- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: End times prophecy: Armies of Gog & Magog attack Israel and are destroyed by God
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:03 am to Mo Jeaux
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:03 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Those terms are pretty generic. Why didn't God show them a mushroom-shaped cloud, or something like that?
How do you know the writer didn’t have vision of a mushroom cloud? He would still not have any real world knowledge of what that meant.
1
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:06 am to Revelator
quote:
How do you know the writer didn’t have vision of a mushroom cloud?
Because he doesn't say it.
quote:
He would still not have any real world knowledge of what that meant.
A mushroom-shaped cloud? Why not?
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:08 am to Pdubntrub
quote:
Christians believe the old testament too
You interpret the Old Testament literally?
This post was edited on 5/14/21 at 8:12 am
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:08 am to Esquire
quote:
So do you not eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics?
Jesus came to fulfill the law.
Specifically the answer you're looking for is in Acts
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:10 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
A mushroom-shaped cloud? Why not?
Perhaps in the writers mind, that’s insignificant? He’s more interested in the fire falling from the sky and killing people.
Plus, I’m the one that suggested it might be nuclear. We have no way to know.
It could be an unknown technology. Perhaps something like a space laser?
This post was edited on 5/14/21 at 8:16 am
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:11 am to Revelator
quote:
He’s more interested in the fire falling from the sky and killing people.
Which I’m sure literally happened around him as he was writing and in no way was simply a literary device.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:16 am to Indefatigable
quote:I do. And by “literally”, I mean according to the style of literature it was written as. The historical narrative passages and books I read as historical. The poetic passages and books I read as poetry and so on. Fortunately it is pretty easy to know which passages should be read in which ways.
You interpret the Old Testament literally?
ETA: A big problem I see with premil interpretations of the end times is the adamant literal reading of so many apocalyptic passages while at the same time making them allegorical or representative of something not literal. It is an internally inconsistent hermeneutic.
For example, the locusts with stinging tails are never assumed to be locusts, as a true literal reading of the passage would require, but they are horses with riders with guns (an interpretation from the 1800s) or attack helicopters. Yet the 1000 years must be a literal 1000 years.
This post was edited on 5/14/21 at 8:23 am
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:17 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The historical narrative passages and books I read as historical.
You can just say you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old so we can all get our laughs out.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:18 am to FooManChoo
quote:
And by “literally”, I mean according to the style of literature it was written as.
Oh, so not literally.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:19 am to Indefatigable
Do you almost have his mind changed?
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:19 am to Esquire
quote:
You can just say you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old so we can all get our laughs out.
I’m pretty sure your type will laugh regardless of his beliefs on the earths age.
This post was edited on 5/14/21 at 8:22 am
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:20 am to Revelator
quote:
I’m pretty sure your type will laugh regain his beliefs on the earths age.
What?
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:20 am to roadGator
quote:
Do you almost have his mind changed?
Hopefully, at least as to what “literally” means
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:21 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Oh, so not literally.
Some things are obviously not literal and it’s written as such. When Jesus calls his followers sheep, he doesn’t mean literal sheep.
When he says, I am the door, he’s not sayings he’s a literal door.
On and on
This post was edited on 5/14/21 at 8:23 am
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:30 am to Indefatigable
quote:I take the authors literally, as in I believe exactly what was written, as it was written. Their style must be read according to the style in which they were written. Not sure what’s hard to understand about that.
Oh, so not literally.
I suppose you want me to take historical narrative like the creation story as allegorical or poetry, right? That would not be reading the passages according to the style in which they were written.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:33 am to Esquire
quote:We are having a lively discussion about the end of things, not the beginning of them, so it’s not necessary for me to say anything about the creation narrative in the Bible except that it was written as a historical narrative rather than poetry or allegory.
You can just say you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old so we can all get our laughs out.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:46 am to Esquire
quote:
You can just say you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old so we can all get our laughs out.
The Bible never says the earth is 6,000 years old, nor does it mention any specific age. Some theologians have interpreted the earth being 6,000 years old because they take the literal interpretation of Genesis of a day, equaling a 24 hour period.
Many other theologians have other theories. Some even have a theory that the earth was created twice and there was a huge gap between the first and second creation. It’s not as simple as you pretend it to be.
This post was edited on 5/14/21 at 9:13 am
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:55 am to FooManChoo
quote:
That would not be reading the passages according to the style in which they were written.
Reading something according to the style in which it was written is not a literal interpretation.
Literal means plain language, without consideration for metaphor or writing style. Exact words take their commonly used definitions.
But I would love for you to go into more detail on the creation narrative being historical and not plain as day allegory
This post was edited on 5/14/21 at 8:56 am
Posted on 5/14/21 at 9:16 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Literal means plain language, without consideration for metaphor or writing style. Exact words take their commonly used definitions.
I’ve already illustrated where certain passages are simply not meant to be taken literally, like Jesus calling his followers sheep. They aren’t literal sheep, nor is it written to be interpreted that way. Other writings are symbolic, some use illustrations and parables.
I too take the Bible literally when it’s meant to be literal.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 9:42 am to Indefatigable
quote:Literal can mean simply taking someone at their word, understanding the clear meaning of what they are saying. However messages can be communicated different ways. I'm not reading each word in the Bible "literally", as would be the case for historical narratives, but I'm trying to understand the meaning based on what the author is attempting to communicate. I'm taking the authors literally (not trying to change their own clear meanings) even though their words are not always meant to be taken literally.
Reading something according to the style in which it was written is not a literal interpretation.
Literal means plain language, without consideration for metaphor or writing style. Exact words take their commonly used definitions.
You seem to want to be desperate for a "gotcha" but I've explained thoroughly what I meant by taking the scriptures literally. You should probably look for a more substantive issue to press on.
quote:I'm sure you would, but this thread is already being derailed by the grammatical nitpicking.
But I would love for you to go into more detail on the creation narrative being historical and not plain as day allegory
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News