Originally posted by eschaton
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Eschatology 201 Guidelines
This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.
Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.
However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.
End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.
Millennialism- post-, pre- a-
Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.
From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.
OK folks, let's roll!
Forum Rules: Here
Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.
However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.
End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.
Millennialism- post-, pre- a-
Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.
From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.
OK folks, let's roll!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Why prophecy can't be taken literally
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI was trying to hone in on what you meant, until you made it a bit more clear in post#13. At first I thought you meant all prophecy was merely allegory (not be taken as a literal event). But it seems you mean something different.
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
You're saying that the story of Abraham and his son is not literal.
Comment
-
Originally posted by eschaton View PostYou're saying it again. Now you're saying allegory is not a literal event.
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
You're saying that the story of Abraham and his son is not literal.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostWhat I thought you were saying in the OP was that all prophecy is only allegory, thus should not be taken as literal events. My belief is that allegory and parables are not literal events but used to convey a message, therefore this is NOT what prophecy is. When you brought up Paul's use of "allegory" (of course this is the English translation of that Greek word), he obviously wasn't saying the story of Abraham wasn't true. That's not what you're saying is it? Paul meant that the REAL event of Abraham and his children also represented a future event, so in that sense a REAL event was allegorical (again, this is the English translation of that word) of a future event to come.SeanD: Or the prophecy in the Jeremiah of the rebuilding of Jerusalem and second temple*literally*fulfilled, down to the exact days. Or the prophecy about Tyre in Isaiah*literally*fulfilled exactly the way it was prophesied. In fact, a lot of the prophecies were so accurately fulfilled you have some skeptics that try to argue they were written after the fact.
Comment
-
Okay, well, then I guess I'm done. I suspect I misunderstood what you were saying in the OP, but I'm not clear what exactly you're arguing. My position is that prophecy is not allegory. Allegory is fictional. Prophecy is about real future events yet to come. Sometimes real events might also represent or reflect a future event, so in that sense I guess you call it "allegorical," but that isn't typically how I see an allegorical biblical story.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostOkay, well, then I guess I'm done. I suspect I misunderstood what you were saying in the OP, but I'm not clear what exactly you're arguing. My position is that prophecy is not allegory. Allegory is fictional. Prophecy is about real future events yet to come. Sometimes real events might also represent or reflect a future event, so in that sense I guess you call it "allegorical," but that isn't typically how I see an allegorical biblical story.
Typology (19th century)
2. the study and interpretation of types and symbols, originally especially in the Bible.
My position is that prophecy is given in allegorical language, although I use the same definition for the word allegory (metaphoric but not necessarily fictional) that was used in earlier times (like Paul) so you're right about that.
You say that prophecy isn't an allegory, but I haven't seen an example. Tell me when this literal prophecy was fulfilled.
Isa 60:16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the Lord am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
Comment
-
In post #9 I gave the definition of literal that I was going by and seadD didn't dispute it. In post #11 I took a look at X and concluded that X didn't occur in a literal way, and that wasn't disputed either.
Comment
-
Originally posted by eschaton View PostThe prophets of Israel were communicated to in visions and dreams. Moses was spoken to plainly. That means the dreams and visions have to be interpreted, they are not literal, plain speech. There is no indication that dreams and visions are different in the NT. They cannot be taken literally. That's why systems that claim to take the Bible, or at least prophecy, literally are wrong.
Moses explained how to interpret symbols in his psalm, Psalm 90. He compares creation symbolism to human life.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Maranatha View PostIn looking at your posts in this thread a question comes to mind, who do you believe has this literal interpretation you are speaking against?
6. He said, "Please listen to My words. If there be prophets among you, [I][I]
Comment
-
Originally posted by eschaton View PostWhy do I understand Psalm 90 in a literal way? It is a Psalm of Moses whom God spoke to without similitude or "dark speeches." It explains symbolism rather than being a prophecy. It is a psalm though, so it is sort of like a song. That doesn't mean it can't be understood in a literal way. Why do I understand Num 12:6-8 literally? It is really not a prophecy. It is an explanation from God. I discovered I'm not the only one that understands it that way. I mentioned Maimonides (1138-1204) who understood it that way. Rabbi Rashi (1040-1105), who some consider the greatest exegete, made the following commentary:
Comment
-
Originally posted by Maranatha View PostPerhaps you didn't understand. What people, or groups of people, hold to this literal interpretation that you believe is too literal.
Comment
-
I believe prophecy will be fulfilled and is fulfilled every day in the hearts of believers (2 Pet 1:19, Isa 9:2). As far as some sort of earthly geo/political fulfillment? Probably, but it is better to have faith, live righteously, and have a wait and see attitude. I would look to verses such as 2 Tim 3:1 and 1 Pet 1:20. We've been in the last days since the advent of Christ.
Comment
-
Originally posted by eschaton View PostI believe prophecy will be fulfilled and is fulfilled every day in the hearts of believers (2 Pet 1:19, Isa 9:2). As far as some sort of earthly geo/political fulfillment? Probably, but it is better to have faith, live righteously, and have a wait and see attitude. I would look to verses such as 2 Tim 3:1 and 1 Pet 1:20. We've been in the last days since the advent of Christ.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment