The Revelation of Jesus Christ is not myth.

[Josheb]

True. He has not yet appeared to end these last times.

Sure he has.

He appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus. He brought destruction on Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus comes many ways at many times for many reasons. He will come again to bring a salvation apart from sin. Most modern futurists think he's coming again to bind Satan and physically rule from Jerusalem in ways that absolutely and inescapably have to do with sin. Their entire eschatology is held in direct, open contradiction with Hebrews 9:28.

You're also getting off track in your own op. This op is about the Revelation of Jesus Christ not being a myth. I completely agree: it is NOT a myth. I do wonder who you think thinks Revelation is a myth and 21 posts into the thread I am still waiting on an answer more substantive than, "Those who symbolize it into something else of their own mind and making." Along the way it has become clear the terms like "symbolize" and "analogy," along with their distinctions and overlaps weren't correctly understood. I've also learned there's way too much comfort attacking others and way to little sticking to the sticking to the subject at hand.

Who, specifically, thinks Revelation is a myth? Who symbolizes Revelation into something of their own mind and making?

 

[Ghada]

For example, in the Revelation 1 passage John sees seven lampstands. In his vision he sees actual lampstands but in reality what is standing before Jesus is the churches. Real lampstands do exist but the lampstands in the vision are not literally lampstands; the lampstands stand for the churches.

This is where we separate.

And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks...

You are too willing to not believe the testimony of the apostle. He did not say, I saw as it were seven golden candlesticks, as with His face shining as the sun. The candleshicks and stars were there, not the sun.

When we make doubt about what was seen with the Lord's appearing, when we also doubt the Lord was even there, and instead make it only as if he were there.

When correctly understood the lampstands are components of a vision that is about the churches standing before Jesus. Verse 20 explicitly states the lampstands re the churches, the ecclesias.

They are components of a factual event, which symbolically represent the churches of God at the feet seated on His throne in heaven.

Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

Exalt ye the LORD our God, and worship at his footstool; for he is holy.

Not accepting the miraculousness plainly seen in the event, is only by unbelief in the power of the Lord to now appear on earth in any manner He likes.

Is any thing too hard for the LORD?

The woman clothed with the sun, standing on the moon, with a crown of stars is 'pure' symbolism.

No woman actually did that, nor was seen by John doing that.

The difference is made clear: the mystery of the lampstands and stars seen by John in the Lord's appearing to Him, is explained by Jesus. It's the same, but much more miraculous sight, for Jeremiah seeing a rod of an almond tree and seething pot.

However, the woman of the sun is called a mystery itself. It is not an event that ever took place in the heavens, as that of the Lord appearing to John in miraculous manner on Patmos.

Is it your position there are NO symbols in the Bible at all?

As you define symbolism, yes. The pregnant woman of the sun is one.

But of any person and event of the Bible, made into symbols only? None.

Plenty of interpretive leeway for any person and event of the Bible, but no-tolerance for making any of them into symbolism alone.

Your apparent disagreement with making the whole Bible into fable, is only one of degree. I agree with none of it.

Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

is it your position the Bible does not contain any symbols at all, anywhere? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes.

There are a few sights of symbolism only. As well as plenty of persons and events with symbolic meaning plainly stated, as with the lambstands and stars. There also can be exegetical allegory for instruction from known people and seen events.

The Lord's appearing personally to John on Patmos, was an event seen by John exactly as he writes it, along with any msyterious things seen by John.

I make distinction between seen things, that are mysterious to the natural eye, and mysterious-looking things made only symbolic. The former is only natural to the naked eye of man, but the latter is unbeliefe in things plainly seen.

And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.

Many unbelievers have always wanted to say, that John was also driven mad and out of his right mind at times, like other prisoners on that lonely and isolated prison rock called Patmos. Much like Papillon's friend on Devil's Island.

The Lord appearing a second time shining like lightning in the air, riding on a white horse with His armies of angels and resurrected saints with clouds, is the miraculous event, that every eye on earth will see.

 

[Josheb]

The problem is not temporal things being symbolic, but of denying the temporal truth to make it only symbolic.

Who has done that? Note me.

That includes the sun standing still, the Red Sea crossed, the Lord coming in the flesh as a servant, the rich man tormented in hell, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Ananias and Sapphyra slain dead by the Spirit, the resurrected Lord seen by John on Patmos, the Lord coming again with glory seen by all on earth, and the Lord ruling all the earth from His holy hill of Zion.

Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

When the symbolism of the temporal is wilfully separated from the temporal, then the sumbolic event is made a myth only. (It's the same manner of separating the Lord's salvation from our works...)

The tortoise and the hair is a fabulously true allegory only, not a temporal event. The Lord appearing a second time will be a fabulous event, with plenty of allegory about the good Potter breaking an old vessel into pieces, and righteously separating them between good and bad.

None of which is in the book of Revelation.

True. Neither was the woman clothed with the sun ever a temporal person.

Oooooo..... do tell. Who is she? Try answering the question asked, and try answering that question without ever mentioning me at all, especially in any derogatory manner.

 

[Ghada]

I think the word "symbolic" is being confused with "figurative."

You've defined symbolism as being without literal persons and events. I accept it, and only object to it when applied to persons and events recorded and prophesied in the Bible. That's when Bible record and prophecy is made only legends and myths of man.

I wholly agree with exegetic right of evey reader, whether believer or not, to dig out allegorical and symbolic meaning from the Bible record and prophecy. Whether it's true or not, the Bible will also tell.

However, it is undeniable that some people wilfully seek to disannul temporal truth from the Bible, by declaring it only symbolic. And it's not just unbelief in parts of the Bible, but has a more decietful purpose of doing away with God's law and judgment in their own lives. It's especially true for making His righteous eternal punishment disappear, as being nothing but hot air of 'judgmental' writers.

The first one to make myth out of God's promised words was the serpent, who said "thou shalt not surely die." God's sure commandment is declared to be unsure legend and myth.

And the same goes for Christ's Personal reign for a thousand years over all the earth at His return. It's a proven fact, that many who preach their own current 'reign' with Christ in heaven and over earth, also reject His Personal Millennium from heaven over all the earth with His bodily resurrected saints. And why? Because they want to claim for themselves the prophesied Scriptural reign today, in order to specifically exclude themselves from any possible judgment of their works unto the second death.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

 

[Ghada]

Well, since I quoted the definitions found in the dictionary

The only definition you give, that I agree with, is that all symbolism is unliteral. There is no present fact of it in heaven nor on earth.

Therefore, I condemn any recorded and prophesied person, place, and event in the Bible, being declared symbolism.

and provided examples directly from scripture

I've only seen one example of Bible symbolism that you give, and I have responded to it. The candelsticks and stars seen by John were as real as the Lord's personal appearance to stand on Patmos.

Making an appearance on earth only appearing to be so, is the same as making it only a symbolic myth.

Things can certainly appear to be something, they are not. But that does not mean all appearance are not real, no matter how mundane or miraculous.

It is you who is using the terms to mean something other than what the normally mean in ordinary grammatical usage.Try doing a Google search for "define symbol," "define analogy," and "how many figures of speech are there?"

As I said, I have heard one clear definition from you for symbolism, and I accept it. And so I apply to Scripture when it is so. I also find it inserted into Scripture, in order to not make it so.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[Ghada]

Try doing a Google search for "define symbol," "define analogy," and "how many figures of speech are there?"

You also make a classic error when reading the Bible by man's defined terms. A hole is a hole is a hole, and 2 + 2 is always equal to 4. However, when it comes to God's use of man's words, we must let Him define them, and not Webster alone.

That includes doctrine and prophecy of the Bible. Many like Plato write volumes on the definition of Justice. But the Bible puts an end to all such speculations and definitons and practices of man.

We must conform to how God defines the words and terms He uses, in order to properly teach His doctrine and interpret His prophecy.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

A private interpretation of Scripture, that changes or disannuls the truth of Scripture, includes inserting personal definitions into words of Scripture, as well as declaring God's words to be only symbolic.

And what we do find in fact, is that some unbelievers in the lityeral truth of the Bible, resort to denying any normal defintion of words and grammatical rule. Such as God saying a thousand years 6 times in as many verses, does not really mean a thousand years.

They purposely misapply the eternal place of God in time, in order to reject His truly prophecied time on earth.

 

[Ghada]

• Revelation is not myth.

True. Nothing in the Bible is myth.

• Revelation is full of analogy.

True. All the Bible is full of analogy, allegory, and symbolic meaning, that can either be exegetically learned, or is spoken outright.

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Paul and Apollos were men on earth, and are now in God's presence in heaven. There is the mount Sinai and Jersusalem in heaven, as well as on earth.

Myth is made out of the Bible, when the true things are made to be only allegory and symbol.

• Analogies teach made-up events.

Incorrect. This is your reading of my words, which is the exact opposite of what I mean. Analogies are not symbolism with no temporal event.

Analogies are true events written with analysis of their origin, character, and purpose. Fables are analysis of such things with made-up events. Such as Aesop.

Separating the analogous writing of events from the events, and you make it into only anotherAesop fable.

Post 9 contradicts Post 1.

Not by my words, but only by your rewriting them into the opposite.

Fix that. Fix it before we proceed.

When you show something borken by the exacts words I say, then I'll be more than glad to fix.

Sound corrections are good, because it only makes things better.

 

[Josheb]

You've defined symbolism as being without literal persons and events.

Never happened.

I accept it, and only object to it when applied to persons and events recorded and prophesied in the Bible. That's when Bible record and prophecy is made only legends and myths of man.

Th salient point in that consession is that the original statements made in the op are incorrect and, being incorrect, 1) should never have been posted as if they are correct, and 2) everything posted from here on out should be consistent with the acknowledgment symbolism is sometimes about real people/events, and sometimes not.

I wholly agree with exegetic right of every reader, whether believer or not, to dig out allegorical and symbolic meaning from the Bible record and prophecy. Whether it's true or not, the Bible will also tell.

There are no "rights" in scripture and exegesis is (supposed to be) science and methodological, not opinion and whim.

However, it is undeniable that some people wilfully seek to disannul temporal truth from the Bible, by declaring it only symbolic.

Perhaps but the facts in evidence here and now are that I have repeatedly asked for some specific identification of that "some people" and see nothing in response to the many requests. So far the entire op is built on a red herring. That is just as bad as treating scripture only as symbolism. I would very much appreciate it if you'd actually cite a specific person or group of people who do only symbolism.

It's not that I disagree with you, at least not wholly. I am currently re-reading a commentary on Revelation written from an Idealist perspective. Idealist eschatology considers the historical events of scripture (and that would include the events of described in the book of Revelation) as real events really occurring in real history BUT they ALSO view those events as ALSO symbolic of conditions that repeat themselves throughout history. I do not wholly agree or wholly disagree. There were many antichrists living in the first century but there was one antichrist of particular concern to John and his first century readers. Many historical records testify to the existence of many people meeting the criteria specified by John in his letters. You and I can pick up the newspaper or listen to any radio broadcast and read/hear people meeting that exact same criteria specified by John. There were, have been over the centuries, and are today many antichrists. the existence of many is not specifically eschatologically relevant or salient. It is the one antichrist specifically mentioned by John that is salient.

Likewise, perhaps there are individuals or groups of individuals who treat scripture ONLY as symbolic but, so far, I have yet to read any evidence you have clue who that individual or group might be. Even those fools in the Jesus Seminar do not deny ALL factuality of the Bible.

And it's not just unbelief in parts of the Bible, but has a more deceitful purpose of doing away with God's law and judgment in their own lives. It's especially true for making His righteous eternal punishment disappear, as being nothing but hot air of 'judgmental' writers.

And we might be able to discuss that when I read some specifics.

The first one to make myth out of God's promised words was the serpent, who said "thou shalt not surely die." God's sure commandment is declared to be unsure legend and myth.

A lie is not necessarily a myth. Myths can and often do communicate profound truth. That is the correct purpose of myth. Like everything else that is good and true, the adversary and adversaries of God pervert and corrupt even the device of myth. Misconstruing ALL myth as evil is no better than construing all myth as good or construing all truth as myth.

Unless you believe every parable in the Bible a factually correct report of actual factual events you do subscribe to some forms of myth. We do not know that there was an actual Samaritan who rescued an actual victim in actual neglect of an actual priest and an actual Levite and taken to an actual inn where he was actually placed in an actual room to be watched over by an actual innkeeper until the actual Samaritan actually returned to recompense the actual innkeeper with actual coin. The factualness (or lack thereof) does not change the lesson taught, nor the salience of that lesson. There may or may not have been two sons commanded by a father to work in the field with two different initial response and two different subsequent responses. The factual historicity, or lack thereof, of the report does not make the truth and salience of the message. Neither does the historicity make the truth and salience any greater or lesser.

When Paul writes to Timothy telling him to ignore "Jewish myths," or admonishes those who turn from truth in favor of myths, he is not saying all myths have no value. That would be a misreading of the text. We KNOW that to be the case because Paul often used Greek myths apologetically. He quoted a play by the Greek philosopher Epimenides for the purpose of instructing Titus (and by extension and Christian readers of Titus throughout all centuries). He used the myths of the Greeks when he visited the Areopagus (the hill of Ares - Acts 17) and persuaded many to convert to Christ. Paul asserted the truth of the unknown God for the purposes of God in Athens.

When our teachers teach us to be heavy handed and/or legalistic they are treating scripture just as mythological as the antinomians.


So, please, specify who it is you know or think to read scripture ONLY as symbolism. OR, in the absence of any such person or group, simply acknowledge you do not know anyone specifically who holds that view. I'll take up the op with you in the context of the specified group. In the absence of any such group I will gladly offer a few examples of people who, imo, over-emphasize symbolism and how and (maybe) why they do so and we can then discuss that.

Tell me who, specifically, reads Revelation ONLY symbolically?

 

[Josheb]

True. Nothing in the Bible is myth.

That is incorrect.

True. All the Bible is full of analogy, allegory, and symbolic meaning, that can either be exegetically learned, or is spoken outright.

Then the op is incorrect because the ops states otherwise.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you. The op makes a few mistakes. Incorrectly discriminating between symbolism and analogy is one of them. I am pleased and encouraged to now read you post a better, more accurate understanding of scripture but the work is not done. Until YOU hold a correct understanding of how scripture uses literary devices YOU will never have any agreement with anyone except those who also hold misguided views of scripture.

Myth is made out of the Bible, when the true things are made to be only allegory and symbol.

Yes, perhaps in some cases that is true, but it's incumbent upon you to identify who that is an, so far, I have asked several times, and that question has not been answered. It looks like the question is being avoided on purpose.

Incorrect. This is your reading of my words, which is the exact opposite of what I mean. Analogies are not symbolism with no temporal event.

Sometimes analogies are symbolic and do pertain to temporal events that are real, factual, historical events.

Analogies are true events written with analysis of their origin, character, and purpose.

If someone were to say, "It is raining cats and dogs," does that mean it is not actually raining?

Fables are analysis of such things with made-up events. Such as Aesop.

That is not a point in dispute. What is in dispute is the abject failure to cite any specific person or group of persons who treats the book of Revelation ONLY as fable. I have read the entirety of the Bible from beginning to end as written and in chronological order many times. While have not read EVERYTHING ever written about scripture, specifically the book of Revelation ever written from the second century on, I have read all the ECFs and worked my way from the ECFs through selected theologians, both orthodox and heretical, over the last 21 centuries. I've already told you about my academic studies and professional experience. I am unaware of anyone who actually treats all of Revelation ONLY as symbolism and/or fable.

So I ask you, "Who, specifically, in all of heaven and earth are you taking about????"

Separating the analogous writing of events from the events, and you make it into only another Aesop fable.

Be careful using the word "you," because I do NOT make anything in scripture out to be only another Aesop fable.

When you show something broken by the exacts words I say, then I'll be more than glad to fix.

Already done.

Sound corrections are good, because it only makes things better.

Yes, that works both ways, and I am encouraged you've received some of the correction provided.

It is very important you cite an actual specific example of someone or some group who actually, factually reads Revelation is ONLY symbolism and/or myth and/or fable. It's important because if there is no actual example then the op is a red herring. It is important because there is no actual example then the op is...... a myth .

I have tried to create room for you - for you and I continue this discussion in the context of actual conditions, not imagined ones. If you can specify a person or group, then I'll discuss the op with you in that context. If you cannot specify a specific, actual, factual, real person or group then I'll provide some examples of partial symbolism I view as inconsistent with scripture (and therefore unscriptural) and we can discuss the op in that context.


So, once again, Who, specifically, in all of heaven and earth are you taking about???? Who, specifically, actually believes ALL of Revelation is ONLY symbolism, myth, and/or fable?

 

[Josheb]

You also make a classic error when reading the Bible by man's defined terms.

Stop it.

Many times have I gone on record with you (and others) stating the standard to be used is the New Testament writers. Where they treated scripture as literal and factual then we should do the same. Where they treated scripture as figurative, symbol, or figurative then we should do the same. Ignoring what I posted and attacking me for something exactly the opposite of what I said is wrong, and it disqualifies you from discussing your own op.

So stop it.

Read everything I post with the standard(s) just stated and those established by the scriptures quoted in Posts 11 and 12. And stop employing ad hominem.

And please answer my question:

Who, specifically, in all of heaven and earth are you taking about???? Who, specifically, actually believes ALL of Revelation is ONLY symbolism, myth, and/or fable?

 

[Ghada]

Never happened.

Did happen.

Typically, an analogy is a comparison or representation where the representation can be taken literally

whereas in symbolism any literal interpretation is excluded.

I can't have a reasonable argument with changing arguments.

Th salient point in that consession is that the original statements made in the op are incorrect and, being incorrect,

Already corrected you mistating me, so that your words contradict me, not mine.

everything posted from here on out should be consistent with the acknowledgment symbolism is sometimes about real people/events, and sometimes not.

You could choose one or the other, but it doesn't really matter.

When literal things of the Bible are made symbolism only, then the Bible is made mythical.

There are very few examples in the Bible that are only symbolic. The woman clothed with the sun is one.

There are no "rights" in scripture and exegesis

Every reader has right to make of the Bible what we want. And God will judge us by it.

is (supposed to be) science and methodological, not opinion and whim.

Here is your error. Bible rightly interprets itself, and faith in what God says is our guide to knowing and teaching His word.

'Scholars' have done more to destroy the doctrine of the Bible, than teach it.

Linguists are necessary for translation, not necessarily for interpretation. Let the linguist translation accurately, and the faithful reader intepret rightly.

 

[Ghada]

Perhaps but the facts in evidence here and now are that I have repeatedly asked for some specific identification of that "some people" and see nothing in response to the many requests.

Already have to you specifically.

Calling the Lord's Millennial reign a symbol, without acknowledging the event on earth, is the same as calling the past temple at Jersualem a symbol only, that never acknowledges it stood on earth.

You've also made it clear, that you don't agree the Lord's millennium on earth is only symbolic or spiritual in nature, but will occure as prophesied.

If you are asking for names, then that is as unneccessary as demanding Paul name names that taught the resurrection is past.

The teaching spread in the churches is the viral problem.

in actual neglect of an actual priest and an actual Levite and taken to an actual inn where he was actually placed in an actual room to be watched over by an actual innkeeper until the actual Samaritan actually returned to recompense the actual innkeeper with actual coin.

Thanks. You can use this as another specific example of making myth out of certain and sure Bible record.

There was a certain Samaritan. Even as there was a certain rich man and Lazarus.

Myth-making includes making only a parable out of the true record.

 

[Ghada]

Idealist eschatology considers the historical events of scripture (and that would include the events of described in the book of Revelation) as real events really occurring in real history BUT they ALSO view those events as ALSO symbolic of conditions that repeat themselves throughout history.

This is not idealism. Idealism is another form of fabulous legend. Some Christian idealists idolize the life of Jesus on earth, but delcare no person on earth can walk as He walked. It's akin to pagan hero-worship like that of Herakles.

The understanding of certain cyclical processes in the Bible is as old as Ecclesiastes:

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

There have been many antichrists coming and going, with their personal cults rising and falling. They are fresh and bright-looking in the beginning, become organized and settled, and then have their own hardened last days to perish in.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Christ's millennium on earth after His return, is a one-time thousand year Lordship over all nations. Even as His coming in the flesh a servant to the Father and all people.

The first and second coming of the Lord to the earth is not cyclic.

There were many antichrists living in the first century but there was one antichrist of particular concern to John and his first century readers.

Paul is the only apostle speaking specifically of the last great antichrist to come, just before the Lord's return.

That Wicked to come, will be greater in deceit and dominion than all going before. Satan will inspire him like all his antichrists, but will also give him power over earthly things, to appear as Christ Himself come again in the flesh.

It is the one antichrist specifically mentioned by John that is salient.

Paul. Where do you see John speaking of a last antichrist, that is personally destroyed by the Lord's coming in brightness with flaming vengeance?

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

There were, have been over the centuries, and are today many antichrists. the existence of many is not specifically eschatologically relevant or salient.

All such are eschatological, since all come in these last days, that have been the last days since the apostles declared them so.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

These are the last days, that will end with the Lord coming a second time in the air.

 

[Ghada]

Even those fools in the Jesus Seminar do not deny ALL factuality of the Bible.

I see now how you mistake me. Myth-makers are about parts of the Bible. Even among unbelievers, no one makes myth out of all the Bible. They don't dispute the historiocial record, but only the events they don't want to believe in.

Some examples include, the garden of Eden, the flood over all the earth, the Red Sea crossing, the sun standing still, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and His millennium on earth...

A lie is not necessarily a myth. Myths can and often do communicate profound truth.

The argument is not against myths, but only against making parts of the Bible only mythical, by unbelief.

 

[Ghada]

Like everything else that is good and true,

This is error. Only God's words are good and true.

Neither give heed to fables, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to fables, that turn from the truth.

Myths can be interesting for sure, but not accepted as good and true. Other flood myths can be interesting to show Satan muddies the waters of the true Bible record, but they are not at all good and true.

I have loved Graeco-Roman mythology, including their movies, but I never mistake them for being good and true. And especially not being Scripture of truth.

the adversary and adversaries of God pervert and corrupt even the device of myth.

No the adversary of God, often called the Muse, perverts His true record and words with myths made out of them.

That includes old and new myths, such as alternative flood myths, and the newer myth of a present millennium reign of Christ with His saints from heaven.

Misconstruing ALL myth as evil is no better than construing all myth as good or construing all truth as myth.

Once again, you're the only one trying to argue benefits of myths. I only argue against myths made out of the Bible.

Unless you believe every parable in the Bible a factually correct report of actual factual events you do subscribe to some forms of myth.

At least you are not asking me about something I've never said. However foolish the question may be.

I don't know anyone that takes the Bible as all myth, nor all literal.

The Bible always tells us when Jesus is making a parable, such as the Sower. When not doing so, then the Bible is taken literally, such as the certain Samaritan and rich son of Abraham tormented in flame of hell.

We do not know that there was an actual Samaritan who rescued an actual victim

Once again, this is your own example of how myth is made out of Bible record, by making only a parable out of certain people and events made known by Jesus.

This doubting of Jesus' own record, leads straight to people making the torment of hell into only a parabolic myth.

The factualness (or lack thereof) does not change the lesson taught, nor the salience of that lesson.

But it does change the Bible. And that's the problem inherint in unbelief in the truth, masked as respect for the true lesson.

The true lesson of torment in hell is only as good as the truth of torment in hell. The lesson being not to go there as punishment for uncharitable and unrighteous living.

Once again, the argument is not against the value of parables and symbolic revelations in the Bible. It's only about the devil's works to change the true words of Christ into a lie.

The sperent in the garden is the first one ever recorded todoing so:

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.

The unbeliever begins by doubting the surety of God's words, and then lies about them being sure at all.

Bible truth of torment in hell, is done away without torment in hell. Bible prophecy of Christ reigning with saints over the nations of the earth, is done away without Christ reigning with saints on the earth.

 

[Ghada]

We KNOW that to be the case because Paul often used Greek myths apologetically. He quoted a play by the Greek philosopher Epimenides for the purpose of instructing Titus (and by extension and Christian readers of Titus throughout all centuries).

Epimenides was not writing myth, when he quoted a well-known prevention of disease by drinking foreign waters. Niether was Paul endorsing any myth when agreeing with the traditional remedy.

That includes Jude not endorsing the Book of Enoch as Scripture of God, when quoting Enoch's old prophecy of the Lord's coming with saints, and establishing it as sure prophecy of the Lord's second coming with clouds.

He used the myths of the Greeks when he visited the Areopagus (the hill of Ares - Acts 17) and persuaded many to convert to Christ.

Christ confirmed some truth to certain Hellenistic poetry. We are indeed all the children of God. But not as the pagans taught.

Christ reveals we are all the children of God by creation in His image from the womb.

But since all men have sinned, then all men have made themselves children of the devil. The sons of God are now them that repent of their sinning for Jesus' sake, while the children of disobedience remain separated from God's Spirit and life.

Paul asserted the truth of the unknown God for the purposes of God in Athens.

The unknown God of the Athenians was not the true God of heaven and earth, because He was not being worshipped as such.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

Preaching the truth of the Creator and God of all things, while using their ignorant worship of gods as a springboard, is the same as teaching the truth of the flood of Noah, in order to correct ignorant beliefs in a flood of other myths.

When our teachers teach us to be heavy handed and/or legalistic they are treating scripture just as mythological as the antinomians.

Not true at all. Our reference to myth made out of the Bible is not the same.

Antionomians make the law of Christ into dead rubble and dust. They never deny the law of God was once written on stone.

The subject at hand is simple: When certain record and sure prophecy of Scripture, is made only into parables and symbols, then the Bible is made into myth, where no myth is.

 

[Ghada]

That is incorrect.

Ok. Now that you plainly say there is myth in the Bible. I like drawing clear lines.

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you.

There is no fight nor even argument between us any more. You say the Bible has myth in it, just like many other unbelievers.

Doesn't bother me at all. It's nothing new.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

 

[Ghada]

Sometimes analogies are symbolic and do pertain to temporal events that are real, factual, historical events.

And this is what I've already agreed to, just a little differently, since the Bible is the subject at hand.

Much Scripture of historcal and prophetic fact, also provide much analogous and symbolic teaching.

In fact, most all of Scripture does so:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And there are a very few examples in Scriptrue that are entirely symbolic, without any person nor event taking place in heaven nor on earth, nor in hell under the earth.

And there is no myth in Scripture at all, which is made by man pretending to occur. Plato calls it the noble lie.

And so, when the factual record and prophecy is made only symbolic, then the Scripture is made just another lying myth. It's done by ignoble unelief in God's words.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

If someone were to say, "It is raining cats and dogs," does that mean it is not actually raining?

And if someone were to say, "We're reigning with Christ", does that mean they are actually reigning?

I have read the entirety of the Bible from beginning to end as written and in chronological order many times.

Congratulations. But not with faith, since you say the Bible has myth in it by unbelief.

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

It's kkin to how the unbelieving Jews still don't read the Bible with faith in Jesus Christ.

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

I've already told you about my academic studies and professional experience.

And I haven't told you of mine, since it doesn't matter if our teaching of the Bible is wrong. Esepcially when it results in declaring the Bible has myth in it.

If the Bible has any myth, the the Bible is opened to all myth. The serpent first opened that door in the Bible:

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die

Once any sure words of God are made unsure, then all is just more unsure words of man alone.

I am unaware of anyone who actually treats all of Revelation ONLY as symbolism and/or fable.

Once again, you write your own words as mine. I don't know of anyone that believes the Bible, nor Revelation is all myth. However, some like yourself think there is some myth, and others think there is much myth.

The argument is against the Bible having any myth in it at all, including Revelation.

Be careful using the word "you," because I do NOT make anything in scripture out to be only another Aesop fable.

Fable or myth, are the same thing. You say there is myth in the Bible, then you agree there is fable in the Bible.

And it's like Aesop for learning lessons without factual event and persons. At least with Aesop, he's not pretending there is any such event or person taken place.

Myth-makers out of the Bible however make Christ a liar, by making what He certainly and surely says, not to be so.

It is very important you cite an actual specific example of someone or some group who actually, factually reads Revelation is ONLY symbolism and/or myth and/or fable. It's important because if there is no actual example then the op is a red herring.

Since the argument is against any myth in the Bible, including Revelation, then the only red herring here is you arguinmg about all the Bible or Revelation being myth.

And you've already proven the point, that there are people like you beliving the Bible has myth in it, and corruptly teaching it as such.

I have tried to create room for you - for you and I continue this discussion in the context of actual conditions, not imagined ones.

We're about done here. Unless you now want to give your own examples of myth in the Bible. I may have heard your myths before from others.

It's interesting to see how the Bible is made into myth, but not necessary to know, nor to be taken seriously.

 

[Ghada]

Stop it.

I didn;'t start it. Many have read into the Bible their own defintions of terms, or that of Webster, such as justice, fear, salvation, justification, faith, imputed righteousness, etc...

Sometimes they do agree with the Bible and sometimes not. I only believe how God defines the words and terms He uses.

Where they treated scripture as figurative, symbol, or figurative then we should do the same.

Once again. This is not the argument. the rgument is doing away with the factual, in order to make it only figurative, symbolic, parabolic, allegorical, etc...

Ignoring what I posted and attacking me for something exactly the opposite of what I said is wrong, and it disqualifies you from discussing your own op.So stop it.

Sure, as soon as you stop asking for it by posting to me. But, I'll not stop altogether, so long as I have more to add to the argument. I'll just post it independently.

Read everything I post with the standard(s) just stated and those established by the scriptures quoted in Posts 11 and 12.

I have. You've yet to acknowledge my standard of quoting people accurately, rather than wrongly in order to dismiss the argument.

And so, as I said, we're about done here, unless you add something new, or give examples of your myths in the Bible.

I only play the personal back and forth game for a little. It gets old fast.

 

[Josheb]

Did happen.

I signed in this afternoon to find you've attempted 18 different responses to me. 18 posts and the question asked many, many, many posts ago is still unanswered.

And so, as I said, we're about done here, unless you add something new, or give examples of your myths in the Bible.

I never said the Bible was myth, or that it contained myth(s). What I did do was ask you for an example of someone who does. It appears you demand others do what you refuse to do: post proof.



Not finding an answer to that question after having asked multiple times I leave you to this nonsense.

Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

Bye