Prophecy Alert: "Blood Moon Over America" 1/19-21/ 2019

[CoreIssue]

How about literally spiritual?

Enoch can correct me but I believe he was saying it is both literal and spiritual.

Trying to make it all spiritual crosses over into Gnosticism where you have to be chosen to understand the Bible.

Unfortunately too many Pentecostals cross that line.

 

[Taken]

GISMYS_7

Thanks for posting the heads up on the MOON.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Helen]

AS I SAID BEFORE...stop misquoting me!!!
You must need new glasses...
THIS is what I SAID QUOTE

The sun is a type of the Godhead.
The moon is a type of the Church - reflecting God's light into the dark world.

"The moon /Church turning to blood" in the last times, is a picture meaning that the blood of the Church will be flowing.., before the Great and Wonderful Day of The Lord!

It's a spiritual Book, people.

TWICE now you have said :-

Does not say the sun IS God, as you did, a sun meaning he provides light.

Pointless talking with you...you get something stuck in your head and keep on saying the same MISQUOTED statement.

Obviously you cannot understand the difference between "a type of"...and 'is'.

 

[CoreIssue]

AS I SAID BEFORE...stop misquoting me!!!
You must need new glasses...
THIS is what I SAID QUOTE



TWICE now you have said :-



Pointless talking with you...you get something stuck in your head and keep on saying the same MISQUOTED statement.

Obviously you cannot understand the difference between "a type of"...and 'is'.

I understand the difference and I also understand what you said.

 

[Naomi25]

What is inconsistent about taking most Scripture in its plain literal sense while making allowance for metaphors, symbols, and figures of speech?

It's inconsistent when you don't have any fast rules about these metaphors, symbols or figures of speech. You say scripture must be taken literally: fine. Then you say we must take into account metaphors, symbols and figures of speech...also fine, even though you finger point when others do it. But when you comes to these symbols, there is seemingly no rhyme or reason to what meets the critera for 'symbol' or 'literal'. Sometimes you say a symbol must be explained outright by the text as a symbol, and that is the only reason we have the excuse to depart from literal interpretation. If that's where you drew your hermeneutical line, well and good. I would still think you were in error, but at least your hermeneutic would be consistant. Instead, you step beyond that and then dip into suddenly excusing other, randomn images as 'clearly symbolic'. I would agree, of course, with the ultimate interpretation of symbol rather than literal, but it does prove my point that your hermeneutic is, essentially, wildly inconsistent, and leaves you pointing randomly at different things and declaring them either literal or symbolic determined, apparently, only by Dispensational doctrine and how it HAS to read, rather than letting the text or genre tell how how to interpret it.

 

[CoreIssue]

It's inconsistent when you don't have any fast rules about these metaphors, symbols or figures of speech. You say scripture must be taken literally: fine. Then you say we must take into account metaphors, symbols and figures of speech...also fine, even though you finger point when others do it. But when you comes to these symbols, there is seemingly no rhyme or reason to what meets the critera for 'symbol' or 'literal'. Sometimes you say a symbol must be explained outright by the text as a symbol, and that is the only reason we have the excuse to depart from literal interpretation. If that's where you drew your hermeneutical line, well and good. I would still think you were in error, but at least your hermeneutic would be consistant. Instead, you step beyond that and then dip into suddenly excusing other, randomn images as 'clearly symbolic'. I would agree, of course, with the ultimate interpretation of symbol rather than literal, but it does prove my point that your hermeneutic is, essentially, wildly inconsistent, and leaves you pointing randomly at different things and declaring them either literal or symbolic determined, apparently, only by Dispensational doctrine and how it HAS to read, rather than letting the text or genre tell how how to interpret it.

Who says there are rules for dealing with figurative language? There are.

But you on the other hand even interpret literal words figuratively as you decide they mean absolutely. The only rule you have is what you want to find.

Letting the text tell you how to interpret it without ironclad rules of grammar and linguistics is a nonsense argument for looking for support for what you've already decided in your own imagination.

 

[Naomi25]

All you're doing is proving you make the Bible say what you want to hear.

Actually...to be honest, considering how much scripture you DON'T use, and how much I DO use to try and make my case...I can't help but wonder if you respect it less than I do. At some point, you have to realise the excuse and accusation of "spiritualizer" just won't hold much weight anymore.

 

[CoreIssue]

Actually...to be honest, considering how much scripture you DON'T use, and how much I DO use to try and make my case...I can't help but wonder if you respect it less than I do. At some point, you have to realise the excuse and accusation of "spiritualizer" just won't hold much weight anymore.

You using Scripture to prove something? All you do is post the verse and say it means things that don't resemble the words.

 

[Naomi25]

Who says there are rules for dealing with figurative language? There are.

But you on the other hand even interpret literal words figuratively as you decide they mean absolutely. The only rule you have is what you want to find.

Letting the text tell you how to interpret it without ironclad rules of grammar and linguistics is a nonsense argument for looking for support for what you've already decided in your own imagination.

Wrong! Oh, so very wrong! Has our very, very long debate taught you nothing about me? While you've been spouting insults, I've been doing my best to SHOW you that there is a very logical, hermeneutical principle behind how we come to a passage. It depends on the text itself with it grammatical features, other scriptures and how they apply to our passage, the genre of how, why and when the text was written and the lense we must look at it with regards to how Christ has changed fundamental things. These are hard and fast rules. Sometimes they lead us to reading books of the bible and passages as literally as anyone. And sometimes it doesn't. No one would argue, for example, that we are to read proverbs as wisdom, or psalms as poems, or the Pentateuch as history, or prophecy as prophecy. Each genre has import and context.

But hey, you want to continue to imagine I'm some wild eyed, crazy, liberal nut case, go right ahead. You want to accuse me of twisting scripture? Well, at least I presented scripture, rather than just taking pot-shots at others who didn't share my opinions with my own opinion as my only back-up. But, I suppose I have to thank you. This drawn out conversation has, without a doubt, cemeted in my mind the un-defendable position of Dispensationalism.

 

[CoreIssue]

Wrong! Oh, so very wrong! Has our very, very long debate taught you nothing about me? While you've been spouting insults, I've been doing my best to SHOW you that there is a very logical, hermeneutical principle behind how we come to a passage. It depends on the text itself with it grammatical features, other scriptures and how they apply to our passage, the genre of how, why and when the text was written and the lense we must look at it with regards to how Christ has changed fundamental things. These are hard and fast rules. Sometimes they lead us to reading books of the bible and passages as literally as anyone. And sometimes it doesn't. No one would argue, for example, that we are to read proverbs as wisdom, or psalms as poems, or the Pentateuch as history, or prophecy as prophecy. Each genre has import and context.

But hey, you want to continue to imagine I'm some wild eyed, crazy, liberal nut case, go right ahead. You want to accuse me of twisting scripture? Well, at least I presented scripture, rather than just taking pot-shots at others who didn't share my opinions with my own opinion as my only back-up. But, I suppose I have to thank you. This drawn out conversation has, without a doubt, cemeted in my mind the un-defendable position of Dispensationalism.

It shown me that you are one of many I've encountered over the years.

There is no logic behind people like you who are into idealism. Idealism is not nor ever has been logical or literal.

Compare with the politics of liberals. They talk about respect, their principal and more. But the fruits of that thinking is hatred, bigotry, death and demands that everybody give them what they have so they can feel better.

Idealism (Christian eschatology) | Revolvy

 

[brakelite]

It's inconsistent when you don't have any fast rules about these metaphors, symbols or figures of speech. You say scripture must be taken literally: fine. Then you say we must take into account metaphors, symbols and figures of speech...also fine, even though you finger point when others do it. But when you comes to these symbols, there is seemingly no rhyme or reason to what meets the critera for 'symbol' or 'literal'. Sometimes you say a symbol must be explained outright by the text as a symbol, and that is the only reason we have the excuse to depart from literal interpretation. If that's where you drew your hermeneutical line, well and good. I would still think you were in error, but at least your hermeneutic would be consistant. Instead, you step beyond that and then dip into suddenly excusing other, randomn images as 'clearly symbolic'. I would agree, of course, with the ultimate interpretation of symbol rather than literal, but it does prove my point that your hermeneutic is, essentially, wildly inconsistent, and leaves you pointing randomly at different things and declaring them either literal or symbolic determined, apparently, only by Dispensational doctrine and how it HAS to read, rather than letting the text or genre tell how how to interpret it.

Well said. If the literal doesn't fit with the dispensationalists perspective, it must be symbolic. The literal interpretation of that symbol is then tossed around until it matches or falls through the right sized hole in the colander.

 

[brakelite]

Who says there are rules for dealing with figurative language? There are.

But you on the other hand even interpret literal words figuratively as you decide they mean absolutely. The only rule you have is what you want to find.

Letting the text tell you how to interpret it without ironclad rules of grammar and linguistics is a nonsense argument for looking for support for what you've already decided in your own imagination.

Were you saying this to yourself in the mirror this morning? Must have bounced off the glass and fallen into your phone under Naomi's name. Very weird.

 

[CoreIssue]

Well said. If the literal doesn't fit with the dispensationalists perspective, it must be symbolic. The literal interpretation of that symbol is then tossed around until it matches or falls through the right sized hole in the colander.

You don't understand the Bible even figurative language has a literal meaning therefore it's all literal. In 58 years I've never found an exception to that reality.

 

[CoreIssue]

Were you saying this to yourself in the mirror this morning? Must have bounced off the glass and fallen into your phone under Naomi's name. Very weird.

Was that foolish statement supposed to make me uncomfortable?

No, I think it was you trying to invent an argument to give yourself comfort.

 

[Enoch111]

Sometimes you say a symbol must be explained outright by the text as a symbol, and that is the only reason we have the excuse to depart from literal interpretation.

Let's take some concrete examples from Scripture (Revelation) to clear the air:

I saw seven golden candlesticks = "are the seven churches" (symbol explained)

And he had in his right hand seven stars = "the seven stars are the angels" (symbol explained)

a door was opened in heaven = a literal *heavenly* door

as it were of a trumpet = similar to ("as it were") a trumpet sound

a throne was set in heaven = a literal throne in the literal third Heaven

four and twenty seats = literal seats in Heaven

four and twenty elders = literal elders in Heaven

crowns of gold = literal crowns of heavenly gold

As you can see in the above examples, the symbols are explained and everything else is to be take literally, even though we do not know the EXACT nature of heavenly things (which are far superior, better, perfect, incorruptible, and eternal).

 

[brakelite]

I could add one more...
Daniel 7:17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

Now the immediate assumption is that they, the four beasts (lion, bear, leopard, dragon type beast previously described) are 4 literal kings, however, the time-span of the beasts goes way beyond the capacity for just one individual, thus we must assume that as the kings are representative of kingdoms, the a succession of kings is here intended, as the prophecy extends from the time of Daniel all the way down to the second coming, which gives the added bonus of understanding that the Antichrist, represented by the 'little horn' which grew out of the head of pagan Rome, must also be a succession of 'kings' from that time, (the 6th century) all the way to today and a short way beyond.

Edited PS...which does not in any way suit dispensationists, so they need to reinvent the wheel and cut the prophecy in half...the bit that doesn't suit they throw into the future, thus not only disrupting the flow of history, but amputating the toes of the statue of Daniel two along with it.

 

[Soverign Grace]

+

 

[CoreIssue]

Let's take some concrete examples from Scripture (Revelation) to clear the air:

I saw seven golden candlesticks = "are the seven churches" (symbol explained)

And he had in his right hand seven stars = "the seven stars are the angels" (symbol explained)

a door was opened in heaven = a literal *heavenly* door

as it were of a trumpet = similar to ("as it were") a trumpet sound

a throne was set in heaven = a literal throne in the literal third Heaven

four and twenty seats = literal seats in Heaven

four and twenty elders = literal elders in Heaven

crowns of gold = literal crowns of heavenly gold

As you can see in the above examples, the symbols are explained and everything else is to be take literally, even though we do not know the EXACT nature of heavenly things (which are far superior, better, perfect, incorruptible, and eternal).

Let's take some concrete examples from Scripture (Revelation) to clear the air:

I saw seven golden candlesticks = "are the seven churches" (symbol explained)

And he had in his right hand seven stars = "the seven stars are the angels" (symbol explained)

a door was opened in heaven = a literal *heavenly* door

as it were of a trumpet = similar to ("as it were") a trumpet sound

a throne was set in heaven = a literal throne in the literal third Heaven

four and twenty seats = literal seats in Heaven

four and twenty elders = literal elders in Heaven

crowns of gold = literal crowns of heavenly gold

As you can see in the above examples, the symbols are explained and everything else is to be take literally, even though we do not know the EXACT nature of heavenly things (which are far superior, better, perfect, incorruptible, and eternal).

One correction, lamp, not candle. Candles do not use oil. The oil is the Holy Spirit, so important.

 

[CoreIssue]

I could add one more...
Daniel 7:17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.

Now the immediate assumption is that they, the four beasts (lion, bear, leopard, dragon type beast previously described) are 4 literal kings, however, the time-span of the beasts goes way beyond the capacity for just one individual, thus we must assume that as the kings are representative of kingdoms, the a succession of kings is here intended, as the prophecy extends from the time of Daniel all the way down to the second coming, which gives the added bonus of understanding that the Antichrist, represented by the 'little horn' which grew out of the head of pagan Rome, must also be a succession of 'kings' from that time, (the 6th century) all the way to today and a short way beyond.

Edited PS...which does not in any way suit dispensationists, so they need to reinvent the wheel and cut the prophecy in half...the bit that doesn't suit they throw into the future, thus not only disrupting the flow of history, but amputating the toes of the statue of Daniel two along with it.

Empires with Kings. The leopard has 4 Kings.

Medo-Persia had two


Daniel 7:6 New International Version (NIV)
6 “After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

 

[Enoch111]

...the Antichrist, represented by the 'little horn' which grew out of the head of pagan Rome, must also be a succession of 'kings' from that time, (the 6th century) all the way to today and a short way beyond.

The Antichrist cannot possibly be "a succession of kings" since he is identified as one malevolent Man of Sin (or lawlessness). Also he cannot be around for hundreds of years since Scripture limits his reign to 3 1/2 years (42 months, 1260 days, a time, times, and half a time). The "little horn" is indeed the Antichrist, but not as you imagine.