Failed Prophecies

[bbyrd009]

It's why spiritualizing the bible is faulty and makes for multiple interpretations of the Scriptures.

then boy do i have some literal Scripture for you, sir

 

[bbyrd009]

I agree. I can't understand why some poeple seem to take it personally when their beliefs are challenged. What's the point in taking a position on an issue if we're not confident enough in it to allow it to stand the test of scrutiny? Jesus spoke purely unadulterated truth and yet He was targeted constantly for what He believed. I've never yet read where He got mad or insulting toward those who He without question knew were full of bulldookey.

oh, i guess He put a few ppl in their place alright. Anyway, i seek referenced, valid attacks on my beliefs! That is what i want! Ha!

 

[bbyrd009]

So, you're looking for a literal seven headed, leopard-bodied, bear-footed, lion-mouthed creature to arise out of the sea?

just for starters, yeh.
i mean pls already, dont waste your fingers imo

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes--one hears, "Well, this symbolizes this" and "Oh, that symbolizes that..." And often one group of "spiritualizers" state things that are the exact opposite of what other "spiritualizers" say. Always best to follow the surface text and literally unless to do so produces an absurdity.

The symbolism in Scripture is generally spelled out elsewhere anyway, and if y'all are such literal Readers then why do you all run for the shadows whenever i pull out dem Scriptures y'all dont like?

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Presuppositional Apologetics sure defines a lot of thinking on here. (Here is what the verse we are going to read means.) [The Bible as "I" read it.]

The proper way to read and study Scripture is to read whole chapters at a time and jot down notes about what you think every line means in context and then how it applies to your life. I have been a member of a house church where that is practiced and we have NO arguments about what we think it means. We pray before we begin that the Holy Spirit would preserve our unity and He does.

 

[Phoneman777]

Literal interpretation follows along with the written scripture as it is interpreted in context , and so when the scripture is making a metaphor or using a colorful illustration that is understood.

We also must consider whether anything we insist is literal agrees with the rest of Scripture. That's where many go wrong with the Rich Man and Lazarus. Insisting this passage is a literal account of two men creates huge problems with regard to consistency with the rest of Scripture, which is only avoided by understanding it is parabolic.

 

[Phoneman777]

What about calling the Jewish religious authorities "Sons of the devil"?

That wasn't insult - it was a rebuke. Jesus' rebukes were always accompanied with tears, whether rolling down His face or welling up in His heart.

I doubt seriously that those who hurl insults here in CB do so with a similarly pained heart...more like self aggrandizing sarcasm.

 

[tzcho2]

We also must consider whether anything we insist is literal agrees with the rest of Scripture. That's where many go wrong with the Rich Man and Lazarus. Insisting this passage is a literal account of two men creates huge problems with regard to consistency with the rest of Scripture, which is only avoided by understanding it is parabolic.

Seems to me the teaching is the same regardless. I believe they are actual people and there is a lesson. I can't see how anyone can miss the lessons/message either way. Personally, I don't think you understand at all what is meant by taking a literal reading of the Bible.
As for literal view for one eg even though the bible says God shall cover us with His feathers and give us refuge , the literal interpretation understands it doesn't mean God is a bird.

 

[Phoneman777]

The Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel contain a fair number of symbols. But it is clear from the stated context that they were contained in dreams and visions. Almost all of the other Scriptures are straight forward as they relate events.

Dreams and visions are not the only means by which prophetic symbolism is given. For instance, Jesus Himself used prophetic symbolism repeatedly when giving revelations of the future while wide awake and not in a prophetic trance:

"The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels." (an interpretation of the symbolism in the preceding verses)

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (Reference to His body temple)

"And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." (He did all those things for another 3 years, not days.)

 

[Phoneman777]

cool, ty, i'll do it. When is the Berean guy on? ty

He's on at 6:00 A.M. Central.

 

[Phoneman777]

Seems to me the teaching is the same regardless. I believe they are actual people and there is a lesson. I can't see how anyone can miss the lessons/message either way. Personally, I don't think you understand at all what is meant by taking a literal reading of the Bible.
As for literal view for one eg even though the bible says God shall cover us with His feathers and give us refuge , the literal interpretation understands it doesn't mean God is a bird.

Interpreting this passage as literal creates a lot of inconsistency with the rest of Scripture - even with other things Jesus said. The best any of us can hope to do is to be CONSISTENT with the principles of hermeneutics...but too often, when consistency undermines cherished beliefs, we tend to throw such principles out the window so that our beliefs may be retained. When it comes to consistency of interpretation, I'm my own worst critic.

 

[Stranger]

Are you now going to buy it?

Why? Scared?

Is it for sale? I mean....are there people out there making money on books against Dispensationalism and the Rapture? Or can you only get them by cheap downloads?

You don't have a library. You just have a link. Cheap and fast.

Stranger

 

[tzcho2]

Interpreting this passage as literal creates a lot of inconsistency with the rest of Scripture - even with other things Jesus said. The best any of us can hope to do is to be CONSISTENT with the principles of hermeneutics...but too often, when consistency undermines cherished beliefs, we tend to throw such principles out the window so that our beliefs may be retained. When it comes to consistency of interpretation, I'm my own worst critic.

Seems making a problem where none exists.
A literal interpretation of the bible does not mean taking every separate word as literal, nor does it mean taking the parables as literal, or something that was poetry as literal, etc, etc...

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Dreams and visions are not the only means by which prophetic symbolism is given. For instance, Jesus Himself used prophetic symbolism repeatedly when giving revelations of the future while wide awake and not in a prophetic trance:

"The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels." (an interpretation of the symbolism in the preceding verses)

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (Reference to His body temple)

"And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." (He did all those things for another 3 years, not days.)

Not the same at all. Jesus chose parabolic language in order to hide truths from unbelievers. Dreams and visions are mostly even a mystery to the one who has them. Often, they only become clear much later.

 

[ScottA]

It's why spiritualizing the bible is faulty and makes for multiple interpretations of the Scriptures.

That is just sooo messed up, so wrong on so many levels.

First...God is spirit. By His own definition and existence, spiritualizing would be most godly. Why would anyone speak so against the very nature of God - what spirit has such a one? (Rhetorical) We know by what spirit.

As for interpretations...there is only one interpretation according to the spirit of God. That is the point. To anyone who is of that same spirit of God, there is no contradiction in scripture nor spiritual revelation...all things are reconcilable. But the fact that there are a multitude of interpretations, does not make void the one that is correct. Nor does one scripture make void another or win an argument.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

That is just sooo messed up, so wrong on so many levels.

First...God is spirit. By His own definition and existence, spiritualizing would be most godly. Why would anyone speak so against the very nature of God - what spirit has such a one? (Rhetorical) We know by what spirit.

As for interpretations...there is only one interpretation according to the spirit of God. That is the point. To anyone who is of that same spirit of God, there is no contradiction in scripture nor spiritual revelation...all things are reconcilable. But the fact that there are a multitude of interpretations, does not make void the one that is correct. Nor does one scripture make void another or win an argument.

Um--you don't understand the meaning of the theological term, obviously. Go look it up and get back to us.

 

[ScottA]

Um--you don't understand the meaning of the theological term, obviously. Go look it up and get back to us.

I have looked into the heart, and I am back: Same answer, but now with more children.

 

[Nancy]

I agree. I can't understand why some poeple seem to take it personally when their beliefs are challenged. What's the point in taking a position on an issue if we're not confident enough in it to allow it to stand the test of scrutiny? Jesus spoke purely unadulterated truth and yet He was targeted constantly for what He believed. I've never yet read where He got mad or insulting toward those who He without question knew were full of bulldookey.

" bulldookey."
No, Jesus spoke the truth, and just kept moving on. What the people did with His message was up to them. He didn't argue with anyone! Cept for maybe the money changers
, but that was not really "arguing", He was angry, righteous anger...unlike most of ours .

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

I have looked into the heart, and I am back: Same answer, but now with more children.

Jeremiah 17:9---> "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

 

[Phoneman777]

Seems making a problem where none exists.
A literal interpretation of the bible does not mean taking every separate word as literal, nor does it mean taking the parables as literal, or something that was poetry as literal, etc, etc...

It's a real problem if we insist the rich man is burning bodily in the flames of hellfire at death. Because Paul is clear that in the period between our current "tabernacle" in which we groan - an undeniable reference to our current mortal body - and the glorious body to come at the Second Coming, he says we will be "naked" and "unclothed" of any "tabernacle" which means "lying in the grave dead without a body".

It does not mean "in heaven without a body awaiting the resurrection body" which is just plain silly and stupid. If that truly were the case, then how asinine is it for Paul to say, "For in this tabernacle we do groan, being burdened, not that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon..." - who cares, Paul, if we're "unclothed" or "clothed upon" if we're in heaven rejoicing with everyone else? In the words of Luther who agrees with Phoneman777, "Nay, Paul, go to master (Sir Thomas) Moore and learn another way."

The only way for Paul's words to make sense is if Paul is saying he doesn't want to be lying dead in the grave naked without a body awaiting Jesus to come - JUST AS IS THE TESTIMONY OF JOB, DAVID, PETER, AND OTHERS - but he wants to skip that an go right from being "absent from the body" to being "present with the Lord", but he knew that didn't happen at death, because he himself says in verse 10, "For we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ", which everyone agrees happens not at death, but at the "end of the world".

So, here is a clear example of identifying a colossal problem with making this passage literal instead of the parabolic passage that it is, and is not the only problem that arises when doing so. We can't callously brush aside such inconsistencies and pretend they don't exist for the sake of holding on to cherished interpretations. Jesuit Ribera did so, and is why Futurism is so popular today, albeit unBiblical.