Two Witnesses - A Biblical Perspective

[TribulationSigns]

1,000 represents a large number, in today's world the word used would be Billion years

The scripture below shows the interpretation, is it one literal day or a thousand literal years?

It's "Neither", its showing the human man that God is outside of time, it's that simple

2 Peter 3:8KJ
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Your claims are 100% "Wrong" Revelation 1:20 and "Seven Candlesticks" has absolutely no association with Revelation 11:3-4 "None"
Just as post #109 above shows, your magic wand and bag of tricks are empty, "exposed"

You continue to deny the "Fact" that Revelation 11:3-18 teaches that the (Two Witnesses) have literal physical bodies that die, and these bodies are raised from the dead as a literal world watches, your trying to sell ice in the North Pole in the middle of winter and it ain't working

You need to look into the mirror and follow your own advice, Zechariah 4:11-14 gives the interpretation for the word "Candlestick(s)" and it clearly states the interpretation as being (The Two Anointed Ones) that are also seen in Revelation Chapter 11 as having literal physical bodies that die and these dead bodies are raised from the dead and ascend to heave in the sight of a literal world watching, your private interpretation on it being the "Church" is Laughable, Non-Existent, and that's being honestly nice

Jesus Is The Lord

(yawning). Here you go again.

You keep declaring yourself victorious while STILL refusing to reconcile the very Scriptures placed before you. Repeating “laughable,” “exposed,” and “100% wrong” is rhetoric—not exegesis.

First, 2 Peter 3:8 does not prove that the thousand years of Revelation 20 must be 1,000 literal calendar years. In fact, your appeal to that verse undermines your own rigid literalism:

“One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

Peter's point is obviously not a mathematical conversion formula. It demonstrates that biblical numerical language must be understood according to its context and purpose. So merely seeing the number “1,000” does not settle whether Revelation 20 intends a literal chronological measurement.

Second, your claim that Revelation 1:20 has “absolutely no association” with Revelation 11:4 is astonishing. It is the SAME BOOK using the SAME SYMBOL!

Revelation 1:20:

“The seven candlesticks which thou sawest ARE the seven churches.”

Revelation 11:4:

“These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.”

You cannot simply wave Revelation 1:20 away because it causes problems for your interpretation. God has already demonstrated within Revelation that a candlestick can represent a corporate church. That fact does not disappear when you reach chapter 11.

And Zechariah 4 does not rescue you. Zechariah calls them “the two anointed ones.” It does NOT say, “These are two individual supernatural men who will appear thousands of years from now during a future tribulation.” You are importing that conclusion into the text and then calling it the text's “interpretation.”

Likewise, saying the witnesses have “bodies,” “die,” “stand,” and “ascend” does not automatically establish your literal interpretation. Revelation repeatedly portrays corporate spiritual realities through individual, physical, and visible imagery. Babylon is portrayed as a woman. The Church is portrayed as a bride. Churches are candlesticks. Satan is a dragon. Nobody concludes that Babylon must therefore be one literal woman or Satan a zoological reptile because they perform actions in John's vision.

That is precisely why Revelation must be interpreted by comparing Scripture with Scripture, not by mechanically declaring every action literal whenever it suits your prophetic system.

So before announcing that my “bag of tricks is empty,” deal honestly with the text YOU continually avoid:

Why does God explicitly define candlesticks as churches in Revelation 1:20, and why should that inspired definition suddenly become irrelevant when John sees candlesticks again in Revelation 11:4?

Answer the question! Until you actually answer that question rather than dismissing it, you have not refuted the Church interpretation at all, so you are still in an ERROR!

Let Scripture interpret Scripture. Selah!

 

[JimKnox]

Nice diversion, but it does not rescue your argument.

Yes, I knew that you are midtrib. Fine. But you are still operating within a premillennial framework, which is exactly what I was addressing. Whether you place the rapture before, during, or at the end of the tribulation does absolutely NOTHING to answer my argument concerning the symbolic thousand years or the Two Witnesses.

Instead of answering Psalm 50:10, Revelation 1:20, Revelation 11:4, or explaining why repetition supposedly makes a symbolic number literal, you grabbed onto one mistaken label and declared me “intellectually dishonest.”

That is an escape, not a refutation.

Correct the label to midtrib premillennialist and my biblical argument remains standing exactly where I left it.

If you think I am wrong, refute the Scriptures and reasoning I presented. Don't hide behind a label and pretend you answered the argument.

You haven't.

Well then CALL IT premil instead of pretrib.
Do you wish to be understood or are you flapping in the wind just to be ignored?

Stop lying. I never PRETENDED anything.

Your argument is so ridiculous as to deserve mockery but certainly not intellectual discourse.



I have watched you here long enough to know that all you care about is hearing yourself flap self righteous pablum. Plenty of people (including myself) have answered you and you ignore the answer and repeat your mythological symbolism for terms that are clearly literal.

At a certain point, people get tired of you.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Well then CALL IT premil instead of pretrib.
Do you wish to be understood or are you flapping in the wind just to be ignored?

Stop lying. I never PRETENDED anything.

Your argument is so ridiculous as to deserve mockery but certainly not intellectual discourse.



I have watched you here long enough to know that all you care about is hearing yourself flap self righteous pablum. Plenty of people (including myself) have answered you and you ignore the answer and repeat your mythological symbolism for terms that are clearly literal.

At a certain point, people get tired of you.

LOL! You can mock me, accuse me of “flapping,” call my interpretation ridiculous, and complain that people are tired of me—but none of that refutes a single biblical argument I have made! So you really distracting biblical discussion by attacking me. LOL.

You accuse me of repeating “mythological symbolism,” yet you still have not demonstrated from Scripture why my interpretation is wrong. Personal attacks are not exegesis. Mockery is not a biblical rebuttal. Saying something is “clearly literal” over and over does not make it so. Get this through your thick skull first!

If my interpretation is wrong, then open the Bible and prove it. Deal with the actual texts, their context, their Old Testament foundations, and the symbolic language Revelation itself establishes. Show from Scripture why my arguments fail instead of attacking my character and motives.

You also accuse me of lying and pretending things without demonstrating either accusation. That is serious. If I lied, quote the exact statement that was false and provide the evidence. Otherwise, withdraw the accusation.

And regarding “pretrib” versus “premil”: terminology can be clarified easily. Pretribulationism normally exists within a premillennial framework, but the two terms describe different things: “pretrib” concerns the timing of the rapture relative to the tribulation, while “premil” concerns Christ’s return relative to the millennium. Correcting terminology is fine. Turning that correction into personal ridicule contributes nothing to the biblical discussion. Poor you!

You say you have watched me long enough to know what I “care about.” You do not know my heart. Deal with what I actually write rather than assigning motives to me. :-)

A serious Bible student should be willing to test an interpretation by Scripture, even when he strongly disagrees with it. “I disagree,” “it is obviously literal,” and “people are tired of you” are not arguments.

So put the insults aside and make the biblical case. Chapter and verse. Context and exegesis. Address my actual arguments rather than my personality.

If you cannot do that, then all this mockery demonstrates is that you have plenty to say about me but very little to say in refutation of the biblical position I presented.

 

[JimKnox]

LOL! You can mock me, accuse me of “flapping,” call my interpretation ridiculous, and complain that people are tired of me—but none of that refutes a single biblical argument I have made! So you really distracting biblical discussion by attacking me. LOL.

You accuse me of repeating “mythological symbolism,” yet you still have not demonstrated from Scripture why my interpretation is wrong. Personal attacks are not exegesis. Mockery is not a biblical rebuttal. Saying something is “clearly literal” over and over does not make it so. Get this through your thick skull first!

If my interpretation is wrong, then open the Bible and prove it. Deal with the actual texts, their context, their Old Testament foundations, and the symbolic language Revelation itself establishes. Show from Scripture why my arguments fail instead of attacking my character and motives.

You also accuse me of lying and pretending things without demonstrating either accusation. That is serious. If I lied, quote the exact statement that was false and provide the evidence. Otherwise, withdraw the accusation.

And regarding “pretrib” versus “premil”: terminology can be clarified easily. Pretribulationism normally exists within a premillennial framework, but the two terms describe different things: “pretrib” concerns the timing of the rapture relative to the tribulation, while “premil” concerns Christ’s return relative to the millennium. Correcting terminology is fine. Turning that correction into personal ridicule contributes nothing to the biblical discussion. Poor you!

You say you have watched me long enough to know what I “care about.” You do not know my heart. Deal with what I actually write rather than assigning motives to me. :-)

A serious Bible student should be willing to test an interpretation by Scripture, even when he strongly disagrees with it. “I disagree,” “it is obviously literal,” and “people are tired of you” are not arguments.

So put the insults aside and make the biblical case. Chapter and verse. Context and exegesis. Address my actual arguments rather than my personality.

If you cannot do that, then all this mockery demonstrates is that you have plenty to say about me but very little to say in refutation of the biblical position I presented.

I bet you thought I was gonna READ all that, huh?