Search results

No need to check behind you. You convinced me a long time ago that you do know your history quite well, and you won't give historical information that you can't back up. I'm also familiar with the theory that places Rome as the 6th kingdom, HRE as the 7th, and the last as the Beast's empire...

To quote the famous line from "Cool Hand Luke", "what we have here is a failure to communicate". Our chocolate bar is a definite known quantity. I thought one of the main points of this OP is whether or know we can know the amount of time in question. I meant to say that we do not know how...

I'll say it again - Scripture shapes history, but you are looking for a literal fulfillment of symbolic events. But then, both of us are repeating what we've said before.

It's only vague in that we don't know how long a period of time Peter or John actually do refer to. If we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So, the metaphor refers to time, but we know how much time. Maybe your point is that a metaphor is not the right term, based on the "armor of...

While preterists take a symbolic view of things that futurists take literal, we are not necessarily vague or ambiguous. I thought I had given a definite meaning, where the metaphor points to an unspecified period of time. As we agree, God's perspective of time is quite different from ours...

Now you are making me wish I'd paid more attention in English class :). I believe the 1,000 years is a metaphor referring to an undetermined, but probably very long, period of time. Thank you for the clarification regard "risk taker". You are right - God is certainly not bound by days and...

2 Peter 3:8 uses a metaphor to compare God's perspective of time to ours. The Book of Revelation contains more symbolism than any other book in the Bible. We see a lot of symbols, such as a woman sitting on a dragon, stars coming down to earth, etc. Revelation 20 says that Satan will be bound...

I don't believe in the rapture at all. I do believe in the resurrection, which will come after the "millennium". However, I don't believe the millennium will be a literal 1,000 years. I see that @John of Japan has just started a post on that very topic. Does that answer your question, Brother?

I must respectfully disagree, sir. I believe they are definitely tied together. Babylon has always been a name for apostate Israel. 1st Century Jerusalem was the Babylon of Revelation. OTOH, as a veteran of Desert Shield / Desert Storm, I completely agree with you that Saddam was trying to...

No sir, I cannot.

So you keep saying. You haven't brought up any "fresh" argument, and I don't have anything to say that I haven't already said.

I've always understood the "day as a 1,000 years" to be an illustration of God's perspective. The fact that 1,000 years is used so often in Rev 20 doesn't necessarily mean that it is a literal 1,000 years. John keeps pointing to the same period of time. I believe it to be an illustration of a...

1. As I understand it, Paul is speaking of "physical" Israel and of "faithful" Israel. Going down to verse 30, we see that Israel had pursued righteousness by the Law, but failed. Gentiles attained righteousness through faith. So, Israel was rejected, but the people of Israel need the Gospel...

I kind of fall into that same camp (except that I'm not much of a theologian). I believe that the Jewish people are not totally lost, but God doesn't have a future plan for the nation of Israel. I take the "Spiritual Israel" passages quite literally. Time to run, so I hope to visit tomorrow.

Yes, that does make sense. It certainly can be a challenge to discern the literal from the symbolic. I try to see what similar symbolism was used in other Scripture, such as the OT prophets. Even that can still be a challenge, though.

As you've probably noticed if you've been reading through this discussion, I believe the 1,000 years in Rev 20 is symbolic. It's not much different from the Lord owning the cattle on 1,000 hills, or a day with the Lord is better than 1,000 elsewhere. I see where the events of Rev 20 follow Rev...

True. Getting into the weeds is really pointless. All that truly matters is whether we take up our cross and follow Christ. Eschatological views, Baptismal views, Gifts of the Spirit views, etc. are important, but they can also be distractions from the main issue.

I must respectfully disagree, Brother. I think both may be implicit at best.

Please elaborate about "soft clay Preterist views.

You make some very good points, Sir. I stand corrected. Even though the idea made sense to me, it's no good if I can't use Scripture to back it up.