Search results

This is the point where I scratch my head in bafflement. If no one here holds to 'literalism', why on earth have you been arguing so hard for it? And...is it me building a strawman if you present post after post claiming we must take things literally? I don't know...seems like if it walks...

That's a very....interesting way to wiggle out your problem. Or attempt to. Words still have their meaning. As I'm sure you agree. And I'm sure, in any language you choose today, an hour is still 60 minutes. Basic facts do not falter in the face of dodgy doctrine. Tell me. When the word 'hour'...

Another win for 'literalism'. Because 'Armageddon' happens, chronologically, before this. Which would, in any sense of reading a passage in a strictly literal way, make what you've just suggested nonsensical. Not to mention the fact that literalism would also insist that saying that 'giving...

Friend...I have already sorted it. You are the one, in my opinion, making contrary claims, then conveniently not backing it up. This is where I get off... Have a lovely day.

You know...I confess I find it...interesting that you spend so much time and energy insisting that things must be taken and read in a strictly literal sense...as we find them. And yet, here we are, reading something that tells us "one hour", and you dismiss it as being literal, jeer at me for...

Why bring up the passages that speak of Christ ruling and reigning now in a conversation about whether he's ruling and reigning now? Gee...that is a good question. Point of fact is: you were the one who insisted that unless he was ruling "with a rod of iron" that he couldn't be ruling at all...

Satan existed...yes...I'm not contending that. But unless you can show me scriptural evidence that says sin and corruption affected both mankind and physical creation before we are told it does in Genesis 3, then I'm afraid you won't convince me its anything but speculation at best.

Let me ask you a fairly simple question. Did the fact that the first time Jesus came, he didn't come with a conquering army, mean that he didn't come at all? That he wasn't the Messiah the Jews were looking for? We both know its a foolish question. Of course he was the Messiah. Of course he...

Chronologically, yes. It is clear Satan 'fell' before Adam and Eve. I don't think anyone would dispute that. My point is: when? And your answer...or point...doesn't really change that. The fact that he displayed himself to them as a serpent doesn't mean much...why would it? He's angelic. The...

Again...I think you're attempting to push the analogy further than I was trying to. My only point was that Eden...the garden of...was a place where man dwelt with God in a sin free setting, and that the nh/ne will also be like this. God is a God of order, thus it is not surprising that as he...

Ah. Hmmm. What's the final judgement in fire got to do with anything in the nh/ne? Isn't that a little like saying that because he flooded the old world, no dry land was gonna be found after that? Remade and renewed by the one who created it all in the first place would imply...to me...that if...

Yes...and I've come across Dispensationalists who think the demonic creatures released from the abyss in Chapter 9 are actually attack helicopters. Or who argue whole heartedly that "the DAY of the Lord" is actually the 7 year Tribulation. My point: everyone 'spiritualizes' certain things in...

This is certainly an interesting idea. However it assumes a few things. It assumes that Satan's own 'fall'...or rebellion...whatever you want to call it, happened significantly before Adam and Eve's fall. I don't believe the bible actually tells us this, therefore its simple speculation. It...

Well...first off, I believe you are, perhaps, pushing the image much further than I was attempting to. Secondly...you could, correctly, state that Genesis puts the garden within Eden. However, when we read further into the OT, we see that the name 'Eden' is so intertwined with 'the garden of...

Revelation 7:9–14 [9] After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, [10] and crying out with a...

Hmmm. So...let me just see if I can get this straight: Eden was man dwelling in God's presence......NH/NE is man dwelling in God's presence. Eden was a garden...NH/NE is a garden. Eden had the tree of life....NH/NE has the tree of life. Eden (pre-sin) was perfect...NH/NE will be perfect. I'm...

Just ease up a moment. I'm positing as an idea, not being dogmatic. And I don't appreciate any person swinging into a debate broadsword first. We're Christians, and as such, we ought to be able to discuss what we see in scripture in order to try and find a greater understanding. I'm not after my...

Okay...sure, this is true. However, I think we can perhaps discount it as a probable interpretation, if only for the fact that we know that the new heavens and new earth will, absolutely, have multitudes of people, from all nations and tongues. They will worship the lamb, rather than be of the...

I am far from dogmatic on this issue. Is it possible that Revelation is being far more literal than it seems, leaving the imagery behind? Of course. And I won't be surprised if this is the case. However, it does bring other questions into it...and granted, they are just as unanswerable. For...

With all due respect, I do wonder if you're missing not only what Amillennialists say about this text, but what the bible itself is saying. The 'sea' is often used to portray, image wise, chaos, especially throughout the OT. If you do a search for terms like 'sea monster', 'Leviathan', 'Rahab'...