Physical Kingdom Problems
Comments
-
@reformed said:
No Dave, I don't. Revelation specifically talks about 1,000 years. So you have a few options:
- Revelation isn't actually Scripture.
- Revelation contradicts Scripture.
- You are missing something in translation and your view is incorrect.
Those are your options.
The 1000 years are not literal years. They are the symbol for Satan's binding. Are the green horses literal? The red dragon? How about the chain that binds Satan who is a spirit?
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
No Dave, I don't. Revelation specifically talks about 1,000 years. So you have a few options:
- Revelation isn't actually Scripture.
- Revelation contradicts Scripture.
- You are missing something in translation and your view is incorrect.
Those are your options.
The 1000 years are not literal years. They are the symbol for Satan's binding. Are the green horses literal? The red dragon? How about the chain that binds Satan who is a spirit?
There are things in Revelation that are obviously not literal, the 1,000 years are not one of them. How do you get that as not being literal? Why would he even say 1,000 years, more than once mind you, if it were not important?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
No Dave, I don't. Revelation specifically talks about 1,000 years. So you have a few options:
- Revelation isn't actually Scripture.
- Revelation contradicts Scripture.
- You are missing something in translation and your view is incorrect.
Those are your options.
The 1000 years are not literal years. They are the symbol for Satan's binding. Are the green horses literal? The red dragon? How about the chain that binds Satan who is a spirit?
There are things in Revelation that are obviously not literal, the 1,000 years are not one of them. How do you get that as not being literal? Why would he even say 1,000 years, more than once mind you, if it were not important?
If the serpent is a symbol. The angel is a symbol, the chain is a symbol, the bottomless pit a symbol, etc., why isn't the 1000 year a symbol?
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
No Dave, I don't. Revelation specifically talks about 1,000 years. So you have a few options:
- Revelation isn't actually Scripture.
- Revelation contradicts Scripture.
- You are missing something in translation and your view is incorrect.
Those are your options.
The 1000 years are not literal years. They are the symbol for Satan's binding. Are the green horses literal? The red dragon? How about the chain that binds Satan who is a spirit?
There are things in Revelation that are obviously not literal, the 1,000 years are not one of them. How do you get that as not being literal? Why would he even say 1,000 years, more than once mind you, if it were not important?
If the serpent is a symbol. The angel is a symbol, the chain is a symbol, the bottomless pit a symbol, etc., why isn't the 1000 year a symbol?
I don't believe the serpent is a symbol, do you believe the serpent in Gen3 was a symbol? I don't believe the angel is a symbol, nor do I believe the chain or pit are symbols.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
No Dave, I don't. Revelation specifically talks about 1,000 years. So you have a few options:
- Revelation isn't actually Scripture.
- Revelation contradicts Scripture.
- You are missing something in translation and your view is incorrect.
Those are your options.
The 1000 years are not literal years. They are the symbol for Satan's binding. Are the green horses literal? The red dragon? How about the chain that binds Satan who is a spirit?
There are things in Revelation that are obviously not literal, the 1,000 years are not one of them. How do you get that as not being literal? Why would he even say 1,000 years, more than once mind you, if it were not important?
If the serpent is a symbol. The angel is a symbol, the chain is a symbol, the bottomless pit a symbol, etc., why isn't the 1000 year a symbol?
I don't believe the serpent is a symbol, do you believe the serpent in Gen3 was a symbol? I don't believe the angel is a symbol, nor do I believe the chain or pit are symbols.
John tells us the serpent is a symbol.“And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,” (Revelation 20:2)
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
No Dave, I don't. Revelation specifically talks about 1,000 years. So you have a few options:
- Revelation isn't actually Scripture.
- Revelation contradicts Scripture.
- You are missing something in translation and your view is incorrect.
Those are your options.
The 1000 years are not literal years. They are the symbol for Satan's binding. Are the green horses literal? The red dragon? How about the chain that binds Satan who is a spirit?
There are things in Revelation that are obviously not literal, the 1,000 years are not one of them. How do you get that as not being literal? Why would he even say 1,000 years, more than once mind you, if it were not important?
If the serpent is a symbol. The angel is a symbol, the chain is a symbol, the bottomless pit a symbol, etc., why isn't the 1000 year a symbol?
I don't believe the serpent is a symbol, do you believe the serpent in Gen3 was a symbol? I don't believe the angel is a symbol, nor do I believe the chain or pit are symbols.
John tells us the serpent is a symbol.“And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,” (Revelation 20:2)
No, he does not tell us it is a symbol. Do you believe there was a real serpent in Gen 3 or was that a symbol?
-
I think I found the key to why we seem to engage in biblical kabuki dancing on the topic of the Millennium. The reason is NOT recognizing the two approaches. We must first distinguish “Biblical premillennialism” from “Dispensational premillennialism”.
“Biblical premillennialism” teaches that the millennium is to occur after the Second Coming of Christ and that God’s people will spend the millennium in heaven, while there will be desolation on earth.
“Dispensational premillenialism” teaches that the millennium will be spent on earth, and that the OT prophecies to the Israelite nation will be literally fulfilled; it is also a time during which there will be “evangelism and testing”.
I hope this helps. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
I think I found the key to why we seem to engage in biblical kabuki dancing on the topic of the Millennium. The reason is NOT recognizing the two approaches. We must first distinguish “Biblical premillennialism” from “Dispensational premillennialism”.“Biblical premillennialism” teaches that the millennium is to occur after the Second Coming of Christ and that God’s people will spend the millennium in heaven, while there will be desolation on earth.
“Dispensational premillenialism” teaches that the millennium will be spent on earth, and that the OT prophecies to the Israelite nation will be literally fulfilled; it is also a time during which there will be “evangelism and testing”.
I hope this helps. CM
No that actually doesn't help, nor is it necessarily true. That is the two interpretations but you can't say the first is necessarily biblical.
-
@reformed said:
There are things in Revelation that are obviously not literal, the 1,000 years are not one of them.How do you determine what is literal and what is not? What objective rules of language do you use to determine if something is meant to be understood literally or not?
How do you get that as not being literal? Why would he even say 1,000 years, more than once mind you, if it were not important?
I would claim that I have made some points in posts here on CD "1000 times" ... and yet, some folks don't seem to read what I wrote. 1000 times ? or was it perhaps 1001 times? or maybe only 999 times?
-
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
I think I found the key to why we seem to engage in biblical kabuki dancing on the topic of the Millennium. The reason is NOT recognizing the two approaches. We must first distinguish “Biblical premillennialism” from “Dispensational premillennialism”.“Biblical premillennialism” teaches that the millennium is to occur after the Second Coming of Christ and that God’s people will spend the millennium in heaven, while there will be desolation on earth.
“Dispensational premillenialism” teaches that the millennium will be spent on earth, and that the OT prophecies to the Israelite nation will be literally fulfilled; it is also a time during which there will be “evangelism and testing”.
I hope this helps. CM
No that actually doesn't help, nor is it necessarily true. That is the two interpretations but you can't say the first is necessarily biblical.
Check your faith belief. Let the Word speak over personal theology.
Read the text (Rev. 20:1-10) again, slowly and in context. Better yet, read the entire chapter.
- What happens after the return of Christ, according to Scripture? Please list from the text.
- What happens during the millennium? Please list from the text.
- What happens at the end of the millennium? (See page 10 above-my 8-points). Do you accept them as biblical teachings?
"...you can't say the first is necessarily biblical".
Please explain, why? Biblical reasoning. CM
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
No Dave, I don't. Revelation specifically talks about 1,000 years. So you have a few options:
- Revelation isn't actually Scripture.
- Revelation contradicts Scripture.
- You are missing something in translation and your view is incorrect.
Those are your options.
The 1000 years are not literal years. They are the symbol for Satan's binding. Are the green horses literal? The red dragon? How about the chain that binds Satan who is a spirit?
There are things in Revelation that are obviously not literal, the 1,000 years are not one of them. How do you get that as not being literal? Why would he even say 1,000 years, more than once mind you, if it were not important?
If the serpent is a symbol. The angel is a symbol, the chain is a symbol, the bottomless pit a symbol, etc., why isn't the 1000 year a symbol?
I don't believe the serpent is a symbol, do you believe the serpent in Gen3 was a symbol? I don't believe the angel is a symbol, nor do I believe the chain or pit are symbols.
John tells us the serpent is a symbol.“And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,” (Revelation 20:2)
No, he does not tell us it is a symbol. Do you believe there was a real serpent in Gen 3 or was that a symbol?
“And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.” (Revelation 20:2–3)
So when the 1000 years end, Satan who is a literal dragon and a literal snake will attack?
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
No, he does not tell us it is a symbol. Do you believe there was a real serpent in Gen 3 or was that a symbol?“And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.” (Revelation 20:2–3)
So when the 1000 years end, Satan who is a literal dragon and a literal snake will attack?
I am still waiting for @reformed to answer my earlier question about his method of how he determines what in a text is literal and what is not literal ... I had asked
@Wolfgang
How do you determine what is literal and what is not? What objective rules of language do you use to determine if something is meant to be understood literally or not?Most likely @reformed will just claim that serpent and dragon are figurative but 1000 years are literal ... to suit his liking and theology. Perhaps we will get a reply in which he explains according to which rules of language he correctly identifies in a given text what is literal and what is not literal
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
There are things in Revelation that are obviously not literal, the 1,000 years are not one of them.How do you determine what is literal and what is not? What objective rules of language do you use to determine if something is meant to be understood literally or not?
How do you get that as not being literal? Why would he even say 1,000 years, more than once mind you, if it were not important?
I would claim that I have made some points in posts here on CD "1000 times" ... and yet, some folks don't seem to read what I wrote. 1000 times ? or was it perhaps 1001 times? or maybe only 999 times?
Literal whenever possible. You should always assume literal first unless it is obvious that it is not literal based on context.
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
I think I found the key to why we seem to engage in biblical kabuki dancing on the topic of the Millennium. The reason is NOT recognizing the two approaches. We must first distinguish “Biblical premillennialism” from “Dispensational premillennialism”.“Biblical premillennialism” teaches that the millennium is to occur after the Second Coming of Christ and that God’s people will spend the millennium in heaven, while there will be desolation on earth.
“Dispensational premillenialism” teaches that the millennium will be spent on earth, and that the OT prophecies to the Israelite nation will be literally fulfilled; it is also a time during which there will be “evangelism and testing”.
I hope this helps. CM
No that actually doesn't help, nor is it necessarily true. That is the two interpretations but you can't say the first is necessarily biblical.
Check your faith belief. Let the Word speak over personal theology.
Read the text (Rev. 20:1-10) again, slowly and in context. Better yet, read the entire chapter.
- What happens after the return of Christ, according to Scripture? Please list from the text.
- What happens during the millennium? Please list from the text.
- What happens at the end of the millennium? (See page 10 above-my 8-points). Do you accept them as biblical teachings?
"...you can't say the first is necessarily biblical".
Please explain, why? Biblical reasoning. CM
I've already done those things in this passage. My point is you obviously don't understand Dispensational teachings either.
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
No, he does not tell us it is a symbol. Do you believe there was a real serpent in Gen 3 or was that a symbol?“And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.” (Revelation 20:2–3)
So when the 1000 years end, Satan who is a literal dragon and a literal snake will attack?
I am still waiting for @reformed to answer my earlier question about his method of how he determines what in a text is literal and what is not literal ... I had asked
@Wolfgang
How do you determine what is literal and what is not? What objective rules of language do you use to determine if something is meant to be understood literally or not?Most likely @reformed will just claim that serpent and dragon are figurative but 1000 years are literal ... to suit his liking and theology. Perhaps we will get a reply in which he explains according to which rules of language he correctly identifies in a given text what is literal and what is not literal
Clearly they are names for Satan. They are describing Satan. This is not difficult guys.
-
Literal where ever possible is like taking a meat cleaver to the bible. God uses literal objects and themes as symbols for spiritual truth in many cases. See how Jesus interprets the OT and go with that.
-
@Dave_L said:
Literal where ever possible is like taking a meat cleaver to the bible. God uses literal objects and themes as symbols for spiritual truth in many cases. See how Jesus interprets the OT and go with that.Prove your point because literal wherever possible is the gold standard of Bible interpretation.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Literal where ever possible is like taking a meat cleaver to the bible. God uses literal objects and themes as symbols for spiritual truth in many cases. See how Jesus interprets the OT and go with that.Prove your point because literal wherever possible is the gold standard of Bible interpretation.
In the NT Jesus IS Israel. Also the Temple along with believers. The Kingdom is spiritual. But only the born again can see it so the pharisees remained blind to it and rejected Christ because of it.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Literal where ever possible is like taking a meat cleaver to the bible. God uses literal objects and themes as symbols for spiritual truth in many cases. See how Jesus interprets the OT and go with that.Prove your point because literal wherever possible is the gold standard of Bible interpretation.
In the NT Jesus IS Israel. Also the Temple along with believers. The Kingdom is spiritual. But only the born again can see it so the pharisees remained blind to it and rejected Christ because of it.
Jesus is not Israel in the NT. He is a temple, not the temple. I don't disagree with the Kingdom to a point.
Even still, none of that speaks to literal wherever possible and how I take a meat cleaver to the Scripture. Prove your point.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Literal where ever possible is like taking a meat cleaver to the bible. God uses literal objects and themes as symbols for spiritual truth in many cases. See how Jesus interprets the OT and go with that.Prove your point because literal wherever possible is the gold standard of Bible interpretation.
In the NT Jesus IS Israel. Also the Temple along with believers. The Kingdom is spiritual. But only the born again can see it so the pharisees remained blind to it and rejected Christ because of it.
Jesus is not Israel in the NT. He is a temple, not the temple. I don't disagree with the Kingdom to a point.
Even still, none of that speaks to literal wherever possible and how I take a meat cleaver to the Scripture. Prove your point.
One must be born again to see it.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Literal where ever possible is like taking a meat cleaver to the bible. God uses literal objects and themes as symbols for spiritual truth in many cases. See how Jesus interprets the OT and go with that.Prove your point because literal wherever possible is the gold standard of Bible interpretation.
In the NT Jesus IS Israel. Also the Temple along with believers. The Kingdom is spiritual. But only the born again can see it so the pharisees remained blind to it and rejected Christ because of it.
Jesus is not Israel in the NT. He is a temple, not the temple. I don't disagree with the Kingdom to a point.
Even still, none of that speaks to literal wherever possible and how I take a meat cleaver to the Scripture. Prove your point.
One must be born again to see it.
Dave you are deflecting the point again, as usual.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Literal where ever possible is like taking a meat cleaver to the bible. God uses literal objects and themes as symbols for spiritual truth in many cases. See how Jesus interprets the OT and go with that.Prove your point because literal wherever possible is the gold standard of Bible interpretation.
In the NT Jesus IS Israel. Also the Temple along with believers. The Kingdom is spiritual. But only the born again can see it so the pharisees remained blind to it and rejected Christ because of it.
Jesus is not Israel in the NT. He is a temple, not the temple. I don't disagree with the Kingdom to a point.
Even still, none of that speaks to literal wherever possible and how I take a meat cleaver to the Scripture. Prove your point.
One must be born again to see it.
Dave you are deflecting the point again, as usual.
If you cannot see the kingdom, I cannot convince you.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Literal where ever possible is like taking a meat cleaver to the bible. God uses literal objects and themes as symbols for spiritual truth in many cases. See how Jesus interprets the OT and go with that.Prove your point because literal wherever possible is the gold standard of Bible interpretation.
In the NT Jesus IS Israel. Also the Temple along with believers. The Kingdom is spiritual. But only the born again can see it so the pharisees remained blind to it and rejected Christ because of it.
Jesus is not Israel in the NT. He is a temple, not the temple. I don't disagree with the Kingdom to a point.
Even still, none of that speaks to literal wherever possible and how I take a meat cleaver to the Scripture. Prove your point.
One must be born again to see it.
Dave you are deflecting the point again, as usual.
If you cannot see the kingdom, I cannot convince you.
What do you think you are trying to convince me of? I am talking about interpreting the Bible literally.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Literal where ever possible is like taking a meat cleaver to the bible. God uses literal objects and themes as symbols for spiritual truth in many cases. See how Jesus interprets the OT and go with that.Prove your point because literal wherever possible is the gold standard of Bible interpretation.
In the NT Jesus IS Israel. Also the Temple along with believers. The Kingdom is spiritual. But only the born again can see it so the pharisees remained blind to it and rejected Christ because of it.
Jesus is not Israel in the NT. He is a temple, not the temple. I don't disagree with the Kingdom to a point.
Even still, none of that speaks to literal wherever possible and how I take a meat cleaver to the Scripture. Prove your point.
One must be born again to see it.
Dave you are deflecting the point again, as usual.
If you cannot see the kingdom, I cannot convince you.
What do you think you are trying to convince me of? I am talking about interpreting the Bible literally.
Forced literalism ignores the meaning of many passages.
-
@reformed said:
Literal whenever possible. You should always assume literal first unless it is obvious that it is not literal based on context.So then, since it is very obvious from the overall context of the book of Rev (for example, cp Rev 1:1-3 ) that the events revealed and prophesied and written in the book were to come to pass shortly and soon after the prophecy was given, the "1000 years" can OBVIOUSLY not be a reference to a literal 1000 years.
Why are you violating your own principle of interpretation regarding what is literal and what is not literal ??@Wolfgang said:
Most likely @reformed will just claim that serpent and dragon are figurative but 1000 years are literal ... to suit his liking and theology. Perhaps we will get a reply in which he explains according to which rules of language he correctly identifies in a given text what is literal and what is not literalClearly they are names for Satan. They are describing Satan. This is not difficult guys.
"Devil" and "serpent" are names for "Satan" ?? Or are "Satan" and "Devil" names for a specific kind of snake/serpent ?? I would think your claim is rather difficult and in realty impossible ... since "Devil" nor "Satan" nor "serpent/snake" are NOT names in the first place.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Literal where ever possible is like taking a meat cleaver to the bible. God uses literal objects and themes as symbols for spiritual truth in many cases. See how Jesus interprets the OT and go with that.Prove your point because literal wherever possible is the gold standard of Bible interpretation.
In the NT Jesus IS Israel. Also the Temple along with believers. The Kingdom is spiritual. But only the born again can see it so the pharisees remained blind to it and rejected Christ because of it.
Jesus is not Israel in the NT. He is a temple, not the temple. I don't disagree with the Kingdom to a point.
Even still, none of that speaks to literal wherever possible and how I take a meat cleaver to the Scripture. Prove your point.
One must be born again to see it.
Dave you are deflecting the point again, as usual.
If you cannot see the kingdom, I cannot convince you.
What do you think you are trying to convince me of? I am talking about interpreting the Bible literally.
Forced literalism ignores the meaning of many passages.
Nobody is talking about forced literalism.
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Literal whenever possible. You should always assume literal first unless it is obvious that it is not literal based on context.So then, since it is very obvious from the overall context of the book of Rev (for example, cp Rev 1:1-3 ) that the events revealed and prophesied and written in the book were to come to pass shortly and soon after the prophecy was given, the "1000 years" can OBVIOUSLY not be a reference to a literal 1000 years.
Why are you violating your own principle of interpretation regarding what is literal and what is not literal ??That's not obvious at all.
@Wolfgang said:
Most likely @reformed will just claim that serpent and dragon are figurative but 1000 years are literal ... to suit his liking and theology. Perhaps we will get a reply in which he explains according to which rules of language he correctly identifies in a given text what is literal and what is not literalClearly they are names for Satan. They are describing Satan. This is not difficult guys.
"Devil" and "serpent" are names for "Satan" ?? Or are "Satan" and "Devil" names for a specific kind of snake/serpent ?? I would think your claim is rather difficult and in realty impossible ... since "Devil" nor "Satan" nor "serpent/snake" are NOT names in the first place.
Now you are just playing dumb.
-
Literal wherever possible = forced literalism.
-
@Dave_L said:
Literal wherever possible = forced literalism.No it doesn't. Forced literalism means you take everything literally even if it is obviously figurative. In other words, forced literalism would say this:
A day is as 1,000 years to the Lord, therefore God's time is different than ours and each creation day was 1,000 years.
-
“who made us adequate to be servants of a new covenant not based on the letter but on the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Corinthians 3:6)
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Literal whenever possible. You should always assume literal first unless it is obvious that it is not literal based on context.So then, since it is very obvious from the overall context of the book of Rev (for example, cp Rev 1:1-3 ) that the events revealed and prophesied and written in the book were to come to pass shortly and soon after the prophecy was given, the "1000 years" can OBVIOUSLY not be a reference to a literal 1000 years.
Why are you violating your own principle of interpretation regarding what is literal and what is not literal ??That's not obvious at all.
It is not obvious that a literal 1000 years are not literally "shortly" or "soon"? If that is not obvious, what then is obvious, @reformed ???
@Wolfgang said:
Most likely @reformed will just claim that serpent and dragon are figurative but 1000 years are literal ... to suit his liking and theology. Perhaps we will get a reply in which he explains according to which rules of language he correctly identifies in a given text what is literal and what is not literalClearly they are names for Satan. They are describing Satan. This is not difficult guys.
"Devil" and "serpent" are names for "Satan" ?? Or are "Satan" and "Devil" names for a specific kind of snake/serpent ?? I would think your claim is rather difficult and in realty impossible ... since "Devil" nor "Satan" nor "serpent/snake" are NOT names in the first place.
Now you are just playing dumb.
I am NOT playing dumb in the least ...but I am telling you the truth that these terms are NOT names in the first place. Why do you not acknowledge this most simple truth and fact??
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Literal whenever possible. You should always assume literal first unless it is obvious that it is not literal based on context.So then, since it is very obvious from the overall context of the book of Rev (for example, cp Rev 1:1-3 ) that the events revealed and prophesied and written in the book were to come to pass shortly and soon after the prophecy was given, the "1000 years" can OBVIOUSLY not be a reference to a literal 1000 years.
Why are you violating your own principle of interpretation regarding what is literal and what is not literal ??That's not obvious at all.
It is not obvious that a literal 1000 years are not literally "shortly" or "soon"? If that is not obvious, what then is obvious, @reformed ???
Reference?
@Wolfgang said:
Most likely @reformed will just claim that serpent and dragon are figurative but 1000 years are literal ... to suit his liking and theology. Perhaps we will get a reply in which he explains according to which rules of language he correctly identifies in a given text what is literal and what is not literalClearly they are names for Satan. They are describing Satan. This is not difficult guys.
"Devil" and "serpent" are names for "Satan" ?? Or are "Satan" and "Devil" names for a specific kind of snake/serpent ?? I would think your claim is rather difficult and in realty impossible ... since "Devil" nor "Satan" nor "serpent/snake" are NOT names in the first place.
Now you are just playing dumb.
I am NOT playing dumb in the least ...but I am telling you the truth that these terms are NOT names in the first place. Why do you not acknowledge this most simple truth and fact??
Because I don't accept that as a simple truth and fact.
-
IF you had read the post above more carefully, you would have noticed the reference to Rev 1:1-3 ...
Rev 1:1-3 (LEB)
1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his slaves the things which must take place in a short time, and communicated it by* sending it through his angel to his slave John, 2 who testified about the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud and blessed are* those who hear the words of the prophecy and observe the things written in it, because the time is nearHave these scriptures made it obvious to you?
I am NOT playing dumb in the least ...but I am telling you the truth that these terms are NOT names in the first place. Why do you not acknowledge this most simple truth and fact??
Because I don't accept that as a simple truth and fact.
Ha ha ha ... best argument I've read in a long time. When you recognize that your argument has been shown to be wrong, just write "I do't accept that ...." Now, that's really cute @reformed
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)