figurative.
2. God owning the cattle on a 1000 hills has nothing to do with the 1000 years!
3.The souls in heaven are literal because they got there by being physically beheaded. They are not souls without heads. IMO this is a very weak argument on your part.

I could go on (and on) but the point is sufficiently made: 1) the rule we should apply is to read the text as written (literally) unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text giving reason to do otherwise, and 2) there is PLENTY in the surrounding text giving reason NOT to read the mention of "one thousand years" literally. I just listed seven of them.

You have pointed to nothing in this text to link the 1000 years mentioned 5 times in the passage to symbolism. I do not believe God is trying to confuse us by stating something specific 5 times and making it a puzzle to interpret the way you have done here. May we just agree to disagree?

 

[ReverendRV]

A lot to un pack in your post, I'll just start with a few things.
1. The first quote above in no way speaks to the literalness or not of the 1000 years. Yes the dragon is a figurative name for Satan that is clear from the text. No such information relating to the 1000 years. Just because somethings are clearly figurative does not create license to make everything figurative.
2. God owning the cattle on a 1000 hills has nothing to do with the 1000 years!
3.The souls in heaven are literal because they got there by being physically beheaded. They are not souls without heads. IMO this is a very weak argument on your part.



You have pointed to nothing in this text to link the 1000 years mentioned 5 times in the passage to symbolism. I do not believe God is trying to confuse us by stating something specific 5 times and making it a puzzle to interpret the way you have done here. May we just agree to disagree?

As usual with me, I can see the points both Josh and Army are making...

 

[Josheb]

A lot to un pack in your post, I'll just start with a few things.
1. The first quote above in no way speaks to the literalness or not of the 1000 years. Yes the dragon is a figurative name for Satan that is clear from the text. No such information relating to the 1000 years. Just because somethings are clearly figurative does not create license to make everything figurative.

So.... if I understand that correctly,

There is figurative language used about "A", "B,", "C," and "D," but because there is nothing said specifically about "E" the "E" should and must be read literally. Everything else in the passage is figurative but that one thing, "E" is not.

Is that what I am supposed to understand is your position? Clarify it for me if I have misunderstood.

2. God owning the cattle on a 1000 hills has nothing to do with the 1000 years!

Sure it does! It's another scriptural use of "1000". It has everything to do with "1000". One of the other principles in sound exegesis is to examine how scripture uses its own language and compare verses. Applying the tool of scripture interpreting scripture. The fact is there are multiple examples in scripture of scripture specifically using "1000" literally, but there are also multiple examples of scripture using "1000" figuratively. Which precedent best informs Revelation 20's usage? It's just wrong to say prior mentions, like Psalm 50, have NOTHING to do with Rev. 20"'s mention. Discarding Psalm 50 because of "hills" instead of "years," is eisegetic, not exegetic.

3.The souls in heaven are literal because they got there by being physically beheaded. They are not souls without heads. IMO this is a very weak argument on your part.

LOL. What's the topic of this op?

Now you're adding your interpretation to the text. Yes, it is correct to say the people were beheaded on earth, and the souls of those people are in heaven. Yes, it is correct to say those souls are not in heaven headlessly. A literal reading would dictate the souls are headless, even though no one reads it that way. Why don't we read it that way? Because there are principles of exegesis correctly applied so that error is not committed.

And you can think it weak as you want but your personal opinion and personal incredulity are fallacious.

The fact is there is figurative language in the passage and you are arguing the degree, not the existence of that figurative content. The rule being discussed is.... read the text literally unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text providing reason to do otherwise. You've acknowledged there is figurative language in the passage. That's all it takes. Your personal justifications for reading "1000 years" literally is NOT the topic of this thread. In a passage full of figurative and symbolic language there is plenty of reason to read any of it figurative or symbolic.

For the record: figurative language and symbolic language are not synonymous or identical terms.

You have pointed to nothing in this text to link the 1000 years mentioned 5 times in the passage to symbolism.

At no time did I ever say the thousand years was symbolism. If that is what was understood then go back and re-read what was posted and re-read it as many times as it take to correctly understand it because symbolism is a gross misrepresentation of what I posted, and you'll end up arguing straw men.

I do not believe God is trying to confuse us...

Neither do I but that's a red herring. No one has said, nor implied, confusion was God's intent.

May we just agree to disagree?

No. I don't agree to disagree with non sequiturs, straw men, and red herrings.

This op is specifically and explicitly about reading scripture literally versus allegorically. The exegetical principle dictating the literal reading of scripture unless otherwise indicated is relevant because it's a tool that aids in discerning whether a literal or allegorical (or some other) reading is appropriate. This thread is NOT specifically about the "one thousand years" of Revelation 20:1-8. As an example of that one priniciple in sound exegesis it is not a very good example because there is plenty of symbolism, and plenty of figurative language, in the passage sufficient to apply the qualifying condition of the exegetical rule being discussed relevant to this op. We may agree to disagree as to whether or not there is warrant for a non-literal reading, but there will be no agreement with the non sequitur, straw man, and red herring. ALL of that is logically fallacious and should be avoided by both of us.

I did NOT say the thousand years was symbolism. I did say there is plenty of reason to read it literally or non-literally.

And if you made an "honest" mistake then that's easily addressed: Simply make amends. If, however, you truly think non sequitur, straw men, and red herring are appropriate then we'll part ways without agreement because I don't collaborate fallacy.




Relevant to this op..... you and I agree there is figurative language in Revelation 20:1-8. The op offers us only two choices: either read it literally or read it allegorically. The op asserts a false dichotomy, the fallacy of the neglected middle, and it excludes other options (such as recognizing the figures of speech but not treating them as spiritual allegory). As the thread unfolded the op's author proved to be inconsistent with his own standards and a practitioner of literalism, not literal reading, thereby evidencing a third option not listed in the op. It's not an option I think sound or appropriate, but it is a technique very common in Dispensationalism. A better approach, one bearing integrity with scripture's own use of prophecy, is to treat the Old Testament prophecies in a manner similar to the New Testament author's treatments. Where they treated scripture literally then we should do likewise. Where they treated scripture figuratively, symbolically, and/or allegorically then we should do the same.

 

[Josheb]

As usual with me, I can see the points both Josh and Army are making...

Do you think our only two options are to either read prophecy only literally or only allegorically?

 

[ReverendRV]

Do you think our only two options are to either read prophecy only literally or only allegorically?

Both...

 

[Josheb]

Let's take a look at the assertion "literal" interpretation means the interpretation will literally happen.

Both...

Read it again. I did not give you the option to say "both."

 

[Josheb]

Let's take a look at the assertion "literal" interpretation means the interpretation will literally happen.

In Acts 1 we read "a cloud received him out of their sight," and an angel present among the disciples says, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." It is a common interpretation to say Jesus will therefore return ON clouds.

One person's interpretation might be that a group of water droplets will come down from the sky and land on earth with Jesus emerging from that cloud.

Another person's interpretation might be that the cloud is not necessarily an earthly cloud of water vapor, but some sort of cloud that comes down from heaven from which Jesus emerges.

Still yet another person might interpret Jesus is riding the cloud and envisions Jesus stepping off the cloud, not emerging from it.

Another might review all the many ways in which God comes and goes or appears and disappears in and on clouds throughout scripture and interpret the cloud as a figure of speech indicating some transcendent means of appearance since God does not literally "ride" on a literal water vapor.

Another might interpret the cloud to be clouds of dust, or smoke, or birds, or some other form of cloud resulting from war and destruction, such as a cloud of dust from soldiers marching to mete out Christ's judgment.

Another might dismiss the cloud altogether solely as a figure of speech that has nothing to do with any literal cloud and say Jesus simply shows up.

Another might say Jesus doesn't come all the way and lands on earth but comes only TO earth, remaining in the sky.​

ALL of these interpretations can happen. They can happen literally. They can literally happen. That an event actually happens has nothing whatsoever with the meaning of "literal" when we say, "Read prophecy literally."

 

[Josheb]

Let's take a look at the assertion "literal" interpretation means the interpretation will literally happen.

Read it again. I did not give you the option to say "both."

The point being, @ReverendRV, that this opening post does not allow us both and its author argued vigorously against that premise. He then proceeded to provide numerous examples of inconsistency regarding the standard asserted.

 

[Josheb]

The point being, @ReverendRV, that this opening post does not allow us both and its author argued vigorously against that premise. He then proceeded to provide numerous examples of inconsistency regarding the standard asserted.

....and a better approach would be not to limit oneself to either at the exclusion of the other but, instead, to practice the example provided in the New Testament, as well as taking a diverse approach hermeneutically while applying the long-held and well-established rules of sound exegesis that transcend eschatological doctrine.

That is how prophecy should be handled.