The Root question of Amillenial vs Premillenial

[Spiritual Israelite]

No.

All of that is obviously true, but it not the whole story.

I didn't say it's the whole story, but it's not easy to get Premils to even acknowledge that part of the story since they tend to focus only on earthly things rather than on spiritual and heavenly things.

When I see any description of Jesus reigning I immediately think of the kingdom He reigns over NOW. At His second coming at the end of the age, scripture says He will deliver His kingdom to the Father (1 Cor 15:22-24) at which point, according to Jesus, "the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matthew 13:40-43).

 

[Rich R]

That method of interpretation leads one to assume that everything is literal unless the text slaps you in the face and says otherwise. We should not assume anything one way or another about any given verse or passage.

Well, it seems to me there has to be some starting point. How do you do it?

And you prove what I had just said here by acting as if the type of text being used is always obvious in scripture which is clearly not the case! If it was then we would not have as many disagreements among us
LOL. What does that mean? If you mean it's always clear as to what type of speech is being used, you are naive. No, it is not always clear and the fact that we see so many different interpretations is proof of that.

I didn't mean to suggest it's always easy. If it were so I'd perfectly understand every verse from Gen 1:1 to Rev 21:21, which I don't. I have many questions about some verses or sections.

Who is doing that? I'm not. So, who exactly are you talking about here?


What does this mean? Do these rules help us discern what a harlot woman sitting on many waters while riding a beast with seven heads and ten horns represents?


Where are you coming up with this? I backed up my view of this with scripture (1 Cor 2:9-16). You are not backing up your view with scripture at all. You are telling me about man-made rules of which I see no evidence that they came from God.


What does this even mean? This just comes across to me as just a word salad. Please clarify what you are saying.


When it comes to the gospel and people knowing what God expects of people to be saved, scripture is quite clear. But, what I'm talking about is what Paul talked about in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 which is "the deeper things of God". Things in scripture which go beyond the basics. Things like what we talk about on this forum that unbelievers and new Christians have no clue about.

Clearly, there is a lot of symbolism in certain books of the Bible like Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation. Is it Gnosticism to recognize that? No, of course not. That's ridiculous. Clearly, God purposely inspired those books in such a way that they can only be discerned by believers. Not that those books don't contain anything literal. I'm not saying that. Take Revelation 2 and 3, for instance. That has some clear messages from Jesus that everyone should read and understand and take to heart. But, obviously, there are other parts of the book that are not so clear because of the symbolism being used. The book was purposely "signified" (Rev 1:1). It is primarily a book intended for the church and was purposely made so that only believers could understand most of it, similar to how it was with Jesus's parables.


Why say this without giving your own understanding of it? That makes no sense. Why should I take you seriously about this when I don't even know how you interpret it? I think YOU need to dig deeper into that passage so that you can learn the correct approach to interpreting scripture which doesn't involve making any assumptions about any of it as your current method of interpretation does.

 

[IndianaRob]

Obviously the literal interpretation of the kingdom is the reason that Israel didn't recognize Jesus as their God and Messiah.

And for that same reason futurist are still looking for a literal millennial kingdom when they should be living in that kingdom right now.

 

[Marty fox]

And for that same reason futurist are still looking for a literal millennial kingdom when they should be living in that kingdom right now.

Yes amen

 

[Rich R]

That method of interpretation leads one to assume that everything is literal unless the text slaps you in the face and says otherwise. We should not assume anything one way or another about any given verse or passage.

Well, you gotta start somewhere. How do you do it?

And you prove what I had just said here by acting as if the type of text being used is always obvious in scripture which is clearly not the case! If it was then we would not have as many disagreements among us.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest it's always easy. If it were I'd understand every verse from Gen 1:1 to Rev 21:21.

The scriptures say we have to be workmen, rightly dividing the word of truth. Wouldn't that suggest work? Work is not always easy.

I think you are making a lot of assumptions about things I write. The fact is I've never addressed the ease or difficulty of understanding scripture one way or the other. You seem to just assume I think it's easy. Well, in plain English, I'll say I don't always think it's easy. Hopefully we can put that to rest.

LOL. What does that mean? If you mean it's always clear as to what type of speech is being used, you are naive. No, it is not always clear and the fact that we see so many different interpretations is proof of that.

Figures of speech are a science. That's just what they are. Not saying it's always easy, but figures are speech, properly used (which of course God would do), are as precise as 1+1=2.

So, who exactly are you talking about here?

You don't understand:

"We can't just willy-nilly make something literal into a figure or visa versa?"​

​

I don't think I need to explain that to you. You either get it or not.

What does this mean? Do these rules help us discern what a harlot woman sitting on many waters while riding a beast with seven heads and ten horns represents?

Again, you don't understand:

"He's (God) actually the most precise word smith that ever existed. Isn't there something in the scriptures about all His words being purified 7 times? That's pretty darn precise! We ought to be as precise as humanly possible in order to rightly divide God's word.​

The thing about figurative, poetic, symbolic, hyperbolic language is that it is just as precise as literal language. There are grammatical rules that can be learned so as to avoid mixing up the different genres of writing?"

Which words don't you understand? I would think it's written at about an 8th grade reading level.

Why say this without giving your own understanding of it? That makes no sense. Why should I take you seriously about this when I don't even know how you interpret it? I think YOU need to dig deeper into that passage so that you can learn the correct approach to interpreting scripture which doesn't involve making any assumptions about any of it as your current method of interpretation does.

Do I have to explain how I see something just because I suggest you read it for yourself? I don't think so. It was a suggestion to you. that's all. Take it or leave it, but don't insist I give a dissertation on the subject.

Why say this without giving your own understanding of it? That makes no sense. Why should I take you seriously about this when I don't even know how you interpret it? I think YOU need to dig deeper into that passage so that you can learn the correct approach to interpreting scripture which doesn't involve making any assumptions about any of it as your current method of interpretation does.

You are perfectly free to take what I say as serious or not. I'm not holding a gun to your head.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, it seems to me there has to be some starting point. How do you do it?

Please read my post #73 where I already explained that. Also, my answer can at least partly be found in what I said that you responded to. I said "We should not assume anything one way or another about any given verse or passage.". That means we should not assume it's literal, figurative, poetic or any other type of text going in. We need to be objective and not take any bias into our interpretations scripture. That includes not taking a biased method of interpretation into it, which a literal/historical/grammatical hermeneutic does.

I didn't mean to suggest it's always easy.

You certainly gave that impression. You come across like any random person on the street can read scripture and easily discern it. That's what your literal method of interpretation suggests. How is your approach to scripture any different than how "the natural man" would approach it (1 Cor 2:9-16)?

If it were so I'd perfectly understand every verse from Gen 1:1 to Rev 21:21, which I don't. I have many questions about some verses or sections.

How does your literal method of interpretation help you understand them? It seems like it would not help you at all and the reason you have those questions is because you're trying to interpret them literally when they are not meant to be interpreted that way.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The scriptures say we have to be workmen, rightly dividing the word of truth. Wouldn't that suggest work? Work is not always easy.

How does your method of interpretation help you do that when you have a biased approach that assumes going in that any given verse is literal?

I think you are making a lot of assumptions about things I write.

Don't blame me if you're not being clear. Try being more clear.

The fact is I've never addressed the ease or difficulty of understanding scripture one way or the other. You seem to just assume I think it's easy. Well, in plain English, I'll say I don't always think it's easy. Hopefully we can put that to rest.

Your approach to interpreting scripture suggests that it should be easy. Not any different than the approach you would take to reading a historical book or a news article.

You don't understand:

"We can't just willy-nilly make something literal into a figure or visa versa?"​

​

I don't think I need to explain that to you. You either get it or not.

You don't understand what I was saying. Do you think this is something I didn't already understand? This is obvious. So, that's why I asked you who you were talking about when saying that. Certainly not about me or anyone who can understand obvious things.

Again, you don't understand:

"He's (God) actually the most precise word smith that ever existed. Isn't there something in the scriptures about all His words being purified 7 times? That's pretty darn precise! We ought to be as precise as humanly possible in order to rightly divide God's word.​

The thing about figurative, poetic, symbolic, hyperbolic language is that it is just as precise as literal language. There are grammatical rules that can be learned so as to avoid mixing up the different genres of writing?"


Which words don't you understand? I would think it's written at about an 8th grade reading level.

I can't follow half of what you say. You just don't communicate clearly. What are these grammatical rules that you apply to figurative, poetic, symbolic, hyperbolic language? You're quite vague in most of your comments. Maybe if you can give me an example of what you're talking about then that would help.

As far saying "it's written at about an 8th grade reading level". What does that even mean? Is that how you see books like Daniel and Revelation? Any 8th grader can understand what those are saying? No spiritual discernment is required? You just need to at least be in 8th grade? If that isn't what you're saying, then please explain what you mean by that.

Do I have to explain how I see something just because I suggest you read it for yourself? I don't think so.

If you want to be taken seriously, yes. For you to suggest I need to take a deeper look at it when you can't be bothered to tell me your understanding of it is not a good way to convince me that I need to take a deeper look at it.

It was a suggestion to you. that's all. Take it or leave it, but don't insist I give a dissertation on the subject.

I will leave it because you gave me no good reason why I need to do so.

You are perfectly free to take what I say as serious or not. I'm not holding a gun to your head.

Of course I am free to do that. And I freely choose the latter.

 

[Rich R]

Please read my post #73 where I already explained that. Also, my answer can at least partly be found in what I said that you responded to. I said "We should not assume anything one way or another about any given verse or passage.". That means we should not assume it's literal, figurative, poetic or any other type of text going in. We need to be objective and not take any bias into our interpretations scripture. That includes not taking a biased method of interpretation into it, which a literal/historical/grammatical hermeneutic does.

Sounds good to me. In fact, I think I've been saying just that all along.

You certainly gave that impression. You come across like any random person on the street can read scripture and easily discern it. That's what your literal method of interpretation suggests.

Just because something is literal doesn't automatically make it easy.

I could be wrong, but suspect you might think that I take every word from Gen 1:1 to Rev 21:21 literally. Am I right in that suspicion?

How is your approach to scripture any different than how "the natural man" would approach it (1 Cor 2:9-16)

I believe the scriptures are the revealed word and will of God. I believed Romans 10:9-10, got born again and received the gift of holy spirit. Neither of those are true of the natural man.

Because I have the spirit of God, I can understand at least some scripture. For example, I can understand the Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. The natural man, the man devoid of God's spirit does not understand even such a simple deceleration as that.

That I believe, is the essence of 1 Corinthians 2. But to take 1 Cor 2 as an excuse to look for some hidden or spiritual meaning in otherwise simple words is just not good exegesis.

How does your literal method of interpretation help you understand them?

The same way it helps me to understand that question in a literal way. I just read what it says.

It seems like it would not help you at all and the reason you have those questions is because you're trying to interpret them literally when they are not meant to be interpreted that way.

The method has nothing whatsoever to do with my not understand the whole thing.

I think I've been clear that I do see plenty of figures of speech, including allegory. So not seeing allegory when it's there has nothing to do with me not understand every verse in the Bible. It has more to do with seeing things through a dark glass (1 Cor 13:12). Have you somehow transcended that dark glass? I'm thinking not, so why would you expect me to know it all regardless of which method I use?

 

[Rich R]

How does your method of interpretation help you do that when you have a biased approach that assumes going in that any given verse is literal?

Whoa there! Let's back up. I've never said any given verse is literal. I've said multiple times that the scriptures are full of different figures of speech, including allegory. Not sure how you've missed that.

With all due respect to you, I honestly don't want to proceed any further in this discussion with you unless you acknowledge what I just said. As it is I'm talking about apples and you're hearing oranges.

 

[Wick Stick]

There are enormous amount of scholars who hold to what is fully known as the literal/historical/grammatical method of understanding the Scriptures.

They use the same method of accepting the words of Scripture as we all do in reading all other written materials.

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”–Dr. David L. Cooper (1886-1965),
founder of The Biblical Research Society

this does not mean that we do not recognize allegory in Scripture writings and the use of symbolic, parobolic and apocalyptic language. But we also recognize that it is SCripture itself that defines its own non literal writing.

What people misunderstand is that many passages of the OT and some in the NT can hace several applications (personal application) but that there is still only one interpretation, which shortly described is god meant what He said and said what He meant

I'm familiar with historical-grammatical. I don't remember the word literal being prefixed to it, but... the quote describes it as I remember.

Nonetheless, I've run into a number of people over the years who like to back up their interpretations of Scripture by shouting the word LITERAL whenever it's convenient. But when it isn't convenient, they are all too ready to accept other things as figurative or whatever. I have become wary of such people.

I don't think literal-ness is the be-all end-all argument for how-to-use the Bible. Even with passages that ARE literal, we see that the other writers of the Bible take them and apply them to their own lives and current events. I find a better standard is, "does it agree with the rest of the Bible?" i.e. Does the lesson here also occur elsewhere? If so, then we're probably on the right track. If not, then we are probably in the ditch.

 

[Rich R]

How does your method of interpretation help you do that when you have a biased approach that assumes going in that any given verse is literal?

Having said I don't want to proceed any further, I'll take that back and try one more time to explain how I interpret scripture. I'll do it by way of example.

I'm going to write a sentence in a second here. Before reading it, I just want to ask you if you think it will be a literal sentence or a figure of speech? Probably not. I'm thinking you will first read it and then decide. Here goes:

The ground is dry.

Literal of figurative? I would think you took it literally. There's really no reason to look for some hidden meaning. Anyway, I assume (hope that's OK) you read it first and then decided. In other words, you had no preconceived ideas one way or the other before reading it.

Now, here comes another sentence:

The ground is thirsty.

Literal of figurative? You probably recognized that ground doesn't actually get thirsty. Animals get thirsty but not ground. Therefore, I would guess you recognized that sentence as a figure of speech.

So, the point is you didn't assume anything one way or the other about either sentence before reading it. However, having read it you then decided one is literal and the other is figurative. What makes any given verse in the Bible any different?

To summarize as succulent as possible: I first read a verse and only then do I decide whether it is literal or figurative. I have no assumptions ahead of time. Isn't that what you've been saying all along?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sounds good to me. In fact, I think I've been saying just that all along.

Just because something is literal doesn't automatically make it easy.

No, but it usually is. Or, at least should be.

I could be wrong, but suspect you might think that I take every word from Gen 1:1 to Rev 21:21 literally. Am I right in that suspicion?

No. What I've been saying all along is that you assume going in that every word is literal before you read it, so you have a tendency to interpret things literally except for when they very obviously are not. So, you sometimes miss when the text is figurative, even if not obviously so, because of your biased approach that assume it's literal before you even consider it and study it. You should instead go into your study of scripture objectively without assuming anything one way or another about what type of text you think it will be.

I believe the scriptures are the revealed word and will of God. I believed Romans 10:9-10, got born again and received the gift of holy spirit. Neither of those are true of the natural man.

You're not understanding what Paul said about the natural man in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16. He wasn't saying that the natural man couldn't understand basic things in the Bible. No. Read it carefully. He said the natural man can't understand the deep things of God. I would include a lot of things that we talk about on this form as being the deep things of God that new Christians can't even begin to understand yet. He mentions the deep things in verse 10 and that is the context of what he is talking about in that passage. He goes on in 1 Cor 3 to rebuke "babes in Christ" for still being carnal because they still looked at things like the natural man does which didn't allow them to grow and understand the deeper things of God that Paul figuratively called the "meat" or "solid food" of the word of God in contrast to the milk that "babes in Christ" drink who are not ready for the "solid food".

Because I have the spirit of God, I can understand at least some scripture.

Yes. I didn't say otherwise. It is unfortunate, and a bit frustrating, that we just communicate differently and can't understand each other half the time. It is what it is.

For example, I can understand the Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. The natural man, the man devoid of God's spirit does not understand even such a simple deceleration as that.

No, I think he can understand that. It's crucial for someone understand that if someone wants to be a Christian. It's part of the gospel to teach people that. For someone to put their faith in trust in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior they are indicating that they don't see any other way to be saved and for their sins to be forgiven.

That I believe, is the essence of 1 Corinthians 2.

What? No. You obviously haven't read it very carefully. The context and essence of 1 Corinthians 2 is understanding the deeper things of God that go beyond the basics. Paul criticized what he called "babes in Christ" for being no different than the natural man in 1 Corinthians 3. They were not growing in their faith and learning new things like they should have been.

But to take 1 Cor 2 as an excuse to look for some hidden or spiritual meaning in otherwise simple words is just not good exegesis.

That is not what I'm doing. Good grief. You read so many things into what I say. Honestly, it's ridiculous. All I'm saying is simply that we need to rely on the Holy Spirit to help us understand scripture, especially the deep things in scripture. I can't imagine that you disagree with that? If you do, then that would just boggle my mind.

I think I've been clear that I do see plenty of figures of speech, including allegory. So not seeing allegory when it's there has nothing to do with me not understand every verse in the Bible. It has more to do with seeing things through a dark glass (1 Cor 13:12). Have you somehow transcended that dark glass? I'm thinking not, so why would you expect me to know it all regardless of which method I use?

If you can't understand that the approach we use to interpret scripture is important, then I don't know what to tell you. Taking the wrong approach leads to false interpretations. And that's how I see your approach because it's biased towards literalism instead of being objective and balanced towards all types of speech without assuming anything in relation to any given verse or passage of scripture.

 

[Rich R]

I'm familiar with historical-grammatical. I don't remember the word literal being prefixed to it, but... the quote describes it as I remember.

Nonetheless, I've run into a number of people over the years who like to back up their interpretations of Scripture by shouting the word LITERAL whenever it's convenient. But when it isn't convenient, they are all too ready to accept other things as figurative or whatever. I have become wary of such people.

I don't think literal-ness is the be-all end-all argument for how-to-use the Bible. Even with passages that ARE literal, we see that the other writers of the Bible take them and apply them to their own lives and current events. I find a better standard is, "does it agree with the rest of the Bible?" i.e. Does the lesson here also occur elsewhere? If so, then we're probably on the right track. If not, then we are probably in the ditch.

How would you feel if someone accused you of taking every single verse in the Bible allegorically? I suspect you would feel somewhat annoyed. So, how do you think someone else might feel after being accuse of taking every single verse literally? Probably somewhat annoyed.

Not sure if annoyed is the best word in either case, but it communicates.

Is there any premill you know who thinks every single verse should be taken literally? Personally, I've never met one. I think they all understand scripture is a mixture of literal verses and various figures of speech. But if there is one who refuses to admit some verses are figures, they are not using good exegesis.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Having said I don't want to proceed any further, I'll take that back and try one more time to explain how I interpret scripture. I'll do it by way of example.

I'm going to write a sentence in a second here. Before reading it, I just want to ask you if you think it will be a literal sentence or a figure of speech? Probably not. I'm thinking you will first read it and then decide. Here goes:

The ground is dry.

Literal of figurative? I would think you took it literally. There's really no reason to look for some hidden meaning. Anyway, I assume (hope that's OK) you read it first and then decided. In other words, you had no preconceived ideas one way or the other before reading it.

Now, here comes another sentence:

The ground is thirsty.

Literal of figurative? You probably recognized that ground doesn't actually get thirsty. Animals get thirsty but not ground. Therefore, I would guess you recognized that sentence as a figure of speech.

So, the point is you didn't assume anything one way or the other about either sentence before reading it. However, having read it you then decided one is literal and the other is figurative. What makes any given verse in the Bible any different?

To summarize as succulent as possible: I first read a verse and only then do I decide whether it is literal or figurative. I have no assumptions ahead of time. Isn't that what you've been saying all along?

Yes, but, for some reason, you don't understand that the literal/historical/grammatical method of interpretation itself does not line up with what you're saying here. It seems that you don't understand what using that method of interpretation entails because using it means you will assume everything is literal going in and can only be convinced that it's not literal only if it very obviously is not. So, if something is figurative, but it's not obviously so, then you will very likely miss that using that particular method of interpretation. But, it seems that you don't really use that method of interpretation, after all, based on what you said here which agrees with what I've been saying. LOL. What a silly discussion. Yes, let's end it now since it seems it was all for nothing, anyway.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How would you feel if someone accused you of taking every single verse in the Bible allegorically? I suspect you would feel somewhat annoyed. So, how do you think someone else might feel after being accuse of taking every single verse literally? Probably somewhat annoyed.

Not sure if annoyed is the best word in either case, but it communicates.

Is there any premill you know who thinks every single verse should be taken literally? Personally, I've never met one. I think they all understand scripture is a mixture of literal verses and various figures of speech. But if there is one who refuses to admit some verses are figures, they are not using good exegesis.

It isn't that anyone thinks any premill believes every single verse should be taken literally. That isn't the issue. Obviously. The issue is that many premills assume a verse is literal before they even read it or study it. That is not a good approach to interpreting scripture. Agree?

 

[Rich R]

You're not understanding what Paul said about the natural man in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16. He wasn't saying that the natural man couldn't understand basic things in the Bible. No. Read it carefully. He said the natural man can't understand the deep things of God. I would include a lot of things that we talk about on this form as being the deep things of God that new Christians can't even begin to understand yet. He mentions the deep things in verse 10 and that is the context of what he is talking about in that passage. He goes on in 1 Cor 3 to rebuke "babes in Christ" for still being carnal because they still looked at things like the natural man does which didn't allow them to grow and understand the deeper things of God that Paul figuratively called the "meat" or "solid food" of the word of God in contrast to the milk that "babes in Christ" drink who are not ready for the "solid food".

Yes, Paul was talking to carnal Christians who had many divisions within their church.

Some time ago, I brought up the mystery and you said you had no idea why I brought it up. Well, 1 Cor 2 may shed some light on that. Paul was saying that because of their carnality, because of their infighting and bickering, he could not go any further that Jesus on the cross. They were born again, but they were not able get to the meat.

But here's the kicker; what was the "meat" Paul couldn't communicate to them?

1 Cor 2:7,

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:​

And that's how I see your approach because it's biased towards literalism instead of being objective and balanced towards all types of speech without assuming anything in relation to any given verse or passage of scripture.

From what you said their I'm thinking you've not gotten around to reading my post #91.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, Paul was talking to carnal Christians who had many divisions within their church.

Some time ago, I brought up the mystery and you said you had no idea why I brought it up. Well, 1 Cor 2 may shed some light on that. Paul was saying that because of their carnality, because of their infighting and bickering, he could not go any further that Jesus on the cross. They were born again, but they were not able get to the meat.

But here's the kicker; what was the "meat" Paul couldn't communicate to them?

1 Cor 2:7,

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:​

Yes, it's talking about the deep things of God (1 Cor 2:10) which are a mystery to the natural man because you need spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit to understand it.

From what you said their I'm thinking you've not gotten around to reading my post #91.

Looks like you haven't read my post #94 yet where I responded to that post. LOL. I can't deal with this anymore. It's just annoying at this point. Let's just move on from this.

 

[Rich R]

Yes, it's talking about the deep things of God (1 Cor 2:10) which are a mystery to the natural man because you need spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit to understand it.


Looks like you haven't read my post #94 yet where I responded to that post. LOL. I can't deal with this anymore. It's just annoying at this point. Let's just move on from this.

I didn't see it, but there I shall go right now! One needs a spreadsheet to keep track of all of this.

 

[Wick Stick]

How would you feel if someone accused you of taking every single verse in the Bible allegorically? I suspect you would feel somewhat annoyed.

I'd wonder what they meant. Here in this topic, you and I seem to have different definitions of allegorical. I think it's fine to apply Scripture to our lives, even out of context, as long as we don't strip passages of their original meaning. We can find moral lessons there to use (i.e. allegorize), and it isn't necessary to deny the plain meaning to do so.

So, how do you think someone else might feel after being accuse of taking every single verse literally? Probably somewhat annoyed.

Has that been happening? In my experience, there are people who like to claim that they are 100% literal, but they aren't really.

Is there any premill you know who thinks every single verse should be taken literally? Personally, I've never met one. I think they all understand scripture is a mixture of literal verses and various figures of speech. But if there is one who refuses to admit some verses are figures, they are not using good exegesis.

Yes, I certainly have. Story time? I was invited to speak at a Foursquare Church on a Sunday night years ago. During the course of the lesson, I gave the meaning of a couple of symbols in Revelation. Afterwards, the pastor was VERY UNHAPPY with my telling his church that everything in Revelation was not 100% literal. Welp... that wasn't even the point of the lesson... I thought we all understood that Revelation contains visions which are meant to be interpreted.

 

[Rich R]

Yes, but, for some reason, you don't understand that the literal/historical/grammatical method of interpretation itself does not line up with what you're saying here. It seems that you don't understand what using that method of interpretation entails because using it means you will assume everything is literal going in and can only be convinced that it's not literal only if it very obviously is not.

OMG! How you could come to such a conclusion after reading the post is stunning.

So, if something is figurative, but it's not obviously so, then you will very likely miss that using that particular method of interpretation. But, it seems that you don't really use that method of interpretation, after all, based on what you said here which agrees with what I've been saying.

OK, now I'm thinking you do understand what I said. Excellent!

LOL. What a silly discussion. Yes, let's end it now since it seems it was all for nothing, anyway.

Well we can end it, but I wouldn't say it was all for nothing. Isn't there something about iron sharpening iron in the scriptures? I know you made me dig deep into my beliefs. Thanks!