On prophecy, literal vs allegorical

S.T.Ranger

Well-known member
you have no clue what dispensationalism is, you have no clue what covenant theology is,

I do: they are terms applied to Systems of Theology created by men.

That doesn't change the fact that we see a dispensational timeline throughout the course of Biblical History.

While I disagree with some of the things some "Dispensationalists" teach, that doesn't nullify what it is they do teach accurately.

When I say you are a Dispensationalist by Biblical Definition, I mean you are a Dispensationalist by Biblical Definition.

But in order to understand what I said as opposed to what you think I said, you are going to first have to define a dispensation Biblically.

I challenge you to do that, Army. Then we will talk.

Until then, please refrain from wasting space and time, because a thousand words is not as one word with me, nor is one word as a thousand.

;)


God bless.
 

armylngst

Well-known member
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.
Perhaps if you understood the usage of BLUF in the military and government, used to draw attention to a summary or the highlights of what follows. You get the gist of what is coming, before diving into more information on the subject. Sometimes people don't have time to read the whole entire thing, and just want a gist. If they see something they want to know more about, they can then go through the rest of what is written to get that information. I'm sorry if part of my life (a rather large part) was military. I saw how large the comment was going to be, so I broke out the main points before going over them. If none of it mattered to you, you didn't have to waste your time reading the rest.

I can understand your intent to insult the military the day after the anniversay of the Normandy Landing, but I don't have to like it, right?

The issues with the passage is that it affects the interpretation of all of scripture when the passage is allegorized. Now the creation either didn't happen, or God lied when He said it was in seven days, because we, as humans know better. I mean, look at how Peter says that to the Lord a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. He just happened to say day, but He was talking about extended periods of time, thousands perhaps millions of years. I understand if you don't see this as a problem, but it is a major problem.

This brings into question every time the scripture, inspired by God, talks about any kind of unit of time. Again, you may not see this as an issue, depending on whether you even believe in the Bible. The collapse of these events is even used as one of the reason why the flood didn't happen. This then leads to the denial of more scripture, until it is nothing more then a book of fairy tales. I understand if you don't see this as major problems and issues, and this is just coming from the one statement by Peter. To mean, that seems to be A LOT of issues, and not something small.

In the least amount of meaning, Peter is saying that God has not forgotten the church or the promises He has made, but is long suffering towards the body of believers, not wishing for any of His elect to perish, but that they all come to salvation before God slams the door on salvation. Remember that Jesus was very clear in John 6 when He said that He will not lose a single one, and that He will not cast out any who come to Him. It is Peter comforting those who are going through persecution, and are waiting on God to bring an end to everything.

You are explaining figurative (symbology)/literal interpretation after I have already said the same thing? I am rather dumbfounded as to how to respond to what I have already said?
 
Last edited:

armylngst

Well-known member
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.
I'm pretty sure you can find people online using google who can explain to you exactly what all that meant. All of that means that, unlike you postulated earlier that the millennium is just 24 hours, that even though God perceives time differently then we do, it has no effect on what time means to us, and what we perceive. Revelation says 1000 years... it is 1000 years. It is NOT, as you said, 24 hours.
 

armylngst

Well-known member
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.
Given what you have said, obviously 500 year evening and 500 year morning were the first 1000 years, here labeled a day. (BTW, that is completely false, but you can believe what you want.)
 

armylngst

Well-known member
This is precisely what Peter states:




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.
Did you fail english class in school? You do know what a simile is, and those words that make a simile a simile right? It doesn't matter how big the cherry you pick by using a different bible version, because, as you will notice, yes, like is not there, but the word AS is, and either one makes it a simile which is figurative language.
 

armylngst

Well-known member
ATTP (and that's the problem): Scripture never cancels itself out.
And that is another problem. I never said it did. I said the terms logically cancel themselves out. You have the first statement, and the second is just the inverse of the first. They cancel each other out. However, the message that God is conveying through Peter comes through clear, which is that God does not experience/see time the same way that we do, though He can. This is because God exists outside of time. Peter is not making any literal statement on how time works, no matter what you may believe.
The literal truth is always going to be there.
The literal truth is that what Peter said has absolutely no affect on the Bible at all, whenever it mentions time. So if Israel was in the wilderness for 40 years, they were not the wilderness for 15 minutes. Nor were they there for over 40000 years. They were there, as the Bible states, for 40 years.
One thousand years is as and like one literal 24-hour day to God, and a 24-hour day is like one thousand.
This is not what Peter is saying at all. He was relating how God experiences time in a way that a human can understand, to simply state that we cannot force our point of view upon God and say that He has forgotten about us.
The point is that time is not relevant to Eternal God.
That is not the point at all. The point is that God does not experience or see time in the same way we do, so we cannot force our view upon God to say that He forgot us, or that He broke His promise.
So why would this cancel out the thousand years of Revelation 20?
I didn't say it would. I was saying that your 24 hour understanding of what the 1000 years is, is wrong, and that it is 1000 years no matter how God experiences it, because we have to live it. Every single second, every single hour, every single day, week, month, etc. Humanity experiences every bit of it whether it seems like 5 minutes to God, 2 weeks to God, or whatever. Humanity experiences all 1000 years AS 1000 years, no matter your belief.
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?
I do, but I am not sure you do. By stating that the terms cancel each other out, if you say there is a 1000 year kingdom, there are no arguments to filter these 1000 years through to make it any less or any more than 1000 years. That is what happens when you cancel it out. There is no longer any way to argue that the 1000 years are anything other than 1000 literal years that Christ will reign on earth. If they don't cancel out, one can argue, with a sound foundation, that there is no 1000 year kingdom, it is speaking of a very short interlude before creation ends. It allows for amillennialism, which may be your goal, I don't know.
God bless.
Indeed, but remember, treat others how you want to be treated, and notice that that is what I am doing. Treating you as you apparently wish to be treated.
 

armylngst

Well-known member
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.
You don't get to change the logic, as we do like logic here. It was a fallacy, especially in the context of the discussion. Sometimes I like lazy argumentation, but not on this. I did not say I reject dispensationalism, I said I no longer accept it. You say that scripture is given dispensationally, but no, it was given the way covenant theology says it was given. (And I don't accept that either, but I already gave the reason why I don't accept either, and, while it wasn't sleep apnea, it had to do with figuratively sleeping through the class that taught about this.) I will agree and say that Ryrie did a decent job of covering some of the glaring issues with Dispensationalism, but I just can't get myself to care about either dispensationalism or covenant theology. My focus is on premillennialism. You have to learn that neither dispensationalism or covenant theology are foundational beliefs. The gospel is.
 

armylngst

Well-known member
I do: they are terms applied to Systems of Theology created by men.

That doesn't change the fact that we see a dispensational timeline throughout the course of Biblical History.
I don't see it, but that's basically because when I took the class, it was TLDR. I only paid attention for the premil part, and our class made the teacher cry. (He was an amillennialist, and I think most of our class was premil.) I understand the idea behind dispensationalism, and covenant theology, but can't really find a reason to care. Not all were called to pretend to be, or actually be a theologian. We might be once we reach the end of the journey, simply due to all the time spent in scripture, but we were not called to be that. One could not form dispensationalism from simply reading scripture. As you said, it is a man-made belief. As of late we have so many man-made beliefs that truth is greatly hindered by it, and many become apostate. For instance, PSA (punitive substitutionary atonement, in case you don't recognize the acronym here). It is not the true model of the cross, even if it is the heart of the message. There are a number of theories that are also correct, and actually work hand in hand with PSA. For instance, ransom theory. Jesus took our place as ransom, and paid the penalty we could not. (The PSA part). Christus Victor. The result of Jesus fulfilling the will of the Father was great victory. It was in more recent times (a few centuries, maybe a little more) that people have watered down events to pared down theories, which causes a loss of a full understanding of what happened. The church fathers didn't speak of any particular theory, but utilized all of what we recognize as theories, and used them all together.
While I disagree with some of the things some "Dispensationalists" teach, that doesn't nullify what it is they do teach accurately.
I never said it was nullified, I just said I no longer accept the dispensationalist part, though I can find some points I agree with. (Kind of like John MacArthur, who does not see himself as anything but a self-coined leaky dispensationalist.)
When I say you are a Dispensationalist by Biblical Definition, I mean you are a Dispensationalist by Biblical Definition.
There is no biblical definition. The word is used in scripture (some translations) but was coopted by Darby to come up with the recent framework of dispensationalism. Premillennialism has existed almost as long as the church has existed. Even amillennialism is younger then premil. Preterism also came after premil, and in response to premil. (It grows out of the belief that since Jesus didn't physically come to earth the first time, He isn't coming to Earth physically a second time.)
But in order to understand what I said as opposed to what you think I said, you are going to first have to define a dispensation Biblically.
Sorry, I kind of decided I wasn't going to dig into either covenant theology, or dispensationalism. Apparently you need to read the OP again, as that is what the thread is about, and has absolutely nothing to do with dispensationalism.
I challenge you to do that, Army. Then we will talk.
I have, but I no longer have a desire to think about it. Have you read Chuck Ryries book on dispensationalism. Dispensationalism isn't just a single camp, and he was/is in the progressive dispensationalism camp. I liked the book, but I have since decided to only focus on premillennialism, now that I have come to know that it exists as its own entity, separate from dispensationalism.
Until then, please refrain from wasting space and time, because a thousand words is not as one word with me, nor is one word as a thousand.
Is that why you wasted space and time after not understanding anything I said?
;)


God bless.
 
Top