Prophecy in general

[armylngst]

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.

Okay. How to figure out if what you said is literally correct. The sun is opaque the last time I checked. So, literally given what you just said, John would not be able to see the angel standing in the sun. You should see this as the first step of figuring out if what you are saying is a literal understanding is actually a literal understanding. And I didn't say between the sun and earth. I said between the sun and the viewer, the point from which the angel is being observed. The words "standing in the sun" has been used and over used and never has it meant that your child is suffering and melting in the core of the sun, right? There are other terms like, get out of the sun, you are going to get sun burned. That has never meant that the skin was going to peel off their body, and their flesh fry because they are inside the sun. They are standing in the sun...light. And the way our language works, the way you literally say that is that they are standing in the sun.

And when a parent says that to a child they are talking to, while they are in a beach chair, they are speaking to the difficulty of looking at/seeing their son due to the sunlight in their eyes. You are standing in the sun so I can't see you. (blinded by the sunlight.) Go stand.. in the shade. What does that literally mean? Go stand where the sun isn't shining on the ground. (I'm not sure why I have to explain this to you.)

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

No I did not. I literally see an angel standing in the sun, as a silhouette of an angel surrounded by an outline of the sun. However, I also understand that in that visualization, it is symbolizing the position of the angel in its task of speaking for God. It symbolizes the position of authority behind the angel. The angel does not speak for itself.

You've got to stop calling other deceitful.

I will be sheepishly honest. I think you are the first person I have ever said something like this to. Congratulations.

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.

Wait a minute. You are a partial preterist who is actually telling someone else to be consistent? So explain why Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 are allegorical but parts of Revelation 19 and 20 are literal? How is that consistent? If you are consistent, then you would say that Jesus is not physically returning to Earth, because that would then be a literal interpretation. And once you let that in the door, don't you have to treat the rest of Revelation the same in order to be consistent?

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.

Actually, it is a discussion of how to read prophecy. So you present a prophecy (preferably messianic first coming) and explain how it was literally or allegorically fulfilled. The reason for first coming is that all the prophecies of the first coming have been fulfilled, so one can show HOW it was fulfilled. I have shown some of the first coming prophecies and how they were literally fulfilled. I used Satan's binding in Revelation 20 to show what happens when one isn't consistent, and ignore context.

 

[Josheb]

You force the Bible to fit your belief, and I can't simply say I do not do the same...

Stow that dross.

I haven't made the Bible "fit my belief" once. You may have, but I have not. What I have done is post scripture. I did not once "interpret" scripture to say anything other than what it states. I also used other scripture to view scripture and NOT any pre-existing eschatological point of view.

So you stow that dross and stick to the topic of this op.

In general, Old Testament prophecy CANNOT be read literally, but that does not mean it is required of us to read it literally. This is especially so of any interpretation that Judaizes Old Testament prophecy because the Jews got a lot wrong.


I am glad you're not Dispensationalist, and I am glad you undertand figures of speech and symbols are not precluded in a literal reading of scripture. However, the premise reading scripture literally means simply that whatever the reading is will literally happen is just wrong becaue EVERYONE believes prohpecy will be fulfilled. Both the literal reading AND the spiritual allegory can and are believed to come true, to actually come true. So "literalism" conflates the terms "literal" with "actual," and it does so in a manner that creates a straw man; it misrepresents all out means of reading prophecy.

That is what you should be addressing.

 

[Josheb]

Everyone of them, through you, is ADDING to the prophecy.

That is not true at all. You've made a broad, sweeping, over-generalized statement dismissively. I didn't once add to scripture. You, ironically have. Your statement, " 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," is an addition to the prophecy.

I have told very early on in this thread you're being inconsistent. You have gone on record stating you read things literally and then you don't. You complain about everyone adding to the prophecy and then do the very same thing. This inconsistency disqualifies your method. It also disqualifies you from having any authority to suggest to any of us, or teach us how to read prophecy in general.

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.

Can you show me where scripture explicitly states the words, "the Second Coming"?

Tell me also, where in Revelation does the scripture explicitly state Jesus comes to earth? I am going to save you some time here. Jesus is not explicitly reported to come to earth until chapter 22 when the New Jerusalem (city of peace) comes down out of heaven. Check for yourself. Look it up. If your belief "He will come to earth..." is based on anything other than Revelation 22 then you have added to scripture.

And I already addressed this much earlier in the thread. That info is sitting silently unaddressed.

The prophecy is basically a promise that He will return, that He hasn't left to stay away.

Yep. I never said otherwise.

The point is being missed. The point is a dozen different interpretations could be had and every single person still believe their view will literally (actually) happen. In other words, your definition of "literalism" is meaningless because everyone, not matter their interpretation believes their view will happen.

Don't read anything more into the prophecy.

I didn't.

There are other prophecies dealing with His return that you can go to next.

Yep.

And all of them should be read literally unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text indicating a reason to do otherwise, AND we Christians should read Old Testament prophecy the same way the New Testament writers did. Where they read it literally (which was not very often) then we should do likewise and where they read it allegorically (spiritually) then we should also do likewise.

How many times do I have to post this before you start discussing it?

 

[Josheb]

Wait a minute. You are a partial preterist who is actually telling someone else to be consistent? So explain why Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 are allegorical but parts of Revelation 19 and 20 are literal? How is that consistent? If you are consistent, then you would say that Jesus is not physically returning to Earth, because that would then be a literal interpretation. And once you let that in the door, don't you have to treat the rest of Revelation the same in order to be consistent?

No, you don't get to shift the burden away from yourself to others. This is your op, not mine. You, not me, are the one asserting a specific and specifically limited methodology for reading prophecy in general. The onus is on you, not me, to practice what you preach consistently.

Actually, it is a discussion of how to read prophecy.

Yep.

So you present a prophecy (preferably messianic first coming) and explain how it was literally or allegorically fulfilled.

Nope. I just asked how you do so. It is your op. Your position is being asserted. I am simply critiquing it, showing some of the inconsistencies and asking you to either modify or amend your methods or acknowledge the inconsistency.

You first.

Your op.

If and when you show some integrity with that then maybe I'll gladly discuss a better alternative, one with which we can have greater consistency.

The reason for first coming is...

You are getting off into the weeds.

I used Satan's binding in Revelation 20 to show what happens when one isn't consistent, and ignore context.

And you were inconsistent doing so. Satan has always bee bound. Yes, Revelation 20 specifies and limits his binding to deceiving the nation and I COMPLETELY AGREE!!!!! but that does not change the fact Jude 1 tells us satan was bound long ago.

Be consistent.

Scripture should be read literally unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text indicating a reason to do otherwise, AND we Christians should read Old Testament prophecy the same way the New Testament writers did. Where they read it literally (which was not very often) then we should do likewise and where they read it allegorically (spiritually) then we should also do likewise. There are other principles to be applied, such as using other scripture to render prophecy (and not the evening newscast) but these two should provide a lot of information addressing the opening post.

 

[Josheb]

Partial preterists do not.

This op is not a debate of partial-preterism. You're off-topic from the op. Your comment is factually untrue. Lastly, the point is being missed. The point was that I have demonstrated a more consistent literal reading then you and you are the one asserting the preeminence of reading prophecy literally.

If you want to prove me wrong then your only option is to consistently read prophecy literally.

 

[Josheb]

So explain why Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 are allegorical but parts of Revelation 19 and 20 are literal?

Ugh!

You have what I posted completely backwards. ARE YOU ACTUALLY READING WHAT IS POSTED?

The words, "the time is near" are literal. They are NOT spiritual allegory. That means absent any specific text explicitly stating or otherwise exegetically indicating something is happening far off in space and time, the events described should be read in a manner consistent with "the time is near." This is especially so since, 1) just a few verses later the text of Revelation states events in the vision consist of things John has already seen, things that are, and "things which will take place after these things." In other words, some of the events in the vision of Revelation had already happened. Not everything is future! Likewise, some of the events were taking place at the time John was shown the vision. They are not future events, they are events occurring current to John being on Patmos. If we take Revelation 1:19 literally, then only a portion of Revelation is in John's future.

Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 explicitly states the time is near.
Revelation 1:19 explicitly states only a portion is future.


The questions then are 1) Do you read those texts literally? and 2) If you do not read them literally, then, what are you doing about your own inconsistency?

It has absolutely nothing to do with me, my end times view, my partial-preterism, any pre-existing point of view, or anything else on my side of this discussion. If your answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, then all the rest of your reading of Revelation must be consistent with that affirmation.

Why?

Because you, not me, are the one asserting a literally reading of prophecy in general to the exclusion of allegory.

Wait a minute. You are a partial preterist who is actually telling someone else to be consistent? So explain why Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 are allegorical but parts of Revelation 19 and 20 are literal? How is that consistent?

I have already answered the question about why "parts of Revelation 19 and 20 are literal." Why are you asking me a question I have already answered. ARE YOU ACTUALLY READING WHAT IS POSTED?


the rules are very simple: 1) Read scripture literally unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text that indicates a reason to do otherwise, 2) treat Old Testament prophecy the same way the New Testament writers did. Where they treat a prophecy literally then do likewise. Where they treat it figuratively, symbolically, or with spiritual allegory then do likewise, 3) Use other scripture to interpret scripture; not post-canonical doctrine.

I did not say parts of Revelation 19 and 20 are literal, did I? If my posts with Wordsmith were read (and they should be read) then you already know there is a lot in those two chapters that is figurative, a lot that is symbolic, and perhaps some that is literal. That is why I brought up those chapters! They demonstrate a problem with the position asserted in this op. Literal and allegorical are not mutually exclusive and they are not the only two options.

It has absolutely nothing to do with me, my end times view, my partial-preterism, any pre-existing point of view, or anything else on my side of this discussion.

 

[Leonard03782]

Would you please cite that scripture where any prophecy states Jesus comes to earth twice? Would you also please cite the verse in prophecy in which it is stated Jesus comes once as a suffering servant and then (again) as a conquering king?

Has Jesus come to earth as of this moment? Yes, He has. He came as a suffering servant. Will Jesus come again? Yes, He will; as The conquering King.

 

[Josheb]

Has Jesus come to earth as of this moment? Yes, He has. He came as a suffering servant. Will Jesus come again? Yes, He will; as The conquering King.

Jesus comes many ways at many times for many reasons.

Has Jesus come to earth as of this moment? Yes, He has. He came as a suffering servant. Will Jesus come again? Yes, He will; as The conquering King.

Nice dodge. I did not ask whether he would come again. Everyone here believes he will come again. What I asked was,

• Would you please cite that scripture where any prophecy states Jesus comes to earth twice?
• Would you also please cite the verse in prophecy in which it is stated Jesus comes once as a suffering servant and then (again) as a conquering king?

If such verses exist, then it should not be any difficulty on your part to post them. Then having posted them we can discuss them relevant to this op. If, conversely, no such scripture actually states such things then you shouldn't have any difficulty posting an honest, forthcoming acknowledgment of that fact and then we can discuss that absence relevant to this op.

Answer the questions asked. Move the discussion forward.

 

[Marilyn C]

Jesus comes many ways at many times for many reasons.

Nice dodge. I did not ask whether he would come again. Everyone here believes he will come again. What I asked was,

• Would you please cite that scripture where any prophecy states Jesus comes to earth twice?
• Would you also please cite the verse in prophecy in which it is stated Jesus comes once as a suffering servant and then (again) as a conquering king?

If such verses exist, then it should not be any difficulty on your part to post them. Then having posted them we can discuss them relevant to this op. If, conversely, no such scripture actually states such things then you shouldn't have any difficulty posting an honest, forthcoming acknowledgment of that fact and then we can discuss that absence relevant to this op.

Answer the questions asked. Move the discussion forward.

`So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him, He will appear a SECOND time, apart from sin, for salvation.` (Heb. 9: 28)

 

[Josheb]

`So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him, He will appear a SECOND time, apart from sin, for salvation.` (Heb. 9: 28)

That's good but it does not meet the specified criteria. I did NOT ask for a verse that states, "A second time." I asked for a verse explicitly stating "THE Second Coming."

This is also a great verse to examine because that verse specifically states the second coming to which it refers is for a salvation apart from sin.

That would exclude the Dispensationalist's rapture . In Dispensationalism the rapture occurs because sin has become so pervasive and egregious that the Church must be removed. That is not a salvation apart from sin.

The same thing holds true for the earthly-kingdom return. That coming occurs so Jesus can defeat sin and sinners and rule the earth - ruling over sinfulness - for a thousand years. That would be a coming with a salvation that is directly related to sin.

So - and I encourage everyone to think about this - any and all eschatologies that use Hebrews 9:28 to justify The Second Coming and have Jesus coming to save from sin are abusing the verse and have an eschatology that contradicts scripture.

Now, Marilyn, I'm not going to expound further on that in any way that digresses from this op. This op is about how prophecy should be read. What's op-relevant about Hebrews 9:28 is that is it is read literally then a lot of people's eschatology is incorrect and if read allegorically then you'll have to take that up with armylngst because he's opposed to anything but the literal. Furthermore, the point I am endeavoring to make by asking wear "The Second Coming" is explicitly stated is that there isn't such a verse and anyone claiming to read scripture ONLY literally is going to have a huge problem here. I encourage you to read through the thread because the posts made in support of this op often contradict one another in both method and content. My efforts to bring that into the light and suggest efficacious alternatives have been met with resistance (or ignored). The second coming just happens to be one example among many.

 

[armylngst]

Stow that dross.

I haven't made the Bible "fit my belief" once. You may have, but I have not. What I have done is post scripture. I did not once "interpret" scripture to say anything other than what it states. I also used other scripture to view scripture and NOT any pre-existing eschatological point of view.

Is that why most of my posts were made up of the quoting of whole passages, while you ignored it?

So you stow that dross and stick to the topic of this op.

In general, Old Testament prophecy CANNOT be read literally, but that does not mean it is required of us to read it literally. This is especially so of any interpretation that Judaizes Old Testament prophecy because the Jews got a lot wrong.

I know that for the preterist, they cannot accept the idea of predictive prophecy, which is what Messianic prophecy was. They have to bury it. Predictive prophecy is literal, even if it is couched in various speech forms. This is why God provided interpretations for symbols, such as with Joseph and his dreams, Nebuchadnezzar's dream interpreted by Daniel, Daniel's prophecies, and others. God meant it to be understood, and it is predictive in that after the prophecy is fulfilled, hindsight isn't any less than 20/20. It becomes blatantly obvious.

I am glad you're not Dispensationalist, and I am glad you undertand figures of speech and symbols are not precluded in a literal reading of scripture. However, the premise reading scripture literally means simply that whatever the reading is will literally happen is just wrong becaue EVERYONE believes prohpecy will be fulfilled. Both the literal reading AND the spiritual allegory can and are believed to come true, to actually come true. So "literalism" conflates the terms "literal" with "actual," and it does so in a manner that creates a straw man; it misrepresents all out means of reading prophecy.

There is no spiritual allegory in prophecy. There is no hidden secret that when unfolded one ends up with something completely different then what was actually prophesied. I would have hoped that my exagerrated version of spiritualization of a prophecy would have made that obvious. Once again, that is why people like Harold Camping got away with putting dates on Jesus return, and was accepted until it failed to happen. Why? He spiritualized prophecies. It is a carnival. One can make prophecy say whatever one wants it to say, and all one has to do is learn how to manipulate people into believing the explanation is logical and rational. For Harold Camping, it didn't matter that scripture clearly states that NO ONE but the Father knows the day and hour of Christ's return.

That is what you should be addressing.

Literal is actual. There will be a beast, which will be a man possessed by the devil. He will have an image, which is a blatant blapshemous take of Jesus who is the image of God. He will have a mark, which will be a blasphemous take on the Holy Spirit. The ultimate attack on God, by one who will present himself as God.

 

[armylngst]

That is not true at all. You've made a broad, sweeping, over-generalized statement dismissively. I didn't once add to scripture. You, ironically have. Your statement, " 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," is an addition to the prophecy.

Not sure which person I was referring to, but if it was the beast, obviously he is still alive when Jesus returns, for Jesus destroys him.

I have told very early on in this thread you're being inconsistent. You have gone on record stating you read things literally and then you don't. You complain about everyone adding to the prophecy and then do the very same thing. This inconsistency disqualifies your method. It also disqualifies you from having any authority to suggest to any of us, or teach us how to read prophecy in general.

Says one who doesn't even consider it prophecy, but only history.

Can you show me where scripture explicitly states the words, "the Second Coming"?

Right after the verse that explicitly states the word "Trinity".

Tell me also, where in Revelation does the scripture explicitly state Jesus comes to earth? I am going to save you some time here. Jesus is not explicitly reported to come to earth until chapter 22 when the New Jerusalem (city of peace) comes down out of heaven. Check for yourself. Look it up. If your belief "He will come to earth..." is based on anything other than Revelation 22 then you have added to scripture.

In the section of Revelation 20 with the header "The Coming of Christ" it says:

"11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many crowns; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will [e]rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the [f]wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written: “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

17 Then I saw [g]an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in midheaven, “Come, assemble for the great feast of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, both free and slaves, and small and great.”

19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse, and against His army."

This sounds like the reverse of the prophecy made to the disciples that Jesus would return the same way He left. The heavens opened, and down He comes with His armies to fight the beast and his image and his armies. Is it because of your inconsistent hermeneutic that you cannot accept this clear statement of fact? And there is that angel standing between the sun and Earth (does altitude matter, and can you show how you dug into the secrets of this prophecy to figure out that it meant that this angel was engulfed by the sun?)

And I already addressed this much earlier in the thread. That info is sitting silently unaddressed.

Yep. I never said otherwise.

The point is being missed. The point is a dozen different interpretations could be had and every single person still believe their view will literally (actually) happen. In other words, your definition of "literalism" is meaningless because everyone, not matter their interpretation believes their view will happen.

I didn't.

Yep.

And all of them should be read literally unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text indicating a reason to do otherwise, AND we Christians should read Old Testament prophecy the same way the New Testament writers did. Where they read it literally (which was not very often) then we should do likewise and where they read it allegorically (spiritually) then we should also do likewise.

How many times do I have to post this before you start discussing it?

If you were to discuss the OP first, perhaps I might discuss the off topic things you posted? You have yet to give a concrete interpretation to any of the passages I posted as to whether it is allegorical/spiritaulized, or literal understanding (taking forms of speech into consideration).

 

[armylngst]

Ugh!

You have what I posted completely backwards. ARE YOU ACTUALLY READING WHAT IS POSTED?

The words, "the time is near" are literal. They are NOT spiritual allegory. That means absent any specific text explicitly stating or otherwise exegetically indicating something is happening far off in space and time, the events described should be read in a manner consistent with "the time is near." This is especially so since, 1) just a few verses later the text of Revelation states events in the vision consist of things John has already seen, things that are, and "things which will take place after these things." In other words, some of the events in the vision of Revelation had already happened. Not everything is future! Likewise, some of the events were taking place at the time John was shown the vision. They are not future events, they are events occurring current to John being on Patmos. If we take Revelation 1:19 literally, then only a portion of Revelation is in John's future.

Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 explicitly states the time is near.
Revelation 1:19 explicitly states only a portion is future.


The questions then are 1) Do you read those texts literally? and 2) If you do not read them literally, then, what are you doing about your own inconsistency?

It has absolutely nothing to do with me, my end times view, my partial-preterism, any pre-existing point of view, or anything else on my side of this discussion. If your answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, then all the rest of your reading of Revelation must be consistent with that affirmation.

Why?

Because you, not me, are the one asserting a literally reading of prophecy in general to the exclusion of allegory.

I have already answered the question about why "parts of Revelation 19 and 20 are literal." Why are you asking me a question I have already answered. ARE YOU ACTUALLY READING WHAT IS POSTED?


the rules are very simple: 1) Read scripture literally unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text that indicates a reason to do otherwise, 2) treat Old Testament prophecy the same way the New Testament writers did. Where they treat a prophecy literally then do likewise. Where they treat it figuratively, symbolically, or with spiritual allegory then do likewise, 3) Use other scripture to interpret scripture; not post-canonical doctrine.

I did not say parts of Revelation 19 and 20 are literal, did I? If my posts with Wordsmith were read (and they should be read) then you already know there is a lot in those two chapters that is figurative, a lot that is symbolic, and perhaps some that is literal. That is why I brought up those chapters! They demonstrate a problem with the position asserted in this op. Literal and allegorical are not mutually exclusive and they are not the only two options.

It has absolutely nothing to do with me, my end times view, my partial-preterism, any pre-existing point of view, or anything else on my side of this discussion.

So, what if I were to say that part of my interpretation is due to the fact that Revelation was written around 95AD? Consider that God caused things to happen that make an earlier date difficult to accept. From earthquakes in Laodicea from which it took DECADES (quite a few) to recover to the condition that fits with what John wrote to that church. To the fact that at the time of 60AD there was no church at Smyrna yet, and this is verified by the first Bishop of Smyrna who wrote about this fact. In fact, this bishop said that the disciples still had not evangelized Smyrna by 60AD, much less establish a church. Also, who outside of Israel is going to care about the destruction of Jerusalem, when they have other things to deal with. Consider the audience.

 

[EarlyActs]

on the 'will come again' question of Acts 1, remember that is like his departure, pretty quiet. There are no fire balls or explosions. Because of that, I have looked through Acts and found that there are many times when he helps the church through a tight spot, and believe he meant that kind of 'coming.'

Then at the end of time there will be the noisy day of judgement.

 

[EarlyActs]

The ordinary, non-symbolic passages of the NT on the final day have a pretty quick event, even an hour: Rom 2, 8, I Cor 15, 2 Pet 3, Heb 9, 12, and the Thess passages. The Thess have some details just about the 1st cent., just like Mt 24 up to v29.

 

[Matt5]

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 .

I looked it up. They had to use Nero Caesar to get 666. Nero's name by itself did not equal 666.

Imagine you had a vision of the future, and you saw the mark. What would you write down? Well, I wouldn't write down the actual mark, but rather I would add up all the letters and write the sum.

What about just writing down the actual mark? That would be - XEc.

Is XEc a name? Well, it looks a lot like Allah in Arabic.

Is XEc a number? In Greek, it's 600, 60 and 6.

Too easy. That can't be right.

 

[armylngst]

Imagine you had a vision of the future, and you saw the mark. What would you write down? Well, I wouldn't write down the actual mark, but rather I would add up all the letters and write the sum.

What about just writing down the actual mark? That would be - XEc.

Is XEc a name? Well, it looks a lot like Allah in Arabic.

Is XEc a number? In Greek, it's 600, 60 and 6.

Too easy. That can't be right.

God makes mistakes, right?

 

[Josheb]

Is that why most of my posts were made up of the quoting of whole passages, while you ignored it?

The problem is not quoting the scriptures.

The problem is the inconsistency with which the "whole passages" are then eisegetically rendered, the inconsistency with which the guidelines asserted in the op are applied, the complete failure to address and engage a more scripturally consistent alternative, the gross misrepresentation of others who practice the precedents established in scripture..... and now the ongoing inability to keep the posts about the posts and the false witness born with the ad hominem. I did not ignore anything.


Thank you for your time.

 

[Josheb]

So, what if I were to say that part of my interpretation is due to the fact that Revelation was written around 95AD?

A person is still be bound by the fact the opening verses of Revelation explicitly state the events described were going to happen near to the time when the revelation was given. You'd still be bound by the fact that the book of Revelation concludes with the exact same qualifier. Regardless of when Revelation was written, the text of Revelation explicitly states the bondservants of Christ living at the time the book was written are being shown what will quickly take place because the time is near. That is what the text actually states. That is what the text explicitly states AND it does so twice! The text of Revelation open AND closes with those statements.

This op for a literal reading of the text. It argues against an allegorical reading. Whether you hold to other metrics or not, those are the only two options asserted in this op. If a literal-only reading of prophecy is going to be asserted, that obligates and binds that adherent to a literal reading of the events being at hand or near to the time when the revelation of Revelation was given.

Literally.

Early or late dating is irrelevant when it comes to how to read prophecy in general.

Now the common response to what I just posted is a post hoc "When did that happen?" and I see that is what happened on this occasion. Christians who do that are abandoning the topic at hand. They are abandoning ALL the precepts of exegesis. They are appealing to post-canonical secular history to prove their eschatological position. They are subjugating scripture to history, NOT the other way around.

If scripture states a thing was near, then it was near. This is especially true since the word "near" is ALWAYS used in scripture to mean near in time or space and never thousands of years in the future.

If a person claims to read scripture literally and scripture explicitly states an event was near then not only was that event near, but that person is compelled by BOTH the explicit statement of scripture AND his own standard for reading scripture to acknowledge the even was near.

Consider that God caused things to happen that make an earlier date difficult to accept.

I disagree, but that's irrelevant to this op. This op is about how to read scripture and this op asserts only two options: literal or allegorical. If prophecy is going to be read prophecy literally then Read Revelation 1:1-3, 1:19, 22:7-10 literally. Failing to do so is inconsistency. Failing to do so is hypocrisy. If prophecy is to be read literally then read the opening and closing time markers of Revelation literally.

Figure out how history fits afterward. Do not subjugate scripture to secular history. Scripture explicitly states most of the events of Revelation occurred near to the giving of the Revelation. We may not know how, exactly, those events fulfilled what was said, but we do know what they text explicitly states.

Believe it.

Believe it exactly as written.


This failure to do so has always been one of the biggest problems in modern futurism.

I know that for the preterist, they cannot accept the idea of predictive prophecy...

Complete falsehood.

There is no spiritual allegory in prophecy.

Scripture explicitly reports otherwise, and when I was asked I have provided several examples where scripture itself treats prophecy with spiritual allegory. Unlike this op, I do not limit my reading of prophecy to only one of two options. I read prophecy using the same example provided by the New Testament writers and the evidence of these posts shows I read scripture much more literally and much more consistently literal than you.

That does not prevent spiritual allegory where appropriate. The two, literal and allegorical, are not mutually exclusive conditions.

There is no hidden secret that when unfolded one ends up with something completely different then what was actually prophesied. I would have hoped that my exaggerated version of spiritualization of a prophecy would have made that obvious. Once again, that is why people like Harold Camping got away with putting dates on Jesus return, and was accepted until it failed to happen. Why? He spiritualized prophecies. It is a carnival. One can make prophecy say whatever one wants it to say, and all one has to do is learn how to manipulate people into believing the explanation is logical and rational. For Harold Camping, it didn't matter that scripture clearly states that NO ONE but the Father knows the day and hour of Christ's return.

The views asserted in this op and the supporting posts in this thread are much closer to Camping than mine!

Literal is actual.

Yep.

There will be a beast.....

No, there will be a person.

That person is described as a "beast," but the beast is not literally a beast. The term "beast" is used figuratively to describe a person, not a literal beast. Yes, there was/will be a fulfillment of the prophecy in which the person described figuratively as a "beast" did/will come, but that has nothing to do with a literal reading of scripture.

This is just one more example among many in this thread in which "literal" and "literalness" are confused and conflated. All Christians believe prophecy will be fulfilled. Partial preterists believe parts of prophecy were fulfilled and some will be fulfilled. We both believe prophecies will be fulfilled. When partial preterists are misrepresented to believe prophecy was not or will not be fulfilled a strawman, a falsehood, false witness is being asserted. It is fallacious.

, which will be a man possessed by the devil.

Then he is not literally a beast. He is a human possessed by the devil. I understand you accept a literal reading of prophecy does not preclude the use of literal language, and I have openly commended you for saying that. That does not change the problem. The word "beast" is not literal; it is figurative. We both agree: the beast is a person, a human person and not a literal beast. Yes, the prophecy of the beast will be (or was) fulfilled.

There will be an actual fulfillment.

There will not be a literal fulfillment.

A literal actual fulfillment would mean a literal beast that is not a human fulfills the prophecy.

No other eschatology teaches its adherents to confound "actual" with "literal." When the brethren are divided over this then a straw man is being asserted. Partial-preterists don't confuse, confound, or conflate "literal" with "actual." Neither do most in Christendom. Only modern futurists influenced by Darbyism do so. When we say "Prophecy will literally be fulfilled" few, if any, do not mean the mention of a "beast" is a literal beast.

Is that why most of my posts were made up of the quoting of whole passages, while you ignored it?

If you cannot keep the posts about the posts and not the posters don't expect further replies.

• The op is incorrect because it limits the reading of prophecy to only one of only two options.
• The op is incorrect because it fails to consider the possibility of both literal and allegorical reading occurring in various places in prophecy.
• The op is incorrect because it does not consider the alternative of the New Testament authors' examples (they used both the literal and the allegorical)
• The op is incorrect because it confuses, conflates, and confounds "Literal" with "literalness."
• The op is incorrect because the thread demonstrably proves frequent inconsistency.
• The op is wrong because it argues strawmen and other fallacies.
• The op is wrong because it fails to address with any consistency many matters broached in dissent.

The better alternative is to treat prophecy the way the New Testament writers treated it. Where they read prophecy literally (not literalistically) then we should do so, too. Where they read prophecy allegorically then we should do so, too. That is what should be addressed in this op.

Should have kept the posts about the posts and not the posters. Enough patient, forbearance, and opportunity has availed itself for this conduct to change.

 

[Josheb]

Imagine you had a vision of the future, and you saw the mark. What would you write down? Well, I wouldn't write down the actual mark, but rather I would add up all the letters and write the sum.

What about just writing down the actual mark? That would be - XEc.

Is XEc a name? Well, it looks a lot like Allah in Arabic.

Is XEc a number? In Greek, it's 600, 60 and 6.

Too easy. That can't be right.

I would write down what is the actual mark unless directed by the Spirit to do otherwise.

What's more important is that when writing to my audience I would write with the knowledge the audience understood what I was writing. In a revelation in which events are "made known" I would not expect more obfuscation, more veiling, more hiding, more confusing, more obliqueness. People reading 2000 years later what God told me to write might not understand, but people reading what was written at the time of the writing would.

This is one of the first and foremost precepts in sound exegesis: Understand the text as the original writer and his original readers would have understood it.

You check any and all books of exegesis, any and all books on the proper interpretation of scripture and they will ALL agree: Understand the text as the original writer and his original readers would have understood it. It will not matter their eschatological position. Their hermeneutical differences are irrelevant. They ALL agree to that precept. Even modern futurists agree. I believe I already posted a list of links from various eschatological points of view to prove this. Your own Google search on "principles of biblical exegesis" will prove the same.

The problem is one of consistency. The problem is modern futurists do not apply this rule with very much consistency. Otherwise well-intentioned, earnest, and sincere Christians fail to apply the rule well. If they did then the "mark" would be read through the eyes of a first century Christian and NOT through the eyes of a 21st century one. Even modern futurists can abide by this rule to understand the mark might be a tattoo or a scar but NOT a computer chip. Computer implants would directly contradict the precept of original audience. That contradiction precludes the interpretation from being true.