People spend too much time discerning the meaning of scripture and no time just reading what it says and accepting what it says.
What does this even mean? When I read about a woman sitting on many waters while riding a beast with seven heads and ten horns, what does it mean to just read that and accept what it says?
Obviously, no one takes the example I gave literally. I'm just illustrating the folly in what you said here since it does not apply to all of scripture.
But, do you always take scripture literally when the context is clearly literal rather than a case of obvious symbolism like in the example I gave?
How about this:
2 Peter 3:3 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.......10 But
the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
I'm mainly asking you about what it says in verses 10-13, but I included verses 3 and 4 for context.
Do you accept this scripture for what it says? What Peter was saying here is that in the last days there would be scoffers doing their own thing rather than what God wants and they mockingly ask "Where is the promise of his coming?" in relation to the second coming of Christ. So, Peter established early on that he was talking about things relating directly to the second coming of Christ. Then later he talked about global fiery destruction coming unexpectedly on the day of the Lord.
After describing the destruction that will accompany the day of the Lord in verses 10-12, Peter said "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. We know from looking at verse 4 that "his promise" in verse 13 is a reference to the promise of His second coming. Peter indicated that we look forward to the new heavens and new earth in fulfillment of the promise of His second coming. That implies that the new heavens and new earth will be ushered in at His second coming. So, do you take that verse for what it says? I don't think so.
How about this?
John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for
the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Jesus clearly said that a singular hour (time) is coming when "all that are in the graves...shall come forth". All of the dead will be resurrected, in other words, once this coming time arrives. And then He proceeded to indicate the two different eternal realities that those who are resurrected will experience (life vs. damnation). Do you take this for what it says, which would mean that all the dead will be resurrected at generally the same time? You don't, do you?
How about this:
Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands
all people everywhere to repent. 31 For
he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to
everyone by raising him from the dead.”
This indicates that God has set a singular day (not multiple days) when He will judge the world (all people everywhere, everyone) by the man he has appointed, which obviously is Jesus. Do you take that verse for what it says? It doesn't seem so.
So, when you talk about just reading scripture and accepting what it says, you don't even do that yourself.
Perfect example. The word spends a whole lot of verses saying that the 144,000 are from the 12 tribes of Israel. Do people believe it? No. Many think that is the Church. That's just something that is made up and not what the scripture says. You can call it discernment. I call it falling off the given trail for no reason. Many understand scripture based on the 144,000 being the Church. I understand scripture based on what it says.
So, when do you think the literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns would show up on the scene?
Then people have a hard time following what I believe. I simply believe what the scripture says. No need to make things up.
I just showed otherwise. What you're really saying here is that you interpret scripture very literally. Except in the cases where doing so doesn't support your doctrine, apparently.
Ok. I chose the wrong word. I should have said these are people that think they are Christians.
Is that what you thought before I corrected you? You seemed pretty sure that they were Christians before. If you get something simple like this wrong, how can I trust your understanding of other scripture?
It's easy to know what I believe. I believe exactly what the Word says.
Except when you don't.
I don't make things up. The 144,000 are of the 12 tribes of Israel. They are 1st fruits of a harvest, just like it says. If people would start believing the word of God, what is written, instead of believing what their discernment tells them, they would understand the Word much better.
I agree. I hope you take your own advice some day. And I hope you realize at some point how silly it is to talk about accepting what scripture says as if all of it is written in literal and straightforward text. Clearly, that is not the case. But, even when it is written straightforwardly, you don't always accept it as it is written, as I showed earlier.
