On prophecy, literal vs allegorical

[armylngst]

The question for the thread is why should we believe that when God clearly and literally prophesied the first coming of His Son, that He would not also clearly and literally prophesy the second coming? I mean, outside of the fact that if you read all the second coming prophecies literally, historic premillennialism is the final conclusion. (Note... I did NOT say dispensationalism.) There are church fathers who stated that if one follows the prophecies as given, one ends with a millennial kingdom, in Jerusalem, Jesus ruling over the world for 1000 years. Then there is the final battle against Satan, Satan is defeated and consigned to the lake of fire, and then God destroys His creation, and brings in the new heavens and new earth.

So why the allegory? Where did God change? All His other prophecies were also quite literal. I mean I understand why there was a heretical anti-millennial belief that came out after premillennialism. I mean, if you don't believe Jesus physically came to earth the first time, why would you believe Jesus is coming to earth physically for a second time? That is completely understandable, and completely heretical. [Preterism] However, what other excuse can there be to believe that God changed, and all of a sudden prophecies were allegorical, but solely in dealing with the second coming of Christ? Why could the church not stand the idea that God would finally fulfill His promises to Israel, as prophesied, to the point that when some of these prophecies have already been literally fulfilled, it is still said that they are allegorical?

 

[S.T.Ranger]

The question for the thread is why should we believe that when God clearly and literally prophesied the first coming of His Son, that He would not also clearly and literally prophesy the second coming? I mean, outside of the fact that if you read all the second coming prophecies literally, historic premillennialism is the final conclusion. (Note... I did NOT say dispensationalism.) There are church fathers who stated that if one follows the prophecies as given, one ends with a millennial kingdom, in Jerusalem, Jesus ruling over the world for 1000 years. Then there is the final battle against Satan, Satan is defeated and consigned to the lake of fire, and then God destroys His creation, and brings in the new heavens and new earth.

So why the allegory? Where did God change? All His other prophecies were also quite literal. I mean I understand why there was a heretical anti-millennial belief that came out after premillennialism. I mean, if you don't believe Jesus physically came to earth the first time, why would you believe Jesus is coming to earth physically for a second time? That is completely understandable, and completely heretical. [Preterism] However, what other excuse can there be to believe that God changed, and all of a sudden prophecies were allegorical, but solely in dealing with the second coming of Christ? Why could the church not stand the idea that God would finally fulfill His promises to Israel, as prophesied, to the point that when some of these prophecies have already been literally fulfilled, it is still said that they are allegorical?

There is no reason to change how Prophecy is interpreted. We see figurative language used in both Old and New Testament prophecy and we see literal fulfillment. We can expect the same for what is yet unfulfilled.

God bless

 

[armylngst]

There is no reason to change how Prophecy is interpreted. We see figurative language used in both Old and New Testament prophecy and we see literal fulfillment. We can expect the same for what is yet unfulfilled.

God bless

Figurative is different then allegory though. One can say that Jesus the Messiah was literally prophesied in figurative language, as He was presented as the suffering servant. However, in essence, it wasn't really figurative because that is exactly how God the Father presented His Son, for those to whom He revealed His Son. I may have misunderstood what you said, but I am not talking about the difference between figurative and literal, but the difference between literal, and allegory, where one can make prophecy say whatever they want it to, as long as it isn't literal.

 

[Keraz]

If a person does not interpret the plain statements of prophecy literally, there is no rule by which any consensus of meaning can be established; the existence of a wide diversity of interpretations shows the failure of this approach. As many as fifty different interpretations can be offered for just one passage in Revelation that could be easily understood if interpreted in its natural way.

Ref: J. Walvoord

 

[Yahchristian]

I mean, outside of the fact that if you read all the second coming prophecies literally, historic premillennialism is the final conclusion. (Note... I did NOT say dispensationalism.)

Could you please post some of the verses you are referring to.

And do you agree with dispensationalism?

If not, how would you classify your view?

I would be considered a Historicist (or Premillennial Presentist).

 

[S.T.Ranger]

Figurative is different then allegory though. One can say that Jesus the Messiah was literally prophesied in figurative language, as He was presented as the suffering servant. However, in essence, it wasn't really figurative because that is exactly how God the Father presented His Son, for those to whom He revealed His Son. I may have misunderstood what you said, but I am not talking about the difference between figurative and literal, but the difference between literal, and allegory, where one can make prophecy say whatever they want it to, as long as it isn't literal.

Allegory is figurative language and is extended use of figurative language as opposed to, say, metaphor.

And that is how Prophecy has always been given.

Think of the term "branch." Metaphorically speaking of Christ.

Just like dragon or serpent speaks of Satan. Metaphor designating a literal entity or person.

Just because figurative language is used we don't nullify what that figurative language represents.

If someone says "a thousand years is not a literal thousand years," they still have to determine for themselves what amount of time the thousand years represents, if, in fact, it is figurative language. And when terminology is given with what is thought to be figurative that describes what is being revealed, we look at how that correlates to the subject:


Revelation 20:7 King James Version

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,


Something expires here. Normal examination of such a text would cause us to conclude that it is the thousand years. Because that is what it says, after all.

So if one chooses to determine that the thousand years notiteral, they still have to accept that it is a time frame which is said to come to an end.

So how do they draw a conclusion? Some have concluded that since Peter says "...a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years" they conclude that a reference to "a thousand years" is figurative.

So is it a day? Because that is what Peter says. That is the context. That with the Lord (not man), a thousand years is as a day (meaning a literal 24 hour period.

Does that make sense? Not really, because the events described in the passage simply donn't allow for such a conclusion:


Revelation 20:7-11 King James Version

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.


Does Satan (who is a literal Biblical entity) go out and in a 24-hour period deceive the nations, and gather an army that is innumerable? And in this same 24-hour period encompass the camp of the saints?

Do those who are resurrected at Christ's return reign with Christ for a 24-hour period?

Is Satan bound for a 24-hour period?

The literal that the figurative refers to denies these are reasonable conclusions, and since we do not see such a departure from how prophecy has been fulfilled anywhere else in the Bible it is not reasonable to draw such conclusions here.


God bless.

 

[S.T.Ranger]

Could you please post some of the verses you are referring to.

And do you agree with dispensationalism?

If not, how would you classify your view?

I would be considered a Historicist (or Premillennial Presentist).

The better question would be can you provide Prophecy that denies a physicality to the Kingdom that is spoken of in Old Testament and New Testament Prophecy.

I would agree with the OP, all relevant prophecy surrounding Christ's Return demand a physical Kingdom.

A few examples:


Zechariah 14:16-19 King James Version

16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.


This is after His Return.

One thing that throws some people is partial fulfillment given with final fulfillment. We do see final fulfillment in ch.14 also, but just as we saw Prophecy concerning Christ being partially fulfilled at His first coming, and didn't see final fulfillment, even now we will see partial fulfillment of Prophecy surrounding His Return. Some Prophecy speaks of both His Return as well as the passing away of this creation for the New heavens and earth, or, the Eternal State.


Luke 4:18-20 King James Version

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.


The Lord closed the Book and declared this prophecy fulfilled. This is a partial fulfillment of the Prophecy of Christ, but despite it was given in one passage, it was not fulfilled entirely, and that He was even coming a second time was not understood.

Now let's look at the Prophecy as it was given, and what all needs yet to be fulfilled:


Isaiah 61 King James Version

1 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified.

4 And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.


"To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" fulfilled part of Isaiah's prophecy. Look at what wasn't fulfilled. The Day of Vengeance, for one (because Christ did not come to judge/condemn the world (John 3:17) at that time.

Note also that the they shall build the wastes, and raise up the former desolations, and repair the waste cities. Clearly a physical existence after the Lord returns.

So too, the Prophecy of the New Testament has to be viewed as having a potential for partial fulfillment. The Sheep and Goat judgment, for example, applies to both His Return as well as the Great White Throne Judgment. When Christ returns those who are judged and destroyed enter into eternal torment, but that does not mean they go into Hell (the Lake of Fire) at that time. When Prophecy reaches its final fulfillment they will.


God bless.

 

[armylngst]

Could you please post some of the verses you are referring to.

And do you agree with dispensationalism?

If not, how would you classify your view?

I would be considered a Historicist (or Premillennial Presentist).

To be honest, I used to think dispensational was it, but I only went with that because of premillennialism that was made part of it. A lot of people lie and say that premillennialism is not historical, and I didn't know any better. I am diehard premillennial, but a real sleeper when it comes to dispensationalism. (I still don't remember anything from that part of the Revelation class. I reacted the same way to covenant theology. Not sure if I snored or not.) As you should see, I don't know much about the different schools of premillennial thought, though I did learn a little about chilianism, the original eschatological view of the church. (Premillennialists who managed to really upset St. Augustine.)

 

[armylngst]

Allegory is figurative language and is extended use of figurative language as opposed to, say, metaphor.

And that is how Prophecy has always been given.

Think of the term "branch." Metaphorically speaking of Christ.

Just like dragon or serpent speaks of Satan. Metaphor designating a literal entity or person.

Just because figurative language is used we don't nullify what that figurative language represents.

If someone says "a thousand years is not a literal thousand years," they still have to determine for themselves what amount of time the thousand years represents, if, in fact, it is figurative language. And when terminology is given with what is thought to be figurative that describes what is being revealed, we look at how that correlates to the subject:


Revelation 20:7 King James Version

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,


Something expires here. Normal examination of such a text would cause us to conclude that it is the thousand years. Because that is what it says, after all.

So if one chooses to determine that the thousand years notiteral, they still have to accept that it is a time frame which is said to come to an end.

So how do they draw a conclusion? Some have concluded that since Peter says "...a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years" they conclude that a reference to "a thousand years" is figurative.

So is it a day? Because that is what Peter says. That is the context. That with the Lord (not man), a thousand years is as a day (meaning a literal 24 hour period.

Does that make sense? Not really, because the events described in the passage simply donn't allow for such a conclusion:


Revelation 20:7-11 King James Version

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.


Does Satan (who is a literal Biblical entity) go out and in a 24-hour period deceive the nations, and gather an army that is innumerable? And in this same 24-hour period encompass the camp of the saints?

Do those who are resurrected at Christ's return reign with Christ for a 24-hour period?

Is Satan bound for a 24-hour period?

The literal that the figurative refers to denies these are reasonable conclusions, and since we do not see such a departure from how prophecy has been fulfilled anywhere else in the Bible it is not reasonable to draw such conclusions here.


God bless.

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): The statement that "with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day" means nothing to those of us who are bound to time. We still live every second, every minute, every hour of that 1000 years. Notice the word "like" that shows up twice in the statement. Like is not the word you use if you are trying to make a literal statement. Also, as both statements are the reciprocal of each other, they cancel each other out, and you are left with NOTHING. There are two reference points at play in Peter's writing. Humanity, who sees God being slack, and dragging His feet with His promise to return, and God, who isn't even bound to time, so does not experience/see time as we do.

There are a lot of issues with what you wrote, which presents one of the major issues with an allegorical interpretation. I include here what Peter said:

II Peter 3 "8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance."

Read II Peter 3:8. Allegorically one can argue that creation took an incredibly long time because, one day is 1000 years, and 1000 years is a day. Notice I left out a word. LIKE. What was Peter NOT saying. Peter was not saying that to God 1000 years IS a day, and a day IS 1000 years. He is saying that, using God as a reference point, in God's point of view, one day is LIKE 1000 years, AND 1000 years is LIKE a day. In other words, when God, from His point of view in eternity, views time, He doesn't live out 1000 years to see 1000 years. To Him, He could view all 1000 years as though they were a day, and He could view a day as though it was 1000 years. Meanwhile, we are still living out each minutes of 1000 years, as though it is 1000 years, since, well.... it is. This is what happens you use allegory to force one context onto another with no regards to reference points.

Also note that mathematically/logically, both terms, both sides of the AND, cancel each other out, and we are left with NOTHING, except Peter's point, which is God is eternal, not bound to time. However, we are not eternal, and are very much bound to time. The millennial kingdom will be, timeline 1000 years. It matters not if God view it as 24 hours. It is still 1000 years to those who are bound to the timeline. Those 1000 years still happen. There are two reference points, TIME, and ETERNITY. One cannot define eternity using time, and one cannot define time using eternity. They are not the same thing. How can we be sure? Well, in the biblical narrative time did not exist until "In the beginning..." However, eternity existed, as that is where God finds His existence.

Jesus was literally prophesied using time. Every generation of the Messianic prophecies is covered by the writers of at least one gospel. (I think it is Luke). He does this to show that the prophesied time of the Messiah was literally fulfilled, exactly as prophesied. This Jesus is the one prophesied. Even the Jews who were advising Herod saw no issue with Herod's question, as they knew the literal prophecies. However, they did not recognize Jesus because they used allegorical interpretations to allegorize away the suffering servant of God. They combined the two foretold comings of the Messiah into one, and were awaiting the coming of the conquering hero who would save the Jews from their enemies, in this case, Rome. They did not accept the idea of the suffering servant. Even today, they have completely reinterpreted Isaiah 53 through allegory.

When I talk of literal of figurative, we know that the dragon is Satan in figurative terms. Literally, 1000 years is to be understood as 1000 yeas. It isn't figurative/allegorical. Other examples is the belief that John uses figurative language, using terms people of his time can understand, to explain a future where things exist that no one in his day could hope to understand. Helicopters, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc. For instance, I am becoming more sure that the image of the beast may be a highly developed AI, or one of these very realistic looking robots with a highly developed AI. I believe a scientist said we could have a very highly developed AI within the decade, and there are already some scary real looking robots in the works. The highly developed AI would be an AI that is virtually indistinguishable from an actual human.

 

[S.T.Ranger]

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): The statement that "with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day" means nothing to those of us who are bound to time. We still live every second, every minute, every hour of that 1000 years. Notice the word "like" that shows up twice in the statement. Like is not the word you use if you are trying to make a literal statement.

WT (what twaddle).


2 Peter 3:8 King James Version

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


Notice that it literally says "One day is with the Lord ..."

Not "One day is for men on earth a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

So I ask you this: is it a literal truth that time is irrelevant to Eternal God?

And this: why would this make the thousand years of Revelation, which is dealing outside of eternity—not a thousand years?



As far as your speech on Dispensationalism, either you believe that Scripture is given dispensationally or you do not.

If you do not, then you ignore that God has ministered throughout the Ages with differing dispensations.

So answer a few questions and we will see if you are Dispensational or not:


1. Was there a time when there was no Covenant of Law?

2. Was there a time when there was?

3. Was there a time when The Faith of Jesus Christ was not found among men?

4. Was there a time when it was?

5. Was there a time when the Messiah/Christ had not arrived?

6. Was there a time when Messiah/Christ did arrive?

7. Was there a time when man walked in the Garden of Eden with God?

8. Was there a time when man did not walk in the Garden of Eden with God?


If you answered yes to all of these questions, then you are in fact Dispensational by Biblical Definition.

If you say you are pre-millennial, then you are in fact Dispensational by Biblical Definition.

So the best advice I can give you is to get on board with how best to identify that which you say you believe.

If you believe that there will be a Millennial Kingdom, then you are by Biblical Definition—Dispensational.

God bless.

 

[S.T.Ranger]

There are a lot of issues with what you wrote, which presents one of the major issues with an allegorical interpretation. I include here what Peter said:

II Peter 3 "8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance."

FPAWYTTIA (First, please address what you think the issues are).

Instead of simply giving me your version of truth.

Again, your proof text shows that the statement is relevant to the Lord, not men on earth.

Peter is saying that God is not sitting around say "Time is sure dragging by!"


2 Peter 3 King James Version

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.


Notice that this is a reference to conditions in a temporal context?


8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


Peter's point is that just because it might seem that nothing ever changes, that doesn't mean that when the time comes it won't happen.

Now, is Peter making a literal point?

And by the way, perhaps you have a misunderstanding as to what it means to be Dispensational: just because Dispensationalists believe there is literal truth to all Scripture doesn't mean they do not recognize figurative language.

They believe there is a literal Devil named Satan who is figuratively called a dragon and seprent. He is not literally a dragon or serpent but he is a literal entity (a fallen Angel who is now called a devil or demon) that is seen from the very beginning of Scripture.

Understand?

APDBLWICTTEL (and please don't be lazy when it comes to the English language).


God bless.

 

[S.T.Ranger]

Read II Peter 3:8. Allegorically one can argue that creation took an incredibly long time because, one day is 1000 years, and 1000 years is a day. Notice I left out a word. LIKE. What was Peter NOT saying. Peter was not saying that to God 1000 years IS a day, and a day IS 1000 years. He is saying that, using God as a reference point, in God's point of view, one day is LIKE 1000 years, AND 1000 years is LIKE a day. In other words, when God, from His point of view in eternity, views time, He doesn't live out 1000 years to see 1000 years. To Him, He could view all 1000 years as though they were a day, and He could view a day as though it was 1000 years. Meanwhile, we are still living out each minutes of 1000 years, as though it is 1000 years, since, well.... it is. This is what happens you use allegory to force one context onto another with no regards to reference points.

NAWCAT (no, allegorically we can't argue that).

You can, like idealists and historicists, apply hermeneutics that spiritualize the Word of God and reduce the literal truth that is found to general principles, rules to live by, et cetera.

But that is a mistake.

So let's use your example, Creation:


Genesis 1:5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


That evening and morning are literally going to be in the Word of God for Eternity.

This, for most, would clarify that in view is a day that has a morning and an evening.

If you spiritualize the day, now you have to spiritualize the evening and the morning.

So what is the evening and the morning here?


God bless.

 

[S.T.Ranger]

What was Peter NOT saying. Peter was not saying that to God 1000 years IS a day, and a day IS 1000 years.

This is precisely what Peter states:

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

You just made the point he isn't saying "like."

Would you make up your mind as to what it is you are going to believe, and just teach that?


God bless.

 

[S.T.Ranger]

To Him, He could view all 1000 years as though they were a day, and He could view a day as though it was 1000 years. Meanwhile, we are still living out each minutes of 1000 years, as though it is 1000 years, since, well.... it is.

Isn't that the point I made?


God bless.

 

[S.T.Ranger]

Also note that mathematically/logically, both terms, both sides of the AND, cancel each other out,

ATTP (and that's the problem): Scripture never cancels itself out.

The literal truth is always going to be there.

One thousand years is as and like one literal 24-hour day to God, and a 24-hour day is like one thousand.

The point is that time is not relevant to Eternal God.

So why would this cancel out the thousand years of Revelation 20?

It doesn't, but there are those who think Scripture cancels Scripture, thus they say "The thousand years are not really a thousand years because Peter states a thousand years is only a day."

Understand?


God bless.

 

[S.T.Ranger]

Also note that mathematically/logically, both terms, both sides of the AND, cancel each other out, and we are left with NOTHING, except Peter's point, which is God is eternal, not bound to time. However, we are not eternal, and are very much bound to time. The millennial kingdom will be, timeline 1000 years. It matters not if God view it as 24 hours. It is still 1000 years to those who are bound to the timeline. Those 1000 years still happen. There are two reference points, TIME, and ETERNITY. One cannot define eternity using time, and one cannot define time using eternity. They are not the same thing. How can we be sure? Well, in the biblical narrative time did not exist until "In the beginning..." However, eternity existed, as that is where God finds His existence.

Again, was this not my point?

God bless.

 

[armylngst]

WT (what twaddle).


2 Peter 3:8 King James Version

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


Notice that it literally says "One day is with the Lord ..."

Actually it literally says "One day is with the Lord AS [another known simile type response along with the work like] a thousand years." So God can view a day (from His reference point) as though (notice I have to use figurative/simile type verbiage again) it is 1000 years.

Not "One day is for men on earth a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

So in this case, when John is saying from humanities viewpoint that Satan is bound for 1000 years, it must be 1000 years for us, right? God's viewpoint doesn't matter to us, except when trying to understand why He is taking so long to return in the first place.

So I ask you this: is it a literal truth that time is irrelevant to Eternal God?

I fail to see what kind of relevance that has if humanity is the reference point. As you say above:

Not "One day is for men on earth a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Just so you understand. The literal truth is that God is eternal, so His point of view is quite different from ours. God does not have to experience time as we do. Even so, He uses time often in prophecy, and even used time (our point of reference) in speaking of creation taking seven days, and as it took Him seven days to create, He expected the Jews to work for six days, and rest on the seventh day, in memoriam to His creative work until the world ends. Granted, through Paul we know that the exact days do not matter, as I may decide to honor a different day of the week then someone else. In this case, some/many Christians decided to honor Sunday instead of Saturday.

And this: why would this make the thousand years of Revelation, which is dealing outside of eternity—not a thousand years?

We may have misunderstood each other, because I have already claimed that the prophecies are literal, so therefore this IS, absolutely 1000 years. However, people allegorize prophecy, and state it is not literal. The only excuse we have from an absolute literal understanding is in Daniel, because Daniel explained that he wasn't being literal when he spoke of 70 weeks, since he explained exactly what it means. He said it was figurative, but he explained what the literal understanding of his figurative language is. Each week is not seven days, but seven years. One really can't allegorize here because Daniel interpreted what he wrote for the reader.

As far as your speech on Dispensationalism, either you believe that Scripture is given dispensational or you do not.

Um, this is a logical fallacy as there is no dichotomy here. There is more then two choices. You believe scripture is given dispensational, you do not believe scripture is given dispensational, you believe in covenant theology, you don't believe in covenant theology, you have no clue what dispensationalism is, you have no clue what covenant theology is, or... you just don't care. It isn't a salvific issue. Besides, from what I recall in Revelation class, covenant theology has their own version of dispensations... they have the same number of covenant periods as dispensationalism has dispensations. At that point, I was barely holding on to reality. (Not being asleep.) So the rest doesn't matter. I used to agree with dispensationalism, but found I could separate from it completely

 

[S.T.Ranger]

Jesus was literally prophesied using time. Every generation of the Messianic prophecies is covered by the writers of at least one gospel. (I think it is Luke). He does this to show that the prophesied time of the Messiah was literally fulfilled, exactly as prophesied. This Jesus is the one prophesied. Even the Jews who were advising Herod saw no issue with Herod's question, as they knew the literal prophecies. However, they did not recognize Jesus because they used allegorical interpretations to allegorize away the suffering servant of God. They combined the two foretold comings of the Messiah into one, and were awaiting the coming of the conquering hero who would save the Jews from their enemies, in this case, Rome. They did not accept the idea of the suffering servant. Even today, they have completely reinterpreted Isaiah 53 through allegory.

When I talk of literal of figurative, we know that the dragon is Satan in figurative terms. Literally, 1000 years is to be understood as 1000 yeas. It isn't figurative/allegorical. Other examples is the belief that John uses figurative language, using terms people of his time can understand, to explain a future where things exist that no one in his day could hope to understand. Helicopters, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc. For instance, I am becoming more sure that the image of the beast may be a highly developed AI, or one of these very realistic looking robots with a highly developed AI. I believe a scientist said we could have a very highly developed AI within the decade, and there are already some scary real looking robots in the works. The highly developed AI would be an AI that is virtually indistinguishable from an actual human.

I have no idea what point it is you think you are trying to make in regards to my own views.

IDTYDE (I don't think you do, either).




God bless.

 

[S.T.Ranger]

We may have misunderstood each other,

No, only one person has reached a misunderstanding.

Perhaps you can go back and read what I wrote, then approach it as one would with literal statements.




God bless.

 

[S.T.Ranger]

Um, this is a logical fallacy as there is no dichotomy here. There is more then two choices.

Not in the context of this discussion, there aren't.

You say you reject Dispensationalism, but the fact remains that Scripture is given dispensationally (and I did originally have "dispensation" due to auto-correct which is trying to do it again; I have corrected that in the original post). I gave examples why that is a literal truth, you can deny them if you like.

And you might look up what a logical fallacy literally is. I know you might like to go around charging people with logical fallacies, but at least try to be accurate when you do.


God bless.