That's because Jesus hasn't returned as Zech mentions what will happen when He does return. So, Jesus hasn't seen the Mt. of Olives split yet. In the future He will.
That does not address or resolve the posted contradiction.
Jesus did not see it.
Is it literal? No.
Whether he saw or will see it (the splitting of Mount Olive) the splitting is not literal. The first sentence, if taken to mean Jesus has not already
seen the mount split but he will, one day in the future see it split, then that implies the splitting is something literal enough to be seen, or observed with the human eye. Yet, a post later the claim is made the verse is not literal.
So....????? If it's not literal, then what is it? Is the stepping literal or figurative? Is the Mount of Olives literal or symbolic? is the seeing literal, figurative, symbolic? You got Jesus seeing something that is not literal (whether past, present or future is immaterial). How can he
see what's not literal?
Do you better understand the question now?
Where does it say the earthquake literally destroys Jerusalem
Oh my. My post was not read in its entirety, was it? Zechariah 14 was not read in its entirety either, was it. The passage states the mountain splits, creating a valley east to west and the length of the split covers a couple of miles (or kilometers for those outside the US). Realistically speaking (ie.,
literally) an earthquake causing a mountain to divide in two creating a valley a couple of miles in length would be enormous, and enormously destructive to the surrounding countryside.
HERE is an example of an earthquake that created a valley only about a
fifth of a mile in length. Zechariah's earthquake,
if taken literally, by 12 to 15 times larger than that one! Jerusalem is only two miles from the Mount of Olives as the crow files. The text of Zechariah 14 explicitly states, "
half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south." The text also explicitly states the valley reaches to Azel. Azel is to the south of the Mount of Olives about half-way between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives. A well-known graveyard was in Azel. That means the
southern movement of the mountain is about a-mile-and-a-half long. In other words,
if taken literally, the valley created by the earthquake would be about
three miles in width.... AND it would go right through Mount Zion. Zion would be in the middle of the valley or moved southward along with the sudden rift - or,
if the text is taken literally, Mount Zion would literally be destroyed. Jerusalem, being only slightly further to the east would also, therefore be destroyed by an earthquake so violent that a three-mile-wide valley is created. The Zechariah text explictly states the land from Geba to Rimmon will be changed. Geba is more than five miles north of Jerusalem. There are two Rimmons in scripture, one about fifteen miles north of Jerusalem and another about 30 miles south of Jerusalem in what was then called Judah.
That means,
if the text is taken literally, the earthquake is so powerful that it creates a valley many miles in length and many miles in width that runs directly through Mount Zion and Jerusalem and changes the landscape at least six miles to the north and almost thirty miles to the south.
That is where the text says the earthquake literally destroys Jerusalem.
Zechariah 14:4 CANNOT be read literally. If it is read literally the Jerusalem gets destroyed when Jesus steps onto the Mount of Olives.
Yes it is apocalyptic prophecy...it hasn't happened yet.
Yes, it has, but that is not the subject of this discussion, and I am not going to argue off-topically with you. This op is about the seat of judgment moving from heaven to earth. To begin with, this digression about Zechariah 14 is off-topic. There's nothing in Zec 14 about the seat of judgment. Nothing. It's very difficult to get premillennialists to stay on topic and stick with one verse
they cite until resolution and consensus has been had so the exchange into which I stepped is emblematic of a very common problem occurring whenever
anything premillennialist comes up. I asked my question because two posts by the same author seemingly contradicted one another, and I wanted some clarification. The claim Zechariah 14:4 can and should be read literally is absurd once the text as a whole is examined that way, but modern futurist rarely considers larger passages as a whole.
This problem with the earthquake of Zechariah 14 is like the problem of a third of the stars falling to earth. If just one star literally "fell" to earth it would literally obliterate the earth. Revelation 12:4 CANNOT be read literally because if it is applied literally then the earth and every creature in it ends up destroyed and dead. A similar condition exists with Zechariah 14's earthquake. The earthquake is too big to be taken literally because if the text is actually applied literally then Jerusalem ends up destroyed and its inhabitants dead.
Reason is our friend.
