Revelation 16:19 The great city was divided into 3 parts...

[quietthinker]

What are you meaning by this? Nothing can be literal in the book of Revelation? And if anyone takes anything literal, such as this great earthquake, this great hail, this means what? It also says in Revelation that this book is prophecy. Prophesies typically involve literal events that are predicted in advance and come to pass in the future. For example. The book of Revelation predicts a great white throne judgment. That is a literal event, is it not?

These things are metaphor David. It is HOW we understand the metaphors that matters.
Just as you use metaphors in your every day speech to convey ideas, ideas from the basic to the complex, so the scripture does also.
Of course not every utterance is metaphor.

 

[Davidpt]

I think QT is ultimately asking about your Premil view. He’s asking about the conflict of the gospel and the ideology of Satan. The ideology of Satan has to do with the binding of Satan and when that occurs.

What does Premil have to do with Revelation 16, though? I'm not basing anything on Premil. I'm basing things on the OT, for one. Because in the OT plagues and earthquakes were literal events.

Take this plague, for instance.

Revelation 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.


If this grievous sore is not literal what point is the text making then? It doesn't cut it if one interpreter thinks it means this, another interpreter thinks it means that, so on and so on. IOW, all of these interpreters can't even agree what it means if it's supposed to not be literal sores. If that's not a red flag, then what is it?

 

[quietthinker]

What does Premil have to do with Revelation 16, though? I'm not basing anything on Premil. I'm basing things on the OT, for one. Because in the OT plagues and earthquakes were literal events.

Take this plague, for instance.

Revelation 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.


If this grievous sore is not literal what point is the text making then? It doesn't cut it if one interpreter thinks it means this, another interpreter thinks it means that, so on and so on. IOW, all of these interpreters can't even agree what it means if it's supposed to not be literal sores. If that's not a red flag, then what is it?

The lack of value in not understanding the Gospel is not seen, appreciated or valued by those who do not understand. The loss of eternal life for those who believe the soul is immortal is a moot point.
An example might be those who commit suicide. Life has become sufficiently painful for them they prefer to die than to live. What has this to do with grievous sores you might ask....and you do well to ask. I would say being alive yet consciously without purpose or hope or joy because of the what one has embraced in their belief is sufficiently grievous and noisome a sore to want to stop living.

 

[grafted branch]

What does Premil have to do with Revelation 16, though? I'm not basing anything on Premil. I'm basing things on the OT, for one. Because in the OT plagues and earthquakes were literal events.

Take this plague, for instance.

Revelation 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.


If this grievous sore is not literal what point is the text making then? It doesn't cut it if one interpreter thinks it means this, another interpreter thinks it means that, so on and so on. IOW, all of these interpreters can't even agree what it means if it's supposed to not be literal sores. If that's not a red flag, then what is it?

Whether the last plagues are literal or not is relevant to Premil because Revelation 22:18 says if any man add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.

How can a person who added to the book, such as Joseph Smiths Book of Mormon, experience the Revelation 16 plagues when he is physically dead and the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years are finished?

If you have the plagues as non-literal, spiritual events then they can be experienced by anyone at anytime. Although I think you might have an issue with the seven last plagues being able to take place multiple times over many years, but what other solution could there be for Premil? I don’t see any way you can have a special resurrection for those who have added in the past in order for them to experience literal plagues in the future.

 

[Davidpt]

Whether the last plagues are literal or not is relevant to Premil because Revelation 22:18 says if any man add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.

How can a person who added to the book, such as Joseph Smiths Book of Mormon, experience the Revelation 16 plagues when he is physically dead and the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years are finished?

If you have the plagues as non-literal, spiritual events then they can be experienced by anyone at anytime. Although I think you might have an issue with the seven last plagues being able to take place multiple times over many years, but what other solution could there be for Premil? I don’t see any way you can have a special resurrection for those who have added in the past in order for them to experience literal plagues in the future.

In order to add or take away from anything in Revelation that means that the person has to have the correct understanding first. Can't add or take away from something you don't fully understand since that doesn't make sense. Did Joseph Smith even correctly understand Revelation to begin with, and then he added or took away from the correct understanding? I don't know? I doubt he had the correct understanding throughout the book to begin with, because who does?

Of course though, some of these members around here, a lot of them Premils and Preterists, but I'm not excluding some Amils as well, want you to think they understand all of Revelation correctly, but that doesn't mean they do or that they are adding or taking away from the prophesies in this book per their interpretations, assuming some of their interpretations are incorrect. Once again, to add or take away means someone understood it correctly initially then they changed the correct understanding by adding or taking away from it. After all, the text says the one that hears the prophecies, 'hear' obviously meaning understands the prophecies correctly.

 

[Davidpt]

These things are metaphor David. It is HOW we understand the metaphors that matters.
Just as you use metaphors in your every day speech to convey ideas, ideas from the basic to the complex, so the scripture does also.
Of course not every utterance is metaphor.

Obviously, the city in question would not be a literal city geographically located somewhere. Yet this city has to be made up of literal people and that literal events, such as earthquakes can happen to literal people. Plus we have to keep in mind when this great earthquake occurs. It occurs during the 7th vial and appears to be global in scale, the fact that is where all of the lost would be located, globally throughout the planet. And this would be meaning after the 7th trumpet already sounded. Which then means saints are no longer on the earth at this point. They are up in the sky with Jesus, thus because of the rapture that occurred earlier when the 7th trumpet, the last trump, sounded.

 

[grafted branch]

In order to add or take away from anything in Revelation that means that the person has to have the correct understanding first. Can't add or take away from something you don't fully understand since that doesn't make sense. Did Joseph Smith even correctly understand Revelation to begin with, and then he added or took away from the correct understanding? I don't know? I doubt he had the correct understanding throughout the book to begin with, because who does?

Of course though, some of these members around here, a lot of them Premils and Preterists, but I'm not excluding some Amils as well, want you to think they understand all of Revelation correctly, but that doesn't mean they do or that they are adding or taking away from the prophesies in this book per their interpretations, assuming some of their interpretations are incorrect. Once again, to add or take away means someone understood it correctly initially then they changed the correct understanding by adding or taking away from it. After all, the text says the one that hears the prophecies, 'hear' obviously meaning understands the prophecies correctly.

If we look at it that way, meaning only those who have a correct view of Revelation have the ability to add or take away, then how can anyone else determine whether the book has already been altered or not?

As you say there are a lot of people who claim they have the true correct understanding yet they have different interpretations. I doubt there are any two people on this forum who completely agree on every verse in Revelation.

Since none of use can agree, it would lead to the idea that none can alter the book but it would also lead to the idea that the book has already been altered and that is the reason no one can at this time come to the correct view. After all the book is not sealed, unless someone added that statement and the book really is still sealed.

It’s a catch-22. I don’t think that solution is very plausible.

 

[ewq1938]

Whether the last plagues are literal or not is relevant to Premil because Revelation 22:18 says if any man add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.

How can a person who added to the book, such as Joseph Smiths Book of Mormon, experience the Revelation 16 plagues when he is physically dead and the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years are finished?

He could experience the plagues while dead like the rich man suffered from the heat despite not having a body. There is nothing there saying the plagues experienced have to be during the Rev 16 plagues.

 

[grafted branch]

He could experience the plagues while dead like the rich man suffered from the heat despite not having a body. There is nothing there saying the plagues experienced have to be during the Rev 16 plagues.

Well, Revelation 22:18 says specifically that it’s the plagues written in this book. In Revelation 15:1 the angels have the seven last plagues, then in Revelation 16:1 they are poured out upon the earth.

A dead person would have to be upon the earth during that time to experience the last plagues. What verse are you using to determine the rich man didn’t have a body? He had a tongue, we know that, and Lazarus had a finger.

 

[ewq1938]

Well, Revelation 22:18 says specifically that it’s the plagues written in this book. In Revelation 15:1 the angels have the seven last plagues, then in Revelation 16:1 they are poured out upon the earth.

A dead person would have to be upon the earth during that time to experience the last plagues.

They can experience the same plagues but at a dif time than the vials of plagues.

What verse are you using to determine the rich man didn’t have a body? He had a tongue, we know that, and Lazarus had a finger.

He was dead and hadn't had a physical resurrection yet. There was no literal tongue etc.

 

[grafted branch]

They can experience the same plagues but at a dif time than the vials of plagues.





He was dead and hadn't had a physical resurrection yet. There was no literal tongue etc.

If that’s the case then they aren’t experiencing the last plagues. The last plagues are the plagues written in the book and it’s those plagues that have to be experienced.



What is your explanation for why the rich man wanted a drop of water? If he had no physical body then physical water wouldn’t do anything for him, and as you already said he suffered from the heat.

 

[ewq1938]

If that’s the case then they aren’t experiencing the last plagues. The last plagues are the plagues written in the book and it’s those plagues that have to be experienced.

The verse doesn't say "last plagues". It just says plagues plural which is likely any and all plagues mentioned in the book.

What is your explanation for why the rich man wanted a drop of water? If he had no physical body then physical water wouldn’t do anything for him, and as you already said he suffered from the heat.

He thinks he has a body and thinks water would help. He is wrong. Think of it as a spiritual body, non physical.

 

[Davidpt]

What is your explanation for why the rich man wanted a drop of water? If he had no physical body then physical water wouldn’t do anything for him, and as you already said he suffered from the heat.

It's simply a prophecy that doesn't get fulfilled until the lost are resurrected first, thus given a physical body, then judged, then cast into the LOF. After all, it seems pretty silly that the soul that leaves the body upon death, that it consists of physical body parts. Not to mention, no one bodily descends to hell upon death. Their soul descends there, not their bodies. They don't even have a body anymore until they are raised from the dead first. IOW, souls might be in hell right now yet none of them are burning in hell yet. Can't do that until they get a body first.

Though, my position is not soul sleep, it's also possible that soul sleep is Biblical, regardless that it's not my position. I just don't know for certain. But what I do know for certain since there is no logic to it, that anyone is presently burning in hell in a physical body. That contradicts that one has to be resurrected first before they can once again have a physical body.

 

[TribulationSigns]

It's simply a prophecy that doesn't get fulfilled until the lost are resurrected first, thus given a physical body, then judged, then cast into the LOF. After all, it seems pretty silly that the soul that leaves the body upon death, that it consists of physical body parts. Not to mention, no one bodily descends to hell upon death. Their soul descends there, not their bodies. They don't even have a body anymore until they are raised from the dead first. IOW, souls might be in hell right now yet none of them are burning in hell yet. Can't do that until they get a body first.

Though, my position is not soul sleep, it's also possible that soul sleep is Biblical, regardless that it's not my position. I just don't know for certain. But what I do know for certain since there is no logic to it, that anyone is presently burning in hell in a physical body. That contradicts that one has to be resurrected first before they can once again have a physical body.

Christ wanted us to understand that Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable - not a true story. I highly recommend taking the time to read the parable study below, as it helped me understand better. I hope it will benefit you all too.

The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man

 

[Davidpt]

Christ wanted us to understand that Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable - not a true story. I highly recommend taking the time to read the parable study below, as it helped me understand better. I hope it will benefit you all too.

The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man

When I get time I will probably read that link you provided. In the meantime, I already agree it's a parable, not a literal event involving some rich man that is currently burning in hell bodily as we speak. Yet at the same time, it is true that one will be in hell bodily, but not yet, not until they are raised from the dead, judged then sentenced to the LOF. That's when they will be tormented bodily.

This parable also reminds me of the following, an event in my view that is future still.

Matthew 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

We should already know verse 12 involves being cast into hell bodily since that is what weeping and gnashing of teeth is connected with elsewhere in the gospels.

 

[TribulationSigns]

When I get time I will probably read that link you provided.

Strongly recommended.

In the meantime, I already agree it's a parable, not a literal event involving some rich man that is currently burning in hell bodily as we speak. Yet at the same time, it is true that one will be in hell bodily, but not yet, not until they are raised from the dead, judged then sentenced to the LOF. That's when they will be tormented bodily.

When the saved people died, they immediately go the heaven. And their bodies are buried into the graves. However, when the unsaved people died, their bodies would go into the graves AND their souls would not go anywhere. Not the hell. Not the holding place. Their souls go into silence, not able to have sense of time, feelings, or even praise God.

Psa 115:17
(17) The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.

The unsaved dead will not wake up until the Second Coming when they will be resurrected for Judgment Day, regardless of when they have died. Just like when you are put to "sleep" for a 12 hours operation but it feel like few minutes without feeling anything or know anything during the surgery. Same thing with the Death of the unsaved people. They will not go to "hell" to be held until Christ return.

This parable also reminds me of the following, an event in my view that is future still.

Matthew 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

We should already know verse 12 involves being cast into hell bodily since that is what weeping and gnashing of teeth is connected with elsewhere in the gospels.

Matthew 8:11-12

• "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
• But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Indeed. Here we have "A" kingdom, a kingdom which can have some cast out of it, and others from the east and west come into it. What kind of kingdom could this be? An eternal Kingdom? A New Covenant eternal Kingdom? No, surely not. An external Covenant kingdom is the only kind that children could be cast out of! Here again, both the Old and New Covenant saints co-mingled in one kingdom. Not two separate kingdoms, agreed?

What shall we say then? Wrong God, you’d never cast the children of the Kingdom out. No, it's ridiculous to say they are not those who will be weeping and grinding of teeth? Not if we are "Faithful" Christians. We don't believe whatever we want, we believe what God says. And sadly, that is the difference between diverse types of professing Christians. Those who humbly receive truth because they love God, and those who ignore/twist/ and try to get around truth, because they don't agree with it or like what it says. God is talking about MANY professed Christians who also happened to be "children of the kingdom" to be cast out...simply because they are not chosen!

Remember, MANY are called, few are chosen.