What passage are you referring to when you say John uses the phrase figuratively? The passage in Acts 3 is part of a sermon, however, Peter is explaining when Christ would return and indicates that He won't return until the restoration of all things. It seems to me that all things will be restored before He returns. If that is the case then it would put the millennium after the restoration of all things which would mean that Isaiah 66:23 and 24 takes place after the restoration which would mean there is a moon. That's how I see it.ATP said:Everything's a fallacy, yeah I heard you.
I would submit that verse 23, 24 is about the millennium and not the New Earth. Also, why would John use "day and night" figuratively inside the city, but have it be literal when describing hell (outside) the city. Seems strange to me. What would the sun be used for if not for heat Rev 7:16? Isn't Acts 3:21 more about repentance and the fall of man than outer space?
I'm having a little difficulty see your point about "day and night." You keep mentioning it so it must be important but I'm just not see it.
I think that's part of the problem Stan. Are you sure they are teachings and not condemnations? If they are teachings, why is Jesus teaching the Pharisees instead of His disciples.StanJ said:It is the POINT of this analogy Butch. Read v31. It has NOTHING to do with the priesthood. There are three distinct and separate teachings in Luke 16, and that is NOT one of them.
I submit that there are not three different teachings but rather one continuous event from chapter 14 in which Jesus derides the Pharisees.