Prophecy in general

[Wordsmith]

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.

I think I was clear, if God specifies something 5 times in a passage without a clear reason to accept it a something other that literal I choose to take it literal. You are free to disagree and take it anyway you wish.

 

[Wordsmith]

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 read what you posted. I took your explanation as a way to offer the possibility my reasoning is flawed. It may be, but I stand by what I have said, that is my understanding. I see no authority from the text to change the 1000 years to anything other than 1000 literal years.

 

[Wordsmith]

You've acknowledged there is figurative language in the passage.

Yes but not related in context to the 1000 years!

 

[Josheb]

I think I was clear, if God specifies something 5 times in a passage without a clear reason to accept it a something other that literal I choose to take it literal. You are free to disagree and take it anyway you wish.

That is moving the goalposts.

The rule being discussed was, "read the text literally unless there is something in [the verse and/or] its immediately surrounding text that gives reason to do otherwise." The rules was NOT "if God specifies something 5 times..." The rule was not "if.... then.... I choose."

In a passage filled with figurative language and symbols the text itself reveals to be symbolic there is something in the text giving reason to do otherwise. YOU brought up that rule. YOU asked me to apply it to Rev. 20. YOU acknowledged figurative language exists.

Now the rule you brought into the conversation is being ignored and you're trying to supplant it with different metrics that are not exegetical. At all. There is no rule that says "If God specifies something five times in a passage it must be read literally. There's no rule that says If God specifies something 5 times you get to choose how its read. The rule is "read the text literally unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text gives reason to do otherwise." In Revelation 20:1-8 there is reason to do otherwise. It is not definitive, but it does exist.







And the larger, op-relevant, concern is that literal reading and (spiritual) allegory are not the only two options. Figurative language can and should be read figuratively and not literally. Figurative language can be read figuratively and not be read allegorically, especially not spiritual allegory. BUT on any occasion where the New Testament writers did not read any Old Testament Prophecy literally.... we should follow their example and do likewise.

 

[Josheb]

I read what you posted. I took your explanation as a way to offer the possibility my reasoning is flawed. It may be, but I stand by what I have said, that is my understanding. I see no authority from the text to change the 1000 years to anything other than 1000 literal years.

Moving the goal posts again. No one asked about "authority." No on asked about what you personally do or do not "see." The standard YOU asserted is very plain and very specific. Read the text literally unless there is something in the surrounding text giving reason to do otherwise.

That's the rule.

And in ANY passage that is filled with figurative language and self-asserted symbols (text the text itself says is symbolic) there is also always a reason for not reading the text literally. That does not mean the text must be read other than literal; it simply means there is reason not to do so. Using the text YOU broached (I would have picked a much better, much clearer, less disputed example), there is a lot of figurative and symbolic language. It gives reason not to read the text literally. This is further supported by other example of literal/figurative reading elsewhere in the chapter, elsewhere in the book of Revealtion, and elsewhere in the whole of scripture. I worked from one verse outwardly. I provided examples.

You asserted your personal opinion, your personal choice, and you personal faculties (what you "see").

The rule YOU asserted is intended to prevent that very behavior.

 

[Josheb]

Yes but not related in context to the 1000 years!

Which is the phrase in question. You cannot beg the question.

The rule YOU cited says to read the text literally unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text giving reason to do otherwise. In ANY passage rife with figurative language and symbols the text itself asserts as symbols there is "reason to do otherwise." The number "1000" is not special. Neither is the word "year." What you're arguing is the necessity of the "something" to be specifically about a specific word or a specific phrase and that is not the rule.

 

[Josheb]

I think I was clear, if God specifies something 5 times in a passage without a clear reason to accept it a something other that literal I choose to take it literal. You are free to disagree and take it anyway you wish.

God can specify a figure of speech five times. God can specify a symbol five times. God can specify allegory five times. Repeating something five times does not necessitate a literal reading.

There is, in fact, a rule in exegesis stating repetition indicates importance, but repetition does NOT necessitate literal reading.

 

[armylngst]

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.

If you don't understand the OP you can just ask. It is a question (true, I forgot the question mark). "Is prophecy literal with symbolism, or is it to be allegorized/spiritualized." I presented the view that it should be understood literally with symbolism and figurative understandings. For instance, it is prophesied that the beast is going to go to a department store. So, the literally understood portion is that someone is going to the department store. The beast could be someone's nickname, or a code name, in which case it is symbolic of a person. The context around that prophecy can further tell you that it is a person, just have to find out who they meant by "beast". Cleofatra, the guy from Beauty and the Beast, etc.

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.

If taken literally, it means that I saw an angel that was between me and the sun, and the angel was the right size that the sun was larger than the angel in my view. What do some parents tell their kids not to do on the beach when they are talking to them? Don't stand in the sun, I can't see you. Stand in the shade.

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

If you have read my other posts, you would know that you are being deceitful, and that that is simply not true. Prophecies can be very literal "Out of Egypt I have called My Son." "You will not die before you have seen the Christ." "One of you will not experience death until they have seen the Kingdom of God." RIght down to my understanding that it was prophesied that one of the disciples would die a natural death, and one did. And it wasn't for lack of them trying to kill him. He just wouldn't die. (Kind of like Rasputin.)

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.

1. 2. Jude 1 "1 Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are called, [a]sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ:" However, since I'm not like you, I will take this time to say that you probably meant Job 1. I would agree, but I would say it as Satan is less than God, and Satan cannot thwart God. Is this the type of bondage we see in Revelation? Or in Revelation was it saying that Satan was bound from being able to deceive the nations? And, in the idea of consistency, it came after he tried to defeat God by deceiving the nations to create an army to attack Jerusalem and God's people. And when he is released, it says that Satan went right back to deceiving the nations to attack God again. This means that Satan was trying to hinder/stop the Great Commission, apparently.

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.

So you believe the op was aimed at you? Remember, I said that the op is a question, and I gave my take on it. (Like so many other have at CARM.)

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.

The problem is... you are wrong. I am speaking of prophecy, not the Bible as a whole. I mean, since when were parables literally true stories? The OP is about the understanding of prophecy, in particular, eschatology, not about the Bible as a whole. I mean, I thought that the op was clear since I posted the single sentence that was the thrust of the op above. The Old Testament prophecies were literal to the point that they were generally fulfilled word for word by Jesus. This is why it is given as one of the proofs that Jesus is who He said He was. There is no doubt because the prophecies are straight forward. One doesn't have to go and reinterpret the passage to say it is Jesus. Jesus didn't have to reinterpret the serpent being raised in the wilderness. He paralleled it. The only difference between the two is that Jesus being high and lifted up was universal, whereas the serpent was raised up only for Israel.

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

If you agree, you are. The other choice (amil) is to use eisegesis and add to the passage. That is the problem with allegory. It isn't exegesis. Figurative language and symbolism, and add to that straight literal understandings are exegesis. Everything you need is right there in the passage. With eisegesis, you wind up with stuff that is not only not in the passage, but in some cases makes absolutely no sense in light of context. But again, this is solely in dealing with prophecy. And if it is given in a poetical way, then it is to be handled that way, but what the propehcy is dealing with is literally present in the prophecy. One doesn't have to seek some hidden knowledge that no one else has. As long as one has the context of the passage, one has all the tools they need. (That includes who the author is, who the audience is, the culture, the happenings at the time, etc.)

Are you a Dispensational Premillennialist?

I really don't like dispensationalism, just like I really don't like Covenant theology. However, havign read some of the hsitoric premil beliefs, I do not fall completely into that camp, because I believe that there will be a Millennial Kingdom where God will fulfill His promises made to Israel, and I believe he WILL fulfill His promises. However, through the spiritualization/allegorization of scripture, we have this wonderful thing known as Replacement Theology. Born of a deep set antisemitism that poisoned the early church. (More the Catholic Church.) I mean, the Jewish people did betray Christians into persecution by the Romans, so it isn't without reason.

 

[armylngst]

?????

I don't think you correctly understand the terms you are using because your explanation applied an allegorical reading of the text. Jesus did not literally go inside of a great fish. Jesus' comparison between Jonah's three days in the past with Jesus' future three days in the grave is figurative. metaphorical, allegorical. Yes, Jesus literally died, and was literally buried, and literally came back from the dead, but that does not change the fact his appeal to Jonah was allegorical.

His appeal to Jonah was prophetic, not allegorical. They were asking for a sign, not a poem or story. If it was an allegory, you do realize that Jonah's death and Jesus's death lose meaning, for there is some hidden secret meaning to this beyond death. And then you lose the three days because the three is symbolic for something, and the days are. It may actually mean 3 time periods, and possibly not days, we're dealing with an allegory here. Help me figure it out. And then them coming back to life loses meaning, because that too has some hidden secret meaning we must figure out. Perhaps this story was about Jonah's love life? I'm sure his wife was not happy to have him gallivanting around the globe instead of being at home. So his love life figuratively took him to sheol, which he visualized as being inside a fish, and then once he figured out that he was the problem, his love life started to show signs of life. (John MacArthur could make that sound much better.) The problem with allegory is that you can give a verse any meaning you want, because, by being an allegory, all you have to say is that it is hidden in the passage, not visible. You have to break the code to figure out what is being said, and the interpretation may be completely alien to the context, simply due to it being a hidden secret. (I'm not going to post the definition of allegory again, since I have at least 3 times already, which mysteriously is the number of days that Jonah was dead.... (that is spiritualization/allegory at work)

 

[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

I have already said that with prophecy, literal, figurative, and symbolic go together. Allegory does not belong here. Spiritualizing scripture does not belong here. Let's look at what Jesus Himself said:

"24 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Was Jesus "truly" telling them, or was this some hidden speech? I mean, He seems strangely specific. "not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." If we take Jesus at His word, this prophecy was NOT fulfilled in 70AD because the Western wall still stands. Rome did not destroy that wall. So, literally, the destruction was not complete.

3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

Beginning of birth pains. Even that can be seen as literal, though it is figurative/symbolic. To what? The start of tribulation/persecution.

9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

This is something that is actually going on right now, and has possibly happened at various times through history. (Though some historians say it has not.) What are some differences between today and the past. Well, in the past, if persecution became terrible what did the church do? Move somewhere else. Well, today, there isn't somewhere else for the church to move. When the Puritans were persecuted, they moved to America. The Mormons went to Utah. Now, however, the world has been discovered. There isn't anywhere else to move to.
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.

Explain "If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive..." Have you seen any time in history where all humanity was going to cease to exist due to what Jesus "truly" prophesied? These are periods of distress. It doesn't appear that we are in this period of time, because Jesus is clear.

26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

29 “Immediately after the distress of those days

“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[b]
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

Here Jesus says that immediately after the distress of those days, (verses 21-26) the world ends. Jesus has been telling the disciples that He is speaking from HIs place as human. Not even the Son knows the day or the time, only the Father. So, when Jesus says immediately here, there is no reason to believe He doesn't mean immediately. There is no reason to allegorize this, because there are plenty of other prophecies in the New Testament that speak to the end times.

 

[Wordsmith]

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

I choose to take it literally. I did not create a rule for you or anyone else to follow. I only stated why I believe what I believe. Maybe you can just state what you believe about the passage and why.

 

[Josheb]

If you don't understand the OP you can just ask.

LOL!

I did ask. More than once. Several different questions. They are all sitting in the thread unanswered and ignored. God back and read through the thread and answer the questions asked. DO NOT pretend like those questions were not asked.

It is a question (true, I forgot the question mark). "Is prophecy literal with symbolism, or is it to be allegorized/spiritualized."

And I have answered that question. The question is a false dichotomy because there are more alternatives than those two and both approaches can be used. I also offered at least two alternatives or additions and both of them have been ignored. They are sitting in the thread silently unaddressed even though they are very valid, op-relevant AND correct points that move the discussion forward in a worthy manner. I've endeavored to be collaborative until the posts were treated dismissively.

I presented the view that it should be understood literally with symbolism and figurative understandings.

Yep. I understood that. I disagree AND I provided reasons pertaining to why I disagree. I also find you're not very consistent with your belief prophecy should be read literally and pointed out there are examples of literalness, not literal reading. The former should be corrected.

For instance, it is prophesied that the beast is going to go to a department store...........

Yep. You did do that. I addressed that to show there are flaws in that example and inconsistencies in the claim of literal reading, and evidence of something more than or other than strict literal reading.

If you have read my other posts, you would know that you are being deceitful...

Thank you for your time.

I don't trade posts with posters who resort to ad hominem, attack others, and won't keep the posts about the posts. What I will do here is go through the op line by line affirming what's correct and refuting what is not. And I will do that ignoring all the comments received because personal attacks I've received and lack of cogent discourse. The opportunity to discuss and agreement and disagreement we might have in a polite and respectful manner availed itself to you and it was abused.

I know how to handle that.

If you'd like this discussion to go differently then go back and read through the thread and see that I have acknowledged your position and have asked you questions and didn't receive responses and it is THIS post that is represents the posts. Make amends. Start by answering the questions asked. THEN acknowledge the points of agreement. Only after doing that broach any single point of disagreement and I'll discuss it with you as long as the posts are kept about the posts and not the posters.

 

[Josheb]

I choose to take it literally.

Yep. I got that. In the particular example of "1000 years" there is liberty to do that.

I did not create a rule for you or anyone else to follow.

Red herring. No one has said you invented any rule.

I only stated why I believe what I believe.

Yep. And your personal belief was acknowledged. It would have been kind to provide parity.

Maybe you can just state what you believe about the passage and why.

I believe there are many correct ways to examine scripture and they are not limited to either reading the text only literally or only as spiritual allegory. I believe the well-established and long-held rules of sound exegesis transcend all hermeneutics and are the best way to read scripture. I believe the example of the New Testament writers should be followed; it too transcends all the limitations of restricting us to only two approaches.

 

[armylngst]

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

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

So where does Jesus introduce this person? I believe it was in Revelation. I also believe that Revelation is quite clear that this person is still alive when Jesus physically returns to Earth to destroy the armies of this beast assailing Israel. Since it is kind of obvious that Jesus has not yet physically returned to Earth, that begs the question. Where is the beast? Who is the image of the beast? And what is this mark that the global economy is supposed to run on, that is so different from any previous economic system?

 

[armylngst]

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

Just a quick note, when I say literally happen, that is, once all of the figures of speech are dealt with, what you have left is literally what will happen. The basis of the prophecy never changes. There is no secret, hidden meaning beneath the literal prophecy. (once figures of speech have been taken care of)

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.​

Counter argument: Did Jesus submerge into a cloud on Earth, and then the cloud evaporated into water droplets as the cloud rose to heaven?

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.​

Counter argument: Did Jesus enter a cloud on Earth, and then the cloud ascended?

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

Counter argument: Did Jesus step on the cloud, or, after dealing with the figurative language used, did He pass through the cloud as He is descending from heaven, so the cloud reveals Him?

​

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.​

Counter argument: What, in the given passage, gives any reason to go outside of the passage to understand something as simple as "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."? Buy a time machine and go watch.

​

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.​

Counter argument: Some may realize that the cloud isn't actually that important to the fact that Jesus rose to heaven, so the angel is saying that Jesus will descend from heaven. In other words, there isn't some lucky woman out there who is going to get to bear the Messiah again.

​

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.​

Counter argument: The author personified the cloud, and used figurative language for Jesus passing through a cloud where the disciples could no longer see Him.

​

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

Point of information: They may be speaking of the rapture, where they believe the church will be raptured up to meet Jesus in the sky. They may not be referring to the Second Coming.

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."

One consideration you didn't mention is that the angel was solely speaking of His conveyance. There isn't going to be another Mary, and Jesus won't be returning by being born again. He will come back to Earth as He left. Bodily and visibly. Descending instead of ascending. Outside of that, there isn't much to be gained from this prophecy. I would consider this a personal prophecy made directly to His disciples, that was shared with the church, but that is me. (If you haven't noticed, unless a comment is incredibly long, not at all considered, I don't cut out any of your comments because I consider that inconsiderate of the time you put in.)

 

[Josheb]

So where does Jesus introduce this person?

What does that have to do with this op? Are you bailing on the subject of your own op and ignoring what I posted op-relevantly?

I also believe that Revelation is quite clear that this person is still alive......

You may believe what you like but the book of Revelation opens and closes with explicit statements the things described will happen quickly because "the time is near." According to this opening post, there's only two options: either read those words literally, or read them with spiritual allegory. If read literally then that guy is long dead. If not read literally then you have to explain to us all how it is you can claim to read scripture literally but fail to do so with the opening and closing qualifiers explicitly stated in the book that tells us not to add or subtract from it.

Can't be had both ways.

If the only other option is spiritual allegory then "the time is near" can still be read mean whatever the spiritual allegory was it was still near in space and time to the revelation of Revelation. And, again, anyone interpreting those verses as spiritual allegory has to be consistent.

And what is this mark that the global economy is supposed to run on, that is so different from any previous economic system?

What "global economy"? There's no "global economy" in Revelation.

Be careful, brother. You have to be consistent or I'm gonna start pointing out the inconsistencies. Don't teach others how to read scripture and then ignore your own standards. Be as critical of your own end-times sources as you might be of my posts.

 

[Josheb]

Just a quick note, when I say literally happen, that is, once all of the figures of speech are dealt with, what you have left is literally what will happen.

Yes, you posted that earlier. I replied. What you are describing is not a literal reading of scripture. Literalism is literally reading scripture literally. Furthermore, EVERYONE, no matter who they are doctrinally and how they read scripture, they all believe the events will literally happen. What you are doing is asserting ambiguities and conflations and false equivalences. All your "counterarguments" are ignoring the fact everyone of those hypothetical people believes as you do: they believe their interpretation will be what literally happens.

Even though few of them read the text of scripture literally.

 

[Josheb]

If taken literally, it means that I saw an angel that was between me and the sun....

No.

If taken literally it means what it states. The angel is standing IN the sun. Not between the sun and the earth. Not on top of the sun, on the side of the sun, but IN the sun.

Literally.

What do some parents tell their kids not to do on the beach when they are talking to them? Don't stand in the sun, I can't see you. Stand in the shade.

You just allegorized the text! You made it mean something other than what it states.

If you have read my other posts, you would know that you are being deceitful, and that that is simply not true

You've got to stop calling other deceitful.

Prophecies can be very literal "Out of Egypt I have called My Son."

Yep. God did literally call His Son out of Egypt. He also figuratively called His son out of Egypt. What you've just shown is that both a literal and an allegorical interpretation can both be true, and we need not restrict ourselves to one or the other.

I am not disputing the validity or the veracity of reading scripture literally. I will venture to say I likely read scripture more literally than you. So you you claim to read scripture literally then I say, "Amen!"

And then I direct you back to the op and the inconsistencies in this thread.

So you believe the op was aimed at you?

Nope. Don't have a clue why you would so erroneously think such a falsehood.

If you agree, you are.

Nope. There is more than way to conclude satan''s binding. One needn't even have Revelation 20! Satan can (and should) be understood to be bound without Revelation. If the entire book of Revelation didn't exist we'd still conclude satan is bound.

So when you say I am limited to reading scripture if I agree with you about satan being bound you're just wrong.

The other choice (amil) is to use eisegesis and add to the passage.

Yeah, I recommend keeping your comments to the inconsistencies in your own posts before you start arguing straw men about others.

That is the problem with allegory. It isn't exegesis.

Fail. There are plenty of occasions in the New Testament where the NT writers treated OT prophesies allegorically. You asked me where and I thought you were joking. You cannot possibly not know what I am speaking of and claim to read scripture literally ot presume to teach other how to read prophecy.

One example of the New Testament writers treating an OT prophecy allegorically is in Acts 2. During Pentecost Luke records Peter preaching, and in his sermon Peter references 2 Samuel 7 where God first promised David one of his descendants would sit on an endless throne. Peter explicitly states, "And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY."

The Jews took 2 Samuel 7 literally. Peter says it isn''t literal. Peter explicitly states God's "oath" was about the resurrection and the fact the Messiah would not see decay in the grave. This is enormously problematic for those claiming to read scripture literally. I 2 Samuel 7 is read literally then Peter is wrong. If Peter's words are read literally then 2 Samuel 7 is not literal. God's words to David had meaning not understood during David's reign.

There are numerous examples of this in the New Testament.

That is why I said the better standard is to treat prophecy the way the NT writers did: where they treated literally then we should do the same and where they treated it figuratively (not limited to spiritual allegory) then we - again - should also do the same. Sound exegesis can and does in fact sometimes lead to allegorical interpretation. You've precluded that possibility and you're wrong to do so.

I really don't like dispensationalism...

I am very encouraged to here that. Are you aware it is the Dispensationalists who are most likely to say a literal reading is required?

I, a partial Preterist probably read scripture more literally than you. I know I read it more literally than any Dispensationalist I have ever met. They have a meltdown if I point out Acts 2:30-31, Matthew 24:9 or 34, or Revelation 1:3 and 22:10, read them literally, and ask them to do the same. If I ask them to practice their own standards their heads explode with a pile of eisegetic excuses why that can't be done.

...just like I really don't like....

All of which is off-topic.


This op, your op, is about how to read prophecy. This op, your op, gives us only two options when there are in fact many others and the two options provided are not always in conflict.

 

[armylngst]

What does that have to do with this op? Are you bailing on the subject of your own op and ignoring what I posted op-relevantly?

Actually, it was a question that you asked, so perhaps I should be asking you what your question had to do with the op? It is my fault (and the forum software) for not being able to requote your questions in gray easily.

You may believe what you like but the book of Revelation opens and closes with explicit statements the things described will happen quickly because "the time is near." According to this opening post, there's only two options: either read those words literally, or read them with spiritual allegory. If read literally then that guy is long dead. If not read literally then you have to explain to us all how it is you can claim to read scripture literally but fail to do so with the opening and closing qualifiers explicitly stated in the book that tells us not to add or subtract from it.

This is the problem with not discussing. You force the Bible to fit your belief, and I can't simply say I do not do the same, however, I seem more willing to form my belief around what scripture says. My view has changed within months to just one or two years, due to more information and expanding viewpoints. For instance, I no longer consider pre-trib rapture to be a must, but have apparently fallen into a much more minority view of a pre-wrath rapture. (Closely related to mid-trib.) And part of that change was due to the ten plagues of Egypt. Goshen was separated from Egypt about half way through the plagues, when the plagues became more about God's wrath on display. No one died (other than fish and frogs) as a result of the first five plagues. However, the later plagues became wrath, and some people actually died. (I speak of plagues other then the 10th where people absolutely did die.)

As to your last sentence above, allegory adds to the prophecies. I mean, that is what allegory is about. Hidden messages and secrets hidden in the writing. There is a reason why with the prophecy of Christ's return given to the disciples that I said the only thing it tells us is that Jesus will descend to the Earth, perhaps passing through a cloud on the way down. Don't add to the prophecy. Don't go beyond what you see. There are other prophecies in other places that deal with other aspects of His return. This prophecy just says that what you saw go up, is going to come down in the same manner, full stop. One can talk about additions, but when dealing with the prophecy itself, stop there.

Can't be had both ways.

If the only other option is spiritual allegory then "the time is near" can still be read mean whatever the spiritual allegory was it was still near in space and time to the revelation of Revelation. And, again, anyone interpreting those verses as spiritual allegory has to be consistent.

Again, understand that scripture itself may have allegory in it. I am speaking solely of Messianic prophecy, first and second coming. And you should know that only preterists (the full heretical kind) have a consistent interpretation. Partial preterists do not. They have it both ways. The first chunk of Revelation is allegorical. This small part is literal. The next part is allegorical again, with a small slither of literal. If you are to consistently be allegorical, then you have to wear the tag "full preterist", which is a heresy. (And I do mean spiritual allegory. To them, all of Revelation is history, since Jesus isn't returning physically.

What "global economy"? There's no "global economy" in Revelation.

Full stop. Back up. You do realize that there is a single global society in Revelation right? The kingdom of the beast, his image, and his mark. It is one global society, and will have one global economy. It is the direction the world is going in right now. We are rushing to a global economy, and if you have trouble understanding that, just watch/read about the WGF meetings, and how they plan on creating a global economy.

Be careful, brother. You have to be consistent or I'm gonna start pointing out the inconsistencies. Don't teach others how to read scripture and then ignore your own standards. Be as critical of your own end-times sources as you might be of my posts.

I am VERY careful in this area, because it is easy to get lost in something that should not take up all your time. However, unfortunately for me, I have seen things many/most do not get the opportunity to see, so, next to some, I am working with a much larger information base.

 

[armylngst]

Yes, you posted that earlier. I replied. What you are describing is not a literal reading of scripture. Literalism is literally reading scripture literally. Furthermore, EVERYONE, no matter who they are doctrinally and how they read scripture, they all believe the events will literally happen. What you are doing is asserting ambiguities and conflations and false equivalences. All your "counterarguments" are ignoring the fact everyone of those hypothetical people believes as you do: they believe their interpretation will be what literally happens.

Even though few of them read the text of scripture literally.

Everyone of them, through you, is ADDING to the prophecy. Where I stop is at the basic understanding that Jesus is descending from heaven, just as He ascended to heaven. He will come to Earth unlike the first time where He was born. The prophecy is basically a promise that He will return, that He hasn't left to stay away. Don't read anything more into the prophecy. There are other prophecies dealing with His return that you can go to next.