But shouldn't we interpret the Bible spiritually instead of literally?

There is no “hordes of evil,” men. But fallen men who must submit to the rule of Christ, for any rebelliousness is immediately and thoroughly resolved. Hence the term applied to that rule as being with “a rod of iron.”

Perhaps you can show how this current age can be compared to that which the statements of Scripture present.

Are there not islands and mountains, is Jerusalem a sea port, where is the Ezekiel temple that has no gentle or women’s court, ...

 

If Jesus wanted it to. He made a donkey talk WITH GOD, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

See my above response.

Whatever kind of chain it'll be, it'll hold Satan.

 

Hab 2:11 The stones of the wall will cry out, and the beams of the woodwork will echo it.

Luke 19:40 “I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”

Or as John warned:
Mat 3:9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.​

 

@John of Japan
I would appreciate a reply to my post #14 But shouldn't we interpret the Bible spiritually instead of literally?

 

Terms have meanings. I said, literalistically.

 

[Insult edited]

My comments are generalizations, of course. I can't argue against every nuance of dispensationalism. I argue against what I see in this errant movement.

The logical implication of a dispensational view is that one should ignore the OT. Surely, if you are are an honest man, you will agree. A past dispensation means little (nothing) because it's irrelevant.

 

Im not mocking anything. If he did, [Mockery edited] Its not mockery.

You said you have no patience for preterism and do not think to highly of it, but when I said something about the literalness of a verse, i'm mocking it?

Yes white horses are very nice, nobody said it wasn't normal.

 

That was just a robycop3 response. I enjoy his replies.

Do you know how AT Robertson explained it? If the repetitiveness was clear literalness, why was he so mistaken?

When I came on here, I had no position on the Millennium. I always was a PreMill because it was the only thing I have ever heard of... I am learning a lot thanks to the wonderful friends I have found on here. This site is truly a blessing.
The only thing I was sure of was the Discourse...

 

Because we think the white horse is symbolic?
Jesus's rightful honor and glory does not depend on him riding a literal white horse.

We believe he is sitting on the Throne of David now, Reigning in his kingdom (the Church) Until the day of Judgment.
Millennialists are waiting for his reign during a future millennium, during a time where the temple system is brought back.

In this situation I do not believe its us who is denying Christ of anything.

 

Did your grandfather wear bloody clothes and a stack of hats, too?

I think the actuality will be more glorious and terrifying than can be imagined. An actual white horse would be an abasement, like if He returned to dwell in a temple made with hands.

 

I thought the symbolism of the white horse was unmistakable, even when I was a Dispy. I am utterly surprised that anyone actually thinks Christ will be riding a white horse out of Heaven.

 

If someone, who takes a "literal" approach, mind you, could get Apache Helicopters from this passage, then the white horse is not too bad:

The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. They had tails with stingers, like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months.​

 

Those are not prophecies.