What hard evidence is there that Apocalyptic Literature...

[Icometus]

...is a non-literal genre? Obviously, just based on the way its written and the way people of the time read it, its very clearly not literal. But I'm currently in a discussion with someone who doesn't seem to quite be getting that. (They're a bit thick). So, does anybody know of any hard evidence that shows writings in the Apocalyptic genre (like the apocalyptic sections in Revelation, Daniel, Amos, etc.) weren't meant to be taken literally?

[RBerman]

...is a non-literal genre? Obviously, just based on the way its written and the way people of the time read it, its very clearly not literal. But I'm currently in a discussion with someone who doesn't seem to quite be getting that. (They're a bit thick). So, does anybody know of any hard evidence that shows writings in the Apocalyptic genre (like the apocalyptic sections in Revelation, Daniel, Amos, etc.) weren't meant to be taken literally?

Does your friend think the dragon is a literal dragon? Everyone I know agrees that Apocalyptic works contain symbolism, which is precisely what starts the fights over what the symbols represent.

[Cerebrum123]

...is a non-literal genre? Obviously, just based on the way its written and the way people of the time read it, its very clearly not literal. But I'm currently in a discussion with someone who doesn't seem to quite be getting that. (They're a bit thick). So, does anybody know of any hard evidence that shows writings in the Apocalyptic genre (like the apocalyptic sections in Revelation, Daniel, Amos, etc.) weren't meant to be taken literally?

I hear that some Zoroastrian works have some similar apocalyptic imagery, but I don't really know anything about the subject, and could very easily be wrong. It might be a direction to look though

[seanD]

...is a non-literal genre? Obviously, just based on the way its written and the way people of the time read it, its very clearly not literal. But I'm currently in a discussion with someone who doesn't seem to quite be getting that. (They're a bit thick). So, does anybody know of any hard evidence that shows writings in the Apocalyptic genre (like the apocalyptic sections in Revelation, Daniel, Amos, etc.) weren't meant to be taken literally?

No one believes that all scripture is literal, not even futurists. How much is literal is the dispute.

[KingsGambit]

It might not serve as "hard" evidence, but I might point your friend toward Revelation 17:2, when it discusses how the harlot of Revelation is "intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries" (NIV). This looks like a clear example of symbolism - where something explicitly is named as standing for something else (and frankly, to take this descriptor literally would probably be very difficult). A few verses later, in 17:6, we see that the harlot is now "drunk with the blood of the saints" - something else which might be difficult to take literally, but I think that arguing based on 17:2 is clearer.

[seanD]

As far as what we know is symbolism... it's pretty simple. If they explain what it represents, it's symbolism. We know that the two sisters in Ezekiel weren't really women that were infatuated with soldiers with sexual organs like donkeys because we're told what they represent. We know that the four horesman in Rev are symbolic because the text explains what they represent. We know the Harlot is symbolic because the text explains what she represents in Rev 18. We know that the two candlesticks are symbolic of individuals (though it doesn't say who they are) because the narrative explains that they eventually die and what they do before they die. So, based on that pattern, we see a formula -- if it's symbolic, chances are good that it would have been explained to us. When a clear explanation is not given, then whether it's symbolic or not is up in the air -- this is where the futurist says that literalism, in this case, has precedence.

[One Bad Pig]

Psst. The thread starter is banned.

[seanD]

Doesn't mean he can't see the thread, does it?

[RBerman]

Banned after one post? That was quick! I guess he was a sock puppet of some sort?

[One Bad Pig]

Banned after one post? That was quick! I guess he was a sock puppet of some sort?

Yep. Self-admitted, even.