Dispensationalism

[PinSeeker]

PinSeeker: The number 144,000, marks ~ as I said ~ is a symbolic number... it is a number symbolizing the people of God, His Israel, in the new heaven and new earth. And the complete number of the people of God will be innumerable, a multitude as the stars of the heavens, the grains of the seashore, just as God promised Abraham. You can say you think that's nonsense, and that would be your prerogative to do so, but I really don't think you can say with any credibility that "that makes no sense."​

What I'm saying is that this I find no Biblical authority behind this, is all.

I think you mean to say here is Biblical precedent, and yes, there is. The numbers 3, 7, 10, 12, and 1000 are used to denote completeness throughout the Bible in various places. I would encourage you to use a good concordance and do a word search on the words three, seven, ten, twelve, and thousand and see what you find.

Revelation 7 actually answers the question, “Who can stand?” at the end of chapter 6. Who will endure the great day of the wrath of the Lamb unscathed? Well, the people mentioned in chapter 7. God will hold back "the four winds of the earth" (Revelation 7:1) ~ the destructive forces of judgment ~ in their case. Those who are protected are sealed by God on their foreheads (Revelation 6:3–4). Among other things, seals in the ancient world were a mark of ownership, so the people sealed in Revelation 7:1-8 are marked out by God as belonging to Him. The mark on their forehead is also related to texts such as Deuteronomy 11:18, where God’s people are told to place the law on their foreheads as a symbol of their loyalty to the Lord, and Jeremiah 31:33 (referenced by Paul in Romans 2:15, and the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 10:16, where we read of God's writing/putting His law/laws on the hearts of His people. The 144,000 sealed are faithful servants of God, marked off by Him as His own and thus safe in the day of wrath to come. The 144,000 sealed saints of God belong to the tribes of Israel (Revelation 7:5-8). John is not talking only about Jewish believers here. The list of twelve tribes does not correspond to any list of twelve in the Old Testament; the tribes of Dan and Ephraim are excluded. The list includes the tribe of Joseph, yet properly speaking, there was no tribe of Joseph but tribes named for his sons Ephraim and Manasseh. When we consider also that even gentile believers are sealed by God in the New Testament (Ephesians 4:30), it becomes clear that the 144,000 represent all believers in Christ. Twelve tribes times twelve is just another way of saying “the people of God,” as Israel ~ God’s people ~ could be summed up in twelve tribes. This twelve times twelve is then multiplied by a thousand, the number of men in a military unit. The entire church, God’s spiritual army, is set apart for protection in the day of wrath.

But in fact, it doesn't make sense to me to not expect these prophecies to be fulfilled as written.

They certainly will be; no one is suggesting they will not be. But again, we should not read Revelation like a Dick and Jane first grade primer, because that it is most certainly not.

Do you believe Jesus will visibly return in power and great glory to this earth at the end of the age? If so, do you believe that because of the prophecies which foretell this?

Sure. Thus saith the LORD. Absolutely. Surely your questions here are rhetorical in nature.

If so, why do you think these other prophecies won't be fulfilling in the terms given (Captivity of Jacob returned to their land) but that prophecy will be?

I do. Just not in the woodenly literal way(s) dispensationalists suppose. Certainly, this is not intended to offend in any way, but this is really a ridiculous question, quite frankly.

Jesus was in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights as prophesied. 144,000 sealed Jewish males as prophesied. Why is one number ordinal, the other not?

Just the mere fact that all these things are prophesied is not indicative in this sense, marks. See above.

Again, Jesus Himself uses the wording to show the allegorical element . . . As a shepherd . . . this is a similitude, and I can point to the place in the Bible where this is explicitly stated. That's what I look for, this kind of Biblical authority.

Okay, fine, but just because you're not seeing it doesn't mean it's not there.

We seem to be repeating . . .

Yes, we do.

I do not consider the Revelation to be Hebrew Apocalyptic Genre. Rather, the Revelation is inspired Scripture, first and foremost, and Hebrew Apocalyptic is not. The Revelation is prophetic vision and prophetic narrative. There is used of symbols, and symbols are identified, and their meaning is identified.

Well, John wrote in Greek, marks, not Hebrew. You know that, I'm sure. But Daniel, on the other hand, did write in Hebrew, and it is very much apocalyptic, also, although not almost completely so as in the manner of John's Revelation. And as you know, Jesus referenced Daniel's writings briefly in Matthew 24. The language itself ~ despite the fact that Hebrew is not Greek and Greek is not Hebrew ~ is not an issue. God is the true Author of His Word, as Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 3, and, as I said before, Jesus said all of Scripture was about Him. Denying that Revelation is apocalyptic in genre would actually put you in a camp opposing not just covenantal but even dispensationalist theologians.

Hebrew Apocalyptic is more like reading Steven King then the Bible.

Well... that's not terribly far off the mark, actually. Now, this is really, really important. The way I would say it, regarding Revelation, is, it should be read as a picture book rather than a puzzle book. In other words, it is not meant to be "puzzled out," or becoming preoccupied by isolated details. Rather, we should become engrossed in the story. In a real way, Revelation gives people "trouble" in that they approach it from the wrong end. If one starts by asking, for example, “what do the bear’s feet in Revelation 13:2 stand for?”, that's starting with a detail, and ignoring the big picture, and really... well, asking for trouble. No, God is at the center of Revelation (Revelation 4 and Revelation 5). We have to start with Him and with the contrasts between Him and his satanic opponents. If instead we try right away to puzzle out details, it is as ~ "as"... see what I did there? ~ as if we tried to use a knife by grasping it by the blade instead of the handle. We are starting at the wrong end. Revelation is a picture book, not a puzzle book. Praise the Lord. Cheer for the saints. Detest the Beast. Long for the final victory. THIS is what Revelation is all about! John ~ really, God ~ makes it very clear in the first three verses of Revelation that it is “the revelation of Jesus Christ.” The word revelation, or unveiling, indicates that it discloses rather than conceals its message. And John addresses his revelation to "(Jesus's) servants.” Not just prophecy buffs, not Ph.D.’s, not experts, not angels, but all of His servants. If one is a follower of Christ, Revelation is for him/her, and he/she can understand it. Really, marks, what should be done is, read it just like a fantasy, except know for certain that it was true.

I approach Revelation in the same way as the rest of Scripture, seeking what it says for itself, including symbols and their meanings.

Right, and that's pretty much the problem. You're approaching it from the wrong end. See above.

If you recognize that the OT sacrifices are ended with Jesus' one time sacrifice, that is a dispensational POV.

This is not a view held by only dispensationalists, marks. We seem to all be in agreement on this.

I appreciate the conversation, I'm not sure how much further we can go.

Ohhhh, we could go a lot further.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[marks]

I think you mean to say here is Biblical precedent, and yes, there is.

No, what I meant was authority. IF the Bible says it.

Just because Matthew quoted "Out of Egypt I called my Son", does not give someone else who is not writing inspired Scripture to quote that passage with a different application, or some other passage quoted the same way.

When God says it, I believe it. Others, only if they are in agreement with God.

Specifically, Authority. Did God say so? Or someone else? That's the question.

Because what He did say was, 3 days in the grave, and 144,000 Jewish males.

Was "3" used in a non-ordinal way in one place? I don't know.

It was used as an ordinal in that place. God tells us numbers to communicate numbers, I think.

Just to assume that they don't mean what they say is not a good practice, I don't think.

Ohhhh, we could go a lot further.

Truly, we have very different ways of reading the Bible.

Much love!

 

[marks]

The way I would say it, regarding Revelation, is, it should be read as a picture book rather than a puzzle book.

Picture book is better than puzzle book, I suppose, but first and foremost, it's prophecy. Filled with pictures, and yes, some symbols, but even so.

This is the revealing of Jesus Christ.

Much love!

 

[marks]

This is not a view held by only dispensationalists, marks. We seem to all be in agreement on this.

If you are in agreement, than you hold a dispensational view. I'm not saying you have to think the same as Clarance Larkin, but even so, that IS a dispensational view.

I started this thread with the idea that I would contrast the dispensationalism of the Bible with the dispensationalism many people reject. There is a baby in that bathwater!

Much love!

 

[PinSeeker]

No, what I meant was authority. IF the Bible says it.

Okay, well, fine, It does. I'm being a little facetious here, but nowhere in does it say, for instance, "abortion is wrong; don't do it," but we know it is a form of murder, which... well, we both know the sixth of the Ten Commandments, right? anyway, do you somehow believe that Revelation 7:1-8 and Revelation 7:9-17 speak of two entirely different, mutually exclusive groups of people? It seems you do, and that's... not right... ~ your next comment leads me directly into this ~ but we can still keep fellowship with one another.

God tells us numbers to communicate numbers, I think.

Ah! Well, sometimes yes, and sometimes not so much. Hey, in Matthew 18:21-22, we read:

"Then Peter came up and said to him, 'Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?' Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.'"

Maybe you know the full significance of that and where Peter was drawing from, but I'm going to expound on it anyway... Peter had more than doubled the Jewish practice of pardoning someone three times for an offense (Amos 2:6; Job 33:29), and in this context, seven might seem like a large number. To this, however, Jesus famously replied, not even seven, but “seventy-seven.” Some translations even say, “seventy times seven.” The point is not to get fixed on a specific number ~ or checklist, or scorecard) as Peter was doing. The phrase “seventy times seven,” which is found in Genesis 4:24, is a certain, ordinal number used to signal an uncertain ~ non-ordinal, even nearly indescribable ~ amount. According to R.C. Sproul, when Peter asked Jesus how many times he should forgive, Jesus essentially told him, “As many times as it takes.” Jesus wanted His followers, both then and now, to get in the habit of forgiving those who ask for forgiveness and do it so much that it becomes second nature; there is no limit to how many times we are willing to forgive a brother or sister who seeks forgiveness. This is what Jesus was saying. You agree with this, marks; you know this. I do not mean to insinuate that you don't. I'm preaching to the choir... or maybe another preacher. And that's EXACTLY what John does ~ what the Holy Spirit does, actually ~ in Revelation 7.

Just to assume that they don't mean what they say is not a good practice, I don't think.

Agreed.

Truly, we have very different ways of reading the Bible.

Maybe so, but that doesn't have to remain the case.

Picture book is better than puzzle book, I suppose, but first and foremost, it's prophecy. Filled with pictures, and yes, some symbols, but even so. This is the revealing of Jesus Christ.

Good. I mean, of course it's a prophecy, as John uses that exact word to describe it (John 1:3), and so does Jesus (Revelation 22:18). But that does absolutely nothing to diminish the fact that it should be read like a picture book, even like a spiritual fantasy novel but firmly based in and indicative larger immutable truths and certainties, and not a puzzle book, where we might try to make one-to-one correlations with each little detail. If we do so, we are missing the real, main, simple point of the book, which is, "Jesus wins, and we all win with Him." This is how all who read it are blessed, as John says in Revelation 1:3, even in their/our present circumstances, no matter how bad they may seem or actually be.

marks: If you recognize that the OT sacrifices are ended with Jesus' one time sacrifice, that is a dispensational POV.

PinSeeker: This is not a view held by only dispensationalists, marks. We seem to all be in agreement on this.​

If you are in agreement, than you hold a dispensational view. I'm not saying you have to think the same as Clarance Larkin, but even so, that IS a dispensational view.

Okay, well, fine, but I say it's a Biblical view. Yes, dispensationalists hold to it, but so do covenant theology folks... so it's also a covenantal view. It's a Biblical view.

I started this thread with the idea that I would contrast the dispensationalism of the Bible with the dispensationalism many people reject.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But you ended up refuting that supposed contrast, really...

Grace and peace to you, marks! May the LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.

 

[marks]

Okay, well, fine, but I say it's a Biblical view. Yes, dispensationalists hold to it, but so do covenant theology folks... so it's also a covenantal view. It's a Biblical view.

Maybe I've thought of a better way to say this. What I'm trying to accomplish with this thread is to divorce the concept of dispensations, and dispensational distinctions from "systematic theologies", like "dispensationalism" as most think of it, and "covenantalism", or what ever other ism is out there.

Without understanding these, you are left to read it like a fantasy novel, each walking away with their own impressions, their own perceptions, each with their own.

So I seek to bring us to a unity where the Scripture makes plain sayings.

Much love!

 

[PinSeeker]

Maybe I've thought of a better way to say this.

Oh boy...

What I'm trying to accomplish with this thread is to divorce the concept of dispensations, and dispensational distinctions from "systematic theologies", like "dispensationalism" as most think of it, and "covenantalism", or what ever other ism is out there.

Well, you can't really do that. They are what they are, no matter what you call them. The two terms themselves are very descriptive of the two major ways of understanding Biblical systematic theology. One of them is wrong...

Without understanding these, you are left to read it like a fantasy novel, each walking away with their own impressions, their own perceptions, each with their own. So I seek to bring us to a unity where the Scripture makes plain sayings.

Nah. I mean, I get what you're trying to do, marks... you have the subtlety of a freight train. "Left to read it like a fantasy novel..." Come on, man. And the irony is, dispensationalists play a whole lot of "picksies and choosies" with "plain sayings." But so be it.

Grace and peace to you, marks.

 

[marks]

And the irony is, dispensationalists play a whole lot of "picksies and choosies" with "plain sayings."

Such as?

Much love!

 

[marks]

"Left to read it like a fantasy novel..." Come on, man.

You are remembering this was your comparison? I find it apt, but in the wrong direction. I don't think it's how we are to read the Revelation.

Much love!

 

[PinSeeker]

PinSeeker: And the irony is, dispensationalists play a whole lot of "picksies and choosies" with "plain sayings."

Such as?

Well, as I said, the three days Jesus's "sheep," His "wheat" and "tares/weeds," and plenty more, including in Revelation itself, which was the immediate conversation regarding the 144,000 of Revelation 7 and 14.was in the tomb vs. the 144,000 of Revelation 7, for one, but like I said, there's a whole lot more.

PinSeeker: "Left to read it like a fantasy novel..." Come on, man.

You are remembering this was your comparison? I find it apt, but in the wrong direction. I don't think it's how we are to read the Revelation.

I'm well aware of your disagreement.

What I was really referring to here was the "left to read it" thing, which, by putting it that way, you mean to portray it as being read as fiction, or at least not metaphoric and symbolic of larger, very real events ~ and in the case of dispensationalism, still future only.

I like that you "find it apt," but the "in the wrong direction" is precisely the problem. That statement in and of itself ("apt but in the wrong direction") is self-contradictive, really; it would have been better for you to just say you don't find it apt at all, because that's really what you were saying ~ and actually clarified in your next sentence, that you "don't think it's how we are to read the Revelation." Like I said, subtlety is... not your strong suit...

At any rate, like I said, trying to make one-to-one correlations with each little detail ~ puzzling it out, as it were, rather than seeing the big picture and praising God and rejoicing in it ~ is precisely the wrong direction from which to approach Revelation, and the result is missing its purpose, which, as John says, is to bless, regardless of age, each of those reading it. The point is, basically, Jesus wins, and because of this, His saints ~ all of those in Christ ~ win with Him.

Grace and peace to you, marks.

 

[marks]

Well, as I said, the three days Jesus's "sheep," His "wheat" and "tares/weeds," and plenty more, including in Revelation itself, which was the immediate conversation regarding the 144,000 of Revelation 7 and 14.was in the tomb vs. the 144,000 of Revelation 7, for one, but like I said, there's a whole lot more.

Please, quote the passage you want to present, and let's look at it. We can see why we would take some things as similes, like Jesus' sheep, when He introduces the teaching. We can see how He uses terminology in His Parables, and we can see whether He is speaking in narrative.

Because Jesus spoke in parables, of course we don't just think that everything He said was a parable.

I'm really interested in specifically why you don't think the 144,000 aren't actually 144,000 Jewish males. I can't think of a single reason other than a dislike to the resultant conclusions to think this isn't the counting number of actual people.

Can you find a place where a number of something isn't that actual number? Demonstrably?

I mean, people say the 1000 year kingdom isn't actually a 1000 years, but based on what? Not anything that tells us that. Only, "I don't think so, it must mean something else."

The cattle on a 1000 hills. Is that meant as metaphor? That's how we commonly understand it. It the literal statement inaccurate? Of course not. Does it mean to limit what God owns? Actually, we have this information specifically. All that is in heaven and earth is God's. He owns it all. So we KNOW that this passage expresses a truth, and that truth just scratches the surface of the full reality, and in itself remains true.

The 1000 year kingdom, it has a start and stop point, and does not detract from Christ's eternal rule, but it does point to a particular part of that rule as it takes place on the earth that is now. The difference is in the particulars.

The 24 courses of priests, there were 24 of them, and they represented the priesthood by families, but there were 24 of them.
The diameter of the Bronze Sea was a number measurement. 150 days of rain. The Captain and his 50. The shadow returned 10 steps. 7 months burying the dead. 12 disciples. 12 thrones. 12 tribes. 12 stones on the breastpiece. 12 foundations of the city, each a different kind of stone. Each of these, and yes, there is much much more, that use numbers in a counting fashion. You can count Jacob's sons, and there are 12. You can count the sealed Jews, and there will be 144,000.

Why should that no be so?

I find neither a passage to tell me why it should not be 144,000, nor a passage to tell me what else it should be understood as.

All that I've ever seen as a specific foundation for why this should be be understood as 144,000 Jewish males is that this doesn't fit people's idea of what is supposed to happen.

I say, don't modify the meaning of the text, rather, modify your ideas of what is going to happen.

I said, subtlety is... not your strong suit...

I'm not trying to be suble here. Not at all.

What I was really referring to here was the "left to read it" thing, which, by putting it that way, you mean to portray it as being read as fiction, or at least not metaphoric and symbolic of larger, very real events ~ and in the case of dispensationalism, still future only.

You mentioned reading this as a picture book or even a fantasy novel.

I like that you "find it apt," but the "in the wrong direction" is precisely the problem. That statement in and of itself ("apt but in the wrong direction") is self-contradictive, really; it would have been better for you to just say you don't find it apt at all, because that's really what you were saying ~ and actually clarified in your next sentence, that you "don't think it's how we are to read the Revelation." Like I said, subtlety is... not your strong suit...

The Revelation has many pictures in it, and I agree, we should let those pictures wash over and through us. But we shouldn't mistake the descriptiveness as less than what it really is, again, the revelation of Jesus Christ in vision and prophecy.

Yes - the aptness - take it in as an entirety. But don't start marking it up with, This part is "representative", and not as described. Particularly in the narrative portions.

The seven churches were symbolized by seven stars, but there were in fact 7 letters to 7 churches.

Not meaning to be suble:

Why shouldn't I believe the plain sense meaning of the 144,000?

And where specifically do you find me not believing the plain sense meaning of passages?

Much love!

 

[marks]

At any rate, like I said, trying to make one-to-one correlations with each little detail ~ puzzling it out, as it were, rather than seeing the big picture and praising God and rejoicing in it ~ is precisely the wrong direction from which to approach Revelation, and the result is missing its purpose, which, as John says, is to bless, regardless of age, each of those reading it. The point is, basically, Jesus wins, and because of this, His saints ~ all of those in Christ ~ win with Him.

Read it, and believe what you read. Simple. If you don't, then what? You become editor instead of student.

And if you believe something that is different than how it's stated, have a good reason.

Much love!

 

[PinSeeker]

Please, quote the passage you want to present, and let's look at it.

Well no, because I already know what your answers ~ "answers" ~ are. Sorry ~ being a little facetious...

I'm really interested in specifically why you don't think the 144,000 aren't actually 144,000 Jewish males.

Did you pay no attention to my earlier post on the matter?

I can't think of a single reason other than a dislike to the resultant conclusions....

That's not it...

Can you find a place where a number of something isn't that actual number? Demonstrably?

Well, marks, I mentioned Jesus's reply to how many times we should forgive, right? Did you ignore that, too? So how many? Well, Jesus said “seventy-seven," or possibly “seventy times seven,” according to some translations. So which is it, 77, or 770? Or is it... something else entirely...? Or... more, as in an infinite number of times... limitless unforgiveness? Yes, from there, He launches into a parable so that His listeners might understand more fully what He said, but His answer there to Peter's question is not part of the parable. And again, this echoes what we find in Genesis 4:24 (sevenfold" and "seventy-sevenfold"). These are not ordinal numbers, but stating a principle of limitlessness and fullness. There are several similar examples (there are more...):

• the "thousand thousands" of Numbers 10:36 ~ is that exactly 1000 squared, or 1,000,000? No, but all of Israel, however many that actually is...
• the thousand generations of Deuteronomy 7:9 (exactly 1000 generations? and a generation is about 25 years, so exactly or roughly 25,000 years? No, all generations, over the fullness of God's time..
• You mention the cattle on a thousand hills; yes, that's Psalm 50. So, are only the cattle on those first thousand hills ~ because there are more than a thousand hills with cattle in this big world we live in) are the Lord's and the rest belong to somebody else? No, God created everything, not only the cattle but all of creation, is His...
• Staying in the Psalms, David mentions that a thousand years in God's sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night (Psalm 90:4); Peter refers directly to Psalm 90:4, saying "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So, does God (Who is outside time, you know) actually think that 1000 years and a 24 hour day are literally the same time span? No, that's just silly... ... God does not delay as we might think, even though the fullness of God's time is a long, long time in our finite brains...

I mean, people say the 1000 year kingdom isn't actually a 1000 years, but based on what?

Ah, yes the irresistible dispensational gravitation to Revelation 20... See immediately above. Especially the fourth bullet point. With regard to Revelation 20, the millennium is the fullness of God's time in building His Israel, which consists of Jews and Gentiles, described specifically in Revelation 20:4-6, which is directly analogous to what Paul says in Romans 11:25-26, that "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (a)nd in this way all Israel will be saved..."

Not anything that tells us that.

Yes, it does. See above. God is His own arbiter.

The cattle on a 1000 hills. Is that meant as metaphor? That's how we commonly understand it. It the literal statement inaccurate? Of course not. Does it mean to limit what God owns? Actually, we have this information specifically. All that is in heaven and earth is God's. He owns it all. So we KNOW that this passage expresses a truth, and that truth just scratches the surface of the full reality, and in itself remains true.

Right, I agree, the statement is accurate, but the number 1000 is used to denote limitlessness. You agree; great! No apply it above... and below...

The 1000 year kingdom, it has a start and stop point, and does not detract from Christ's eternal rule, but it does point to a particular part of that rule as it takes place on the earth that is now. The difference is in the particulars.

See, I agree with all this, but yes, the difference is in how that is to be understood in context of all of Scripture ~ and the type of Scripture that it is. I know you disagree, but the millennium of Revelation 20 is the fullness of God's time in bringing His true Israel to completion.

The 24 courses of priests, there were 24 of them, and they represented the priesthood by families, but there were 24 of them. The diameter of the Bronze Sea was a number measurement. 150 days of rain. The Captain and his 50. The shadow returned 10 steps. 7 months burying the dead. 12 disciples. 12 thrones. 12 tribes. 12 stones on the breastpiece. 12 foundations of the city, each a different kind of stone. Each of these, and yes, there is much much more, that use numbers in a counting fashion. You can count Jacob's sons, and there are 12. You can count the sealed Jews, and there will be 144,000. Why should that not be so? I find neither a passage to tell me why it should not be 144,000, nor a passage to tell me what else it should be understood as.

You're mixing stuff that shouldn't be mixed; with many of these things, we cannot make one-to-one correlations. See above and below.

All that I've ever seen as a specific foundation for why this should be be understood as 144,000 Jewish males is that this doesn't fit people's idea of what is supposed to happen.

Well then it seems you haven't been listening.

I say, don't modify the meaning of the text...

Right, and I agree; far be it from any of us to do that. But to read all of Scripture in the same wooden fashion that you want to apply to all it should not be done. Again, much of Scripture is not to be read in the same fashion as a Dick and Jane first grade primer... or a documentary, or a history textbook. There are places where that is what's called for, but places where that's not to be done; certainly, much of Scripture is poetry, and metaphorical and symbolic of reality, and there is quite a bit of wisdom literature and, yes, apocalyptic. Reading it all in the same wooden fashion is not to be done, and you know it, so... ...again, stop it.

...rather, modify your ideas of what is going to happen.

Hmmm, well I say, read what is going to happen (and happening, as we see these things taking place all around us now and even in the past), and modify your ideas accordingly.

I'm not trying to be subtle here. Not at all.

Yes, I know.

You mentioned reading this as a picture book or even a fantasy novel.

Well, I said in the same sort of manner as a picture book or a fantasy novel. We know those things are fiction, but we know that the Bible is not. Don't make what I said into something other than what it was, marks. I mean, you can do whatever you want, but you get me, I'm sure.

Revelation has many pictures in it, and I agree, we should let those pictures wash over and through us.

Sure.

But we shouldn't mistake the descriptiveness as less than what it really is...

Right. Stop it.

Yes - the aptness - take it in as an entirety. But don't start marking it up with, This part is "representative", and not as described. Particularly in the narrative portions.

Right. No editing of any kind. Not guilty.

The seven churches were symbolized by seven stars, but there were in fact 7 letters to 7 churches.

Sure. That's John's lead-in. And he transitions from that by saying, "After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” At once I was in the Spirit..."

Why shouldn't I believe the plain sense meaning of the 144,000? And where specifically do you find me not believing the plain sense meaning of passages?

I'm not saying you shouldn't, and I'm not saying you don't. But the plain sense is not what you think it to be. We disagree on the plain sense, marks, obviously. In arguing for the plain sense, you're implying that I don't believe the plain sense, and that's not true. I just don't believe the plain sense is what you think it to be, but something much different.

Read it, and believe what you read. Simple. If you don't, then what? You become editor instead of student.

Right there with you, marks. Right there with you. Yes, simple. But not simplistic...

And if you believe something that is different than how it's stated, have a good reason.

Right, well, it's not different than how it is stated, and I do. Again, I agree with you on the whole plain meaning thing ~ despite your insinuations that I don't ~ but we disagree on what at least some of those plain meanings are.

Grace and peace to you.