The Kingdom of God (SeanD and ApologiaPhoenix) Split Topic

[ApologiaPhoenix]

You got your whole symbolism and allegorical methodology twisted. Allegories and metaphors in scripture were always explained, like the two whoring sisters was explained as Judah and Jerusalem, or the multi-headed beast in Rev.

Which again runs on the premise that these were always explained. How do you know they were explained? Because if they weren't explained they're to be taken literally. How do you know if they're not to be taken literally? Because they're explained. It's circular reasoning.

There may have been images that the prophet didn't understand and described them the best he could, but scriptural prophecies spoken in future tense were always fulfilled the way they happened, including the messianic prophecies. This was the methodology of interpreting scripture, so why should I accept yours?

Hmmm. So when we talk about Christ's descendants in Isaiah 53:10, those are literal descendants? Is this out of the Da Vinci Code? Furthermore, if prophecy is always literal, what makes it so hard to understand? Literal messages are simple to understand.

Note also the people in Scripture who had a problem by taking Jesus literally.

Nicodemus with the second birth.
The woman at the well with water.
Jesus's disciples with telling him they had two swords.
The people who thought they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
The Jews who believed that he was going to rebuild the temple in three days.

They took him literally.

Oh. Do tell how you take literally Christ sitting at the right hand AND coming on the clouds.

[seanD]

Which again runs on the premise that these were always explained. How do you know they were explained? Because if they weren't explained they're to be taken literally. How do you know if they're not to be taken literally? Because they're explained. It's circular reasoning.

Hmmm. So when we talk about Christ's descendants in Isaiah 53:10, those are literal descendants? Is this out of the Da Vinci Code? Furthermore, if prophecy is always literal, what makes it so hard to understand? Literal messages are simple to understand.

Note also the people in Scripture who had a problem by taking Jesus literally.

Nicodemus with the second birth.
The woman at the well with water.
Jesus's disciples with telling him they had two swords.
The people who thought they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
The Jews who believed that he was going to rebuild the temple in three days.

They took him literally.

Oh. Do tell how you take literally Christ sitting at the right hand AND coming on the clouds.

I guess it's just a matter of common sense, isn't it? I don't deny that there are spiritual allegory, poetry, metaphor, and symbolism in scripture, but there is such as thing as taking it to the extreme, which is what liberals do. Liberal Christianity is allegory gone wild. There is a very delicate line there. I take the scripture literally unless common sense or clues within the verses tell me otherwise. Sometimes the clues are obvious, sometimes not so obvious. I still don't know what the fire shooting out of the mouths of the two prophets in Rev is, but the clues tell me affirmatively that they are two individuals, so I guess I'll have to take it literally (two immortal men capable of shooting fire from there mouths), that's all I can go by at the moment. But if the fire turns out to be something else, is it really that detrimental? As far as Jesus' descendants, yes, I would have interpreted it literally prior to Christianity. But now I realize that it was spiritual, because of the obvious clues that have been revealed in the gospel. But would it have really done that much harm taking it literally before those clues were revealed? To me this is the only way to interpret scripture, otherwise, like I said to Osidian, the sky's the limit with allegorical meanings. I could come up with any doctrine I wanted and interpret the scriptures however I wished to support it.

[Obsidian]

But now I realize that it was spiritual, because of the obvious clues that have been revealed in the gospel. But would it have really done that much harm taking it literally before those clues were revealed?

It might've caused you to reject Jesus as a false prophet

[seanD]

It might've caused you to reject Jesus as a false prophet

True, and indeed this is one of the arguments skeptics use against that passage. Sometimes we just have to have faith that God will reveal his truth to us. Thank God the other scriptural evidence, in addition to Isaiah, that he provided is overwhelming.

[Obsidian]

So God establishes a rule that literal passages should automatically be construed as literal unless explicitly defined as something else. Then he breaks it when he sends the Messiah into the world, and thereby damns many Jews.

[seanD]

So God establishes a rule that literal passages should automatically be construed as literal unless explicitly defined as something else. Then he breaks it when he sends the Messiah into the world, and thereby damns many Jews.

So you're arguing that because the Jews thought Jesus should have literally had actual children, but didn't, that's why they rejected him?

Come on Osidian, stop being ridiculous. Jews rejected Jesus for a whole no more reasons than that. They just use that argument, one among many, today as an excuse. You know that.

[Obsidian]

I'm sure that's not the reason most of them reject him. In fact, I doubt that many of them share your obsession for literal interpretation. But if you were a Jew back then and you thought that God meant everything literally, wouldn't you get confused?

Historically, we know that many of the Jews in Jesus's day did interpret things a bit too literally -- as Phoenix pointed out in post #106.

Anyway, my point is that you shouldn't make a rule of interpretation when God has already shown a willingness to break your rule.

[Littlejoe]

LittleJoe, are you for real, man? My suggestion is that you get a Strong's Concordance and look up the Greek word "years."

Are you for real Sean? Strong's is about a 100 yrs. out of date. Here is a thread about this very subject. The only Greek expert to post about the subject in that thread is Jaltus. Jaltus has a ph.D in biblical Greek. On page one he says:

"...if it's from Strong's it's probably wrong..."

In the first post on the second page, he says that 1000 years is simply a very long time.

Link:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...s+greek&page=2

[seanD]

Are you for real Sean? Strong's is about a 100 yrs. out of date. Here is a thread about this very subject. The only Greek expert to post about the subject in that thread is Jaltus. Jaltus has a ph.D in biblical Greek. On page one he says:

In the first post on the second page, he says that 1000 years is simply a very long time.

Link:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...s+greek&page=2

Granted the KJV is not the be-all and end-all of biblical textual translations, but anyone who would claim that the Strong's is outdated, I don't think I could take seriously, phD or no phD. And especially if he is doing it in the context of defending his eschatological views. There is not a single translation anywhere that translates it other than a "thousand years." You can twist the meaning into allegorical claptrap all you want, but John meant a thousand years.

Anyway, did you even bother to read the other post responses, or did you just post-mine the one that worked in your favor?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Duly noted that there's no point by point response.

I guess it's just a matter of common sense, isn't it?

Go for the ad hom again! "Well, I can't explain why it should always be literal, but I guess you lack common sense if you interpret it literally."

Question Sean. Was John the Baptist literally the Elijah to come?

I don't deny that there are spiritual allegory, poetry, metaphor, and symbolism in scripture, but there is such as thing as taking it to the extreme, which is what liberals do.

Guilt by association. Come and play kids! Circle the logical fallacies as you see them being broken!

Liberal Christianity is allegory gone wild.

Actually, it's usually denial gone wild.

There is a very delicate line there. I take the scripture literally unless common sense or clues within the verses tell me otherwise.

You know, I really can't stand the line of common sense. If it's common sense, you don't need to say it. If you need to say it, it's not common sense. So tell me, did the Psalmist literally soak his couch with his tears? Tell me, is Solomon literally the wisest king who ever lived, even greater than Jesus in wisdom?

Sometimes the clues are obvious, sometimes not so obvious. I still don't know what the fire shooting out of the mouths of the two prophets in Rev is, but the clues tell me affirmatively that they are two individuals, so I guess I'll have to take it literally (two immortal men capable of shooting fire from there mouths), that's all I can go by at the moment.

Hmmmm. Well then the prostitute that comes out of the sea must be literal individual as well and she must have a heck of a lot of wine with her because nations apparently get drunk. Let me offer this suggestion on the two witnesses. The witnesses are those who testify of Christ. Do you see anything that reminds you of two other prophets in the OT like maybe Moses and Elijah? Moses representing the Law and Elijah the Prophets. In this sense, the witnesses represent all who testify of Christ.

But if the fire turns out to be something else, is it really that detrimental?

If you're not understanding the text as it is, yes. You'll have a lesser understanding and that will influence how you understand other texts.

As far as Jesus' descendants, yes, I would have interpreted it literally prior to Christianity.

Oh. So beforehand, your literal interpretation would have been wrong. But I thought you said all the prophecies about the Messiah were literal. It seems you were wrong then. How many more are you wrong on?

But now I realize that it was spiritual, because of the obvious clues that have been revealed in the gospel. But would it have really done that much harm taking it literally before those clues were revealed?

Yes. You would have rejected Jesus because he didn't have descendents.

To me this is the only way to interpret scripture, otherwise, like I said to Osidian, the sky's the limit with allegorical meanings.

Baloney. There are certain symbols that represent certain things. When we're told of the sun being 7 times brighter, we don't take it to mean that the world will be really dark. When we hear of the stars falling from the Heavens, we don't take that to mean "Peace for everyone!" Tell me, if this was so easy to understand, why do scholars like Richard Longenecker write books like "Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period" that explain how they interpreted Scripture? Have you ever read anything from someone like N.T. Wright?

I could come up with any doctrine I wanted and interpret the scriptures however I wished to support it.

Which means that if you don't take the text literally, anything goes. Nice straw man.

[seanD]

Duly noted that there's no point by point response.

Question Sean. Was John the Baptist literally the Elijah to come?

Nope. Jesus cleared up the ambiguity caused by the problem of the dual-role Messiah, and made it perfectly clear what would take place -- Elijah would indeed come in person, as Malachi predicted, but that John came in the "spirit" of Elijah during Jesus' first role as Messiah. Jesus knew that this might still cause confusion, so advised those who didn't understand, not to concern themselves with the meaning.

Guilt by association. Come and play kids! Circle the logical fallacies as you see them being broken!

If I explain to you that one of my relatives past away as dust in the wind, that I was crying, and my tears ran like morning dew off the spring leaves, does that mean you should chuck the fact that my relative died and I was deeply saddened? By your methodology, just because a passage is sprinkled with symbolism or poetry, you would interpret the whole event as some cryptic code or message I was giving you instead of my relative actually dying.

Hmmmm. Well then the prostitute that comes out of the sea must be literal individual as well and she must have a heck of a lot of wine with her because nations apparently get drunk.

The harlot was allegory, but the angel explained who the harlot was. Didn't I say previously that when something is obviously allegory there is usually an explanation? You're making it either or -- literal or allegory -- yet that is not my argument, therefore you are the one building a strawman.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Yes. You chose to ignore how I addressed your points specifically. I think I can guess why.

Nope. Jesus cleared up the ambiguity caused by the problem of the dual-role Messiah, and made it perfectly clear what would take place -- Elijah would indeed come in person, as Malachi predicted, but that John came in the "spirit" of Elijah during Jesus' first role as Messiah.

But wait. If you took Malachi literally, you'd have to say Elijah was to literally come. John however denied being Elijah. Jesus said he was the Elijah to come. Should Jesus have taken the text literally?

If I explain to you that one of my relatives past away as dust in the wind, that I was crying, and my tears ran like morning dew off the spring leaves, does that mean you should chuck the fact that my relative died and I was deeply saddened? By your methodology, just because a passage is sprinkled with symbolism or poetry, you would interpret the whole event as some cryptic code or message I was giving you instead of my relative actually dying.

Oh! Then if it's the genre of poetry, you can take it as having rich symbolism. But wait. I'm guessing that by some rule you've yet to give, prophecy and apocalypse don't count.

Tell me along those lines then Sean. When did God fight David's enemies?

The harlot was allegory, but the angel explained who the harlot was. Didn't I say previously that when something is obviously allegory there is usually an explanation? You're making it either or, yet that is not my argument, therefore you are the one building a strawman.

The point is that individuals can represent nations. Duly noted that there is a limited reply to my posts as well as no explanation of how you're not begging the question or using guilt by association.

[seanD]

Yes. You chose to ignore how I addressed your points specifically. I think I can guess why.

But wait. If you took Malachi literally, you'd have to say Elijah was to literally come. John however denied being Elijah. Jesus said he was the Elijah to come. Should Jesus have taken the text literally?

Sheesh, PF, I"m beginning to give up on this argument because it's pointless, not because I'm avoiding your points. I'm repeating myself, and you're obviously just on the attack now, using ad hoc and reductio ad absurdum, not bothering to understand any of my points.

Mat 11:14-15:

"And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Mat 17:10-11:

"And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them."

Notice in the first passage Jesus cautioned them, lest they misunderstood what he meant. If we go by your argument that Jesus was actually declaring John as the Elijah, instead of a type of Elijah (Luke 1:7), then we must accept the fact that either John the Baptist contradicted Jesus, or the apostle John himself contradicted the other gospel writers.

[Littlejoe]

Granted the KJV is not the be-all and end-all of biblical textual translations, but anyone who would claim that the Strong's is outdated, I don't think I could take seriously, phD or no phD. And especially if he is doing it in the context of defending his eschatological views. There is not a single translation anywhere that translates it other than a "thousand years." You can twist the meaning into allegorical claptrap all you want, but John meant a thousand years.

It doesn't have to be translated differently than a thousand years for it to mean a long time...it's a figure of speech.... When someone says that it is raining cats and dogs, do you rush to the window to see if there are literal "cats and dogs" falling from the sky?

You keep claiming that "the sky is the limit" with allegory...but most of it is metaphor actually. Figures of speech commonly known to the Jews who knew the meanings of these "prophetic figures of speech" mostly from reading the O.T.(Tanakh) The meanings, for the most part were already established. Just like my example of "raining cats and dogs". If you don't realize that's a figure of speech, sure you could twist that in many different ways, but you don't because you know it is what it is.

Anyway, did you even bother to read the other post responses, or did you just post-mine the one that worked in your favor?

(It took me a minute to realize what you were asking here )
Yes I read the whole thread. I went back just now to see if I missed anything....I didn't. It's why I was confident when I told you that the ONLY VERIFIED Greek expert to post an opinion on the subject was Jaltus. In fact, in his first two posts in the thread he spells out the Greek behind it. (The second he corrects himself to say that ALL of Revelation uses the "non standard" rendering of a thousand years.)

Webdunce, who posted several times, posted to show that people are reading Strong's incorrectly explicitly says that "...he is no Greek expert..."

That is in fact how the word chilioi is being used in the sentence and that is why it is a plural of uncertain affinity. it is an adjective modifying a plural word "years"...and in Greek an adjective must agree with the noun being modified in number (and probably case and gender, too, but I am no Greek expert). So, chilioi is in plural form because "year" (whatever the Greek word for that is) is in plural form (however Greek makes plurals...not by adding an "s" as English, I'm sure).

(emphasis mine)

here: link

Long Hair is obviously not an expert as the OP.
Theobooks also is obviously not.
Web Dunce and Zero out discuss the merits of what STRONG'S says on the subject, but not on the actual text it self.

So, yeah, Jaltus is far and away the most expert person to post his reasoning in that thread. Jaltus has proven in many different threads that he has an experts grasp of Biblical Greek.

LJ

[seanD]

It doesn't have to be translated differently than a thousand years for it to mean a long time...it's a figure of speech.... When someone says that it is raining cats and dogs, do you rush to the window to see if there are literal "cats and dogs" falling from the sky?

You keep claiming that "the sky is the limit" with allegory...but most of it is metaphor actually. Figures of speech commonly known to the Jews who knew the meanings of these "prophetic figures of speech" mostly from reading the O.T.(Tanakh) The meanings, for the most part were already established. Just like my example of "raining cats and dogs". If you don't realize that's a figure of speech, sure you could twist that in many different ways, but you don't because you know it is what it is.

(It took me a minute to realize what you were asking here )
Yes I read the whole thread. I went back just now to see if I missed anything....I didn't. It's why I was confident when I told you that the ONLY VERIFIED Greek expert to post an opinion on the subject was Jaltus. In fact, in his first two posts in the thread he spells out the Greek behind it. (The second he corrects himself to say that ALL of Revelation uses the "non standard" rendering of a thousand years.)

Webdunce, who posted several times, posted to show that people are reading Strong's incorrectly explicitly says that "...he is no Greek expert..."

(emphasis mine)

here: link

Long Hair is obviously not an expert as the OP.
Theobooks also is obviously not.
Web Dunce and Zero out discuss the merits of what STRONG'S says on the subject, but not on the actual text it self.

So, yeah, Jaltus is far and away the most expert person to post his reasoning in that thread. Jaltus has proven in many different threads that he has an experts grasp of Biblical Greek.

LJ

You might want to read posts carefully before using it to support a view you have. Jaltus tried to argue from a Greek grammatical standpoint at first, which would have been a strong argument, but then corrected himself (right after Waterrock corrected him), because the Greek word for "thousand" in Rev changed to modify the word "years," as zero_out and WebDunce also pointed out on page 2, which doesn't mean that the word "thousand" was anymore or less "thousand" in other places of Rev or anywhere else...

For example, ten thousand is [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]Murioi[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color].

By the way, I was wrong about thousand in Rev 20. It always appears in the plural, it is neuter due to [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]eth[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color].

So then he proceeded to make up for it by declaring that the Strong's was incorrect most of the time, without even backing such a outrageous statement at all, and that the book of Rev is metaphorical, therefore we should accept "thousand" as metaphorical. Yet this does nothing to change the fact that chilias is 1000, and always has been 1000. To argue that it is metaphorical is fine, but note that that is an assumption not based on anything but an assumption.