Evidence of a 1000 years rest

[Guest shiloh357]

Littleflower is rather slow on the uptake, Serving.  

 

She is talking about the rules of grammar and we are talking about the rules of literature.  Littleflower doesn't understand what "literal"  means in according to the rules of literature.    She is trying to force the rules of literature to obey the rules of grammar and that is where the hang up is.   She doesn't understand the difference between the definition of literal vs. the literary concept "literal."   Two completely different things, but that is why you can't have a reasoned discussion about symbolism with her.  She just doesn't get it.

 

No one is misuing English.   She just doesn't know what she is talking about and has never really studied the rules of literature to understand how they work.  

[Sister]

 Jeremiah 9:23   Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:

  Jeremiah 9:24   But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

[Serving]

 

Therese .. you said :

 

 

 You don't look for a literal meaning of a metaphor.  That is a complete misuse of the english language.

 

You look for the intended meaning.    Intended has nothing to do with literal.

 

Huh?

 

So if I said "so & so kicked the bucket" (an intended metaphor) .. by your reckoning, we must try to understand it by creating another metaphor all together instead of acknowledging that all I really meant was so & so literally DIED !!

 

HUH?

 

My native tongue is English .. and I know what you are saying is absolutely wrong because the other peoples who also speak my tongue use metaphors everyday & in the exact way the rest of us are telling you it is used .. to represent something very literal in this very literal & real world .. just as the scriptures are using the very same method we are trying to tell you of !! .. you don't explain a metaphor by inventing another metaphor to explain someone else's interpretation of that invented metaphor only to then give it's literal meaning under someone else's rules of what they stand for all the while totally discarding what the SCRIPTURES themselves tell us !! 

 

Women are being used as metaphors / symbols for religions .. horns are for kings .. mountains are for kingdoms .. sea & waters for both peoples and also used alternatively for the Spirit, tall trees for powerful men, forests for cities, wilderness for the world at large & so on & so on & so on .. we are trying to tell you that all these symbols & metaphors we come across are likewise explained in & BY the bible itself as LITERAL real world things / peoples etc.  

 

These are metaphors & symbols which the bible itself explains as very real & literal things .. so how are we all wrong in the method not only WE use in our everyday speech but which God is also using AND explaining in His written word?

 

One group is accepting the bibles definitions .. and the group you are promoting is trying to trick us into believing their definitions instead !!

 

Er .. sorry .. but I will stick with the bibles explanations thanks.

 

Don't forget this one thing .. all this stemmed from you declaring that there is such a thing as "biblical numerology" and that gammatria is a trusted method to interpret scripture which your group is peddling .. and now we find ourselves debating word usage (which pointless thing I hate doing)

 

Thanks Therese, but I am sticking with God's explanations already explained in the scriptures instead of this other groups agenda.

 

Cheers.

 

 

No serving.

 

 

The "literal meaning" of   "he kicked the bucket" is he literally kicked a literal bucket.

 

That is what "literal meaning" means.  It takes the literal, strict, non-figurative meaning of the words.

 

 

The "symboic meaning" of  "he kicked the bucket" is he died.  There was no  "literal" kicking of anything.  There was no "literal" bucket.   There was nothing literal about the statement.  Hence there was no "literal meaning" to be found.

 

What is to be found, is its  "SYMBOLIC MEANING:"

 

 

This is a very simple matter of grammar that children are taught which is why I am scratching my head and wondering what in the heck is going on here that smart adults don't understand something so basic about grammar as this.  Someone has pulled the wool over someone's eyes here.too many people's eyes here.    I am speechless for a while when I read some of the things being posted about this here.

 

 

For your reference  -   notice the phrases "SYMBOLIC MEANING" and  "LITERAL MEANING":

 

 

sym·bol·ic

  (sĭm-bŏl′ĭk) also sym·bol·i·cal (-ĭ-kəl)

adj.

1.

a. Serving as a symbol: Roses are symbolic of love.

b. Serving as a particular instance of a broader pattern or situation; representative: The new building is symbolic of the recent changes that have taken place in the neighborhood.

2. Of, relating to, or expressed by means of symbols or a symbol: the symbolic meaning of the poem.

3. Using symbolism: symbolic art.

 

 

and again:

 

symbolism

 

noun

1.   the practice of representing things by symbols, or of investing things with a symbolic meaning or character.  

 

2.   a set or system of symbols.

 

3.   symbolic meaning or character.

 

4.   the principles and practice of symbolists in art or literature.

 

5.   (initial capital letter) a movement of the late 19th century in Frenchart and literature.

Compare symbolist (defs 3b, 4b).

 

6.    the use of any of certain special figures or marks of identification to signify a religious message or divine being, as the cross for Christ and the Christian faith.

 

 

 

The symbolic meaning tells us what the symbol means.   There is no such thing as a "literal meaning" of a symbol in any definition of symbolism, and never should we look for one.  

 

 

Literal

 

in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.

 

 

 

Here is a very basic grammar lesson for children regarding what literal meaning is and is not:

 

 

 

 

What Is the Definition of 'Literal Meaning'? (with Examples)

 

The term literal meaning denotes that all words are in strict accordance with their original meanings. In other words, to apply the literal meaning is to take the words in their most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration.

 

Examples of Literal Meaning

 

Here are some examples of literal meaning:

 

• The comedian died on the stage.

    (In the literal meaning, the comedian actually died. This contrasts with the figurative sense, which would mean that the comedian struggled to make the audience laugh.)

 

• I have thrown the proposal out.

     (In the literal meaning, the proposal has actually been thrown out as opposed to just dismissed.) 

 

• John managed to escape the wolves.

     (In the literal meaning, John actually succeeded in getting away from some genuine wolves as opposed to, say, avoiding a verbal bashing at a meeting from aggressive colleagues.)

 

 

http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/literal_meaning.htm

 

 

 

 

As we can see, looking for a so-called "literal meaning" of a symbolic word or words flies in the face of the proper use of language and grammar.    

 

If I'm wrong then so are authoritative sources.

 

 

I don't know where you learned grammar, but you learned something wrong here.

 

 

Hey Therese,

 

Lets just focus on what certain symbolisms mean when they come up okay?

 

You can give your response when someone explains one of them & why, and the other person can do the same.

 

All this quarrelling over word play is pointless & will be proven so when symbolisms are being challenged .. one will use the scriptures interpretations & you can use your gammatria & numerological interpretations & we can all just take it from there.

 

Kind regards.

[Last Daze]

 

I didn't see the terms "perfect peace" or "perfect righteousness" or "perfect" anything anywhere in the verses you quoted.

This comment is so amusing, it requires a proper response.

 

Let me ask you if when you see the word "Jesus" or "Christ" in Scripture do you ever seen the word "perfect" in front of those words?  But we all know that Christ is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT.  So if Christ is absolutely perfect, can there be any doubt whatsoever that the peace and righteounsess and prosperity which will prevail during His reign on earth will be anything less than perfect?

 

Why do Christians forget that God communicates via implication as well as via explication?  If Jesus is EMMANUEL does that not imply that He is perfect, or does God have to dumb down His Word and say "perfect Emmanuel" before we believe it?  Unbelievable!

 

 

So....where is the proper response?

 

Irrelevant diversions are not proper responses.  We're talking about human beings, with sinful natures, who exist during the 1000 year kingdom.  You claim that there will be absolutely no sin during His reign and that everyone will live perfect, sinless lives.  You then jump on some tangential semantic wagon while ignoring the central points and call that a proper response?  Really??  Now that is truly unbelievable!

 

According to your logic, when someone becomes a Christian and has the righteousness of Christ, they can no longer sin because the righteousness of Christ is perfect.  Hopefully, you can see the fallacy in that and extend it forward.  If not, I can spell it out.

 

Again, why must Christ rule the nations with a rod of iron if everything is daisies and butterflies?

 

It also seems that by extension you have created a special group of people.  According to your claim that there will be absolutely no sin during the 1000 year reign, you introduce those who are born of Adam, having a sin nature, that live perfect sinless lives.  If you would, please elaborate on this fallen sinless race with as much scriptural support as you can find.

 

I'm interested in either a "proper" response that addresses all of these specific issues or none at all.

[thereselittleflower]

 

 

Therese .. you said :

 

 

 You don't look for a literal meaning of a metaphor.  That is a complete misuse of the english language.

 

You look for the intended meaning.    Intended has nothing to do with literal.

 

Huh?

 

So if I said "so & so kicked the bucket" (an intended metaphor) .. by your reckoning, we must try to understand it by creating another metaphor all together instead of acknowledging that all I really meant was so & so literally DIED !!

 

HUH?

 

My native tongue is English .. and I know what you are saying is absolutely wrong because the other peoples who also speak my tongue use metaphors everyday & in the exact way the rest of us are telling you it is used .. to represent something very literal in this very literal & real world .. just as the scriptures are using the very same method we are trying to tell you of !! .. you don't explain a metaphor by inventing another metaphor to explain someone else's interpretation of that invented metaphor only to then give it's literal meaning under someone else's rules of what they stand for all the while totally discarding what the SCRIPTURES themselves tell us !! 

 

Women are being used as metaphors / symbols for religions .. horns are for kings .. mountains are for kingdoms .. sea & waters for both peoples and also used alternatively for the Spirit, tall trees for powerful men, forests for cities, wilderness for the world at large & so on & so on & so on .. we are trying to tell you that all these symbols & metaphors we come across are likewise explained in & BY the bible itself as LITERAL real world things / peoples etc.  

 

These are metaphors & symbols which the bible itself explains as very real & literal things .. so how are we all wrong in the method not only WE use in our everyday speech but which God is also using AND explaining in His written word?

 

One group is accepting the bibles definitions .. and the group you are promoting is trying to trick us into believing their definitions instead !!

 

Er .. sorry .. but I will stick with the bibles explanations thanks.

 

Don't forget this one thing .. all this stemmed from you declaring that there is such a thing as "biblical numerology" and that gammatria is a trusted method to interpret scripture which your group is peddling .. and now we find ourselves debating word usage (which pointless thing I hate doing)

 

Thanks Therese, but I am sticking with God's explanations already explained in the scriptures instead of this other groups agenda.

 

Cheers.

 

 

No serving.

 

 

The "literal meaning" of   "he kicked the bucket" is he literally kicked a literal bucket.

 

That is what "literal meaning" means.  It takes the literal, strict, non-figurative meaning of the words.

 

 

The "symboic meaning" of  "he kicked the bucket" is he died.  There was no  "literal" kicking of anything.  There was no "literal" bucket.   There was nothing literal about the statement.  Hence there was no "literal meaning" to be found.

 

What is to be found, is its  "SYMBOLIC MEANING:"

 

 

This is a very simple matter of grammar that children are taught which is why I am scratching my head and wondering what in the heck is going on here that smart adults don't understand something so basic about grammar as this.  Someone has pulled the wool over someone's eyes here.too many people's eyes here.    I am speechless for a while when I read some of the things being posted about this here.

 

 

For your reference  -   notice the phrases "SYMBOLIC MEANING" and  "LITERAL MEANING":

 

 

sym·bol·ic

  (sĭm-bŏl′ĭk) also sym·bol·i·cal (-ĭ-kəl)

adj.

1.

a. Serving as a symbol: Roses are symbolic of love.

b. Serving as a particular instance of a broader pattern or situation; representative: The new building is symbolic of the recent changes that have taken place in the neighborhood.

2. Of, relating to, or expressed by means of symbols or a symbol: the symbolic meaning of the poem.

3. Using symbolism: symbolic art.

 

 

and again:

 

symbolism

 

noun

1.   the practice of representing things by symbols, or of investing things with a symbolic meaning or character.  

 

2.   a set or system of symbols.

 

3.   symbolic meaning or character.

 

4.   the principles and practice of symbolists in art or literature.

 

5.   (initial capital letter) a movement of the late 19th century in Frenchart and literature.

Compare symbolist (defs 3b, 4b).

 

6.    the use of any of certain special figures or marks of identification to signify a religious message or divine being, as the cross for Christ and the Christian faith.

 

 

 

The symbolic meaning tells us what the symbol means.   There is no such thing as a "literal meaning" of a symbol in any definition of symbolism, and never should we look for one.  

 

 

Literal

 

in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.

 

 

 

Here is a very basic grammar lesson for children regarding what literal meaning is and is not:

 

 

 

 

What Is the Definition of 'Literal Meaning'? (with Examples)

 

The term literal meaning denotes that all words are in strict accordance with their original meanings. In other words, to apply the literal meaning is to take the words in their most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration.

 

Examples of Literal Meaning

 

Here are some examples of literal meaning:

 

• The comedian died on the stage.

    (In the literal meaning, the comedian actually died. This contrasts with the figurative sense, which would mean that the comedian struggled to make the audience laugh.)

 

• I have thrown the proposal out.

     (In the literal meaning, the proposal has actually been thrown out as opposed to just dismissed.) 

 

• John managed to escape the wolves.

     (In the literal meaning, John actually succeeded in getting away from some genuine wolves as opposed to, say, avoiding a verbal bashing at a meeting from aggressive colleagues.)

 

 

http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/literal_meaning.htm

 

 

 

 

As we can see, looking for a so-called "literal meaning" of a symbolic word or words flies in the face of the proper use of language and grammar.    

 

If I'm wrong then so are authoritative sources.

 

 

I don't know where you learned grammar, but you learned something wrong here.

 

 

Hey Therese,

 

Lets just focus on what certain symbolisms mean when they come up okay?

 

You can give your response when someone explains one of them & why, and the other person can do the same.

 

All this quarrelling over word play is pointless & will be proven so when symbolisms are being challenged .. one will use the scriptures interpretations & you can use your gammatria & numerological interpretations & we can all just take it from there.

 

Kind regards.

 

 

 

Honestly Serving, if we don't have agreement on what words mean and the right way to use them, we may as well be speaking two different languages.     We need to properly understand what words mean or we will be using them at  odds to one another.

 

How it feels to me is that dispensationalists are redefining the English language to suit them, while everyone else is using it the normal way.

 

And I don't mean this to be insulting in any way, but as humorous imagery to help you understand a bit how I feel in these discussions  -  did you see Guardians of the Galaxy?     It's feeling to me like the responses I am getting from some people are a lot like Drax the Destroyer

 

Please I mean no offense.    I hope you receive it as a simple, over exaggerated, humorous attempt to help you understand how all this issue of literal interpretation of the scriptures feels to me.

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, thereselittleflower.

 

 

I'm not sure there's any benefit in quarreling over definitions of words.  Sure, words have meaning and for a good reason, so that we can communicate effectively and efficiently.  In the final analysis though, it is the Holy Spirit who reveals truth to us, not flesh and blood.  If we want to converse with someone about spiritual matters we should try to understand their intent more so than their technical use of grammar and verb tenses, etc. especially in a written exchange.....in my opinion.

 

Word disputes cause unnecessary strife.  Instead, focus on what they mean to say ...

 

 

The problem with using the word "literal" incorrectly in this discussion is its deceptiveness.

 

Revelation is highly symbolic because of the genre of literature to which it belongs - apocalyptic genre.

 

That means the symbols are not literal and so you do not look for a literal meaning.   You look for their symbolic meaning.

 

 

When people say we are to look for the literal meaning of the symbols, they then use this to interpret the symbols literally instead of symbolically when it is convenient for them to do so.

 

 

So we see the phrase  "a thousand years"   - which is a symbolic number in apocalyptic literature -  being approached to discover its "literal" meaning rather than it's symbolic meaning.  This is deceptive for there is no such thing as a literal meaning of symbols.  And then, it is rationalized, since we are looking for its "literal" meaning then that must mean,  Literally speaking, this is an actual 1000 years, because now we are interpreting the words literally instead of looking for what he number of years symbolizes.   Being a symbol, it cannot mean a literal 1000 years by definition.

 

Yet, the claim it is a proper approach to look for a "literal" meaning behind symbols, rather than the "symbolic" meaning,  is bogus - for it misuses the English language to give a superficial appearance of legitimacy to allow us to reach the conclusion that we are then free to change the nature of the words which are used by John as symbols, to something that is to be literally understood.

 

This is why the proper use of language is important, especially when it comes to interpreting scripture.

 

 

Don’t you realize that you’ve started with a circular reasoning? For you to say, “Revelation is highly symbolic because of the genre of literature to which it belongs - apocalyptic genre,” you are putting the cart before the horse and saying that Revelation is symbolic because it is apocalyptic. But, to say that a book is apocalyptic is to say that it is LIKE the Apocalypse (from Apokalupsis), the Greek name for Revelation! The assumption, therefore, is that the book is primarily symbolic! Yet, you’ve NOT proven that it is “highly symbolic” by saying that it’s of its OWN genre!

 

I’ll stick to finding the literal within the book, thank you. I believe that the book is MUCH more literal than you’d like to believe. Just because one can’t see how it could be literal doesn’t mean that it won’t be literal!

[thereselittleflower]

Shalom, thereselittleflower.

 

 

I'm not sure there's any benefit in quarreling over definitions of words.  Sure, words have meaning and for a good reason, so that we can communicate effectively and efficiently.  In the final analysis though, it is the Holy Spirit who reveals truth to us, not flesh and blood.  If we want to converse with someone about spiritual matters we should try to understand their intent more so than their technical use of grammar and verb tenses, etc. especially in a written exchange.....in my opinion.

 

Word disputes cause unnecessary strife.  Instead, focus on what they mean to say ...

 

 

The problem with using the word "literal" incorrectly in this discussion is its deceptiveness.

 

Revelation is highly symbolic because of the genre of literature to which it belongs - apocalyptic genre.

 

That means the symbols are not literal and so you do not look for a literal meaning.   You look for their symbolic meaning.

 

 

When people say we are to look for the literal meaning of the symbols, they then use this to interpret the symbols literally instead of symbolically when it is convenient for them to do so.

 

 

So we see the phrase  "a thousand years"   - which is a symbolic number in apocalyptic literature -  being approached to discover its "literal" meaning rather than it's symbolic meaning.  This is deceptive for there is no such thing as a literal meaning of symbols.  And then, it is rationalized, since we are looking for its "literal" meaning then that must mean,  Literally speaking, this is an actual 1000 years, because now we are interpreting the words literally instead of looking for what he number of years symbolizes.   Being a symbol, it cannot mean a literal 1000 years by definition.

 

Yet, the claim it is a proper approach to look for a "literal" meaning behind symbols, rather than the "symbolic" meaning,  is bogus - for it misuses the English language to give a superficial appearance of legitimacy to allow us to reach the conclusion that we are then free to change the nature of the words which are used by John as symbols, to something that is to be literally understood.

 

This is why the proper use of language is important, especially when it comes to interpreting scripture.

 

 

Don’t you realize that you’ve started with a circular reasoning? For you to say, “Revelation is highly symbolic because of the genre of literature to which it belongs - apocalyptic genre,” you are putting the cart before the horse and saying that Revelation is symbolic because it is apocalyptic. But, to say that a book is apocalyptic is to say that it is LIKE the Apocalypse (from Apokalupsis), the Greek name for Revelation! The assumption, therefore, is that the book is primarily symbolic! Yet, you’ve NOT proven that it is “highly symbolic” by saying that it’s of its OWN genre!

 

I’ll stick to finding the literal within the book, thank you. I believe that the book is MUCH more literal than you’d like to believe. Just because one can’t see how it could be literal doesn’t mean that it won’t be literal!

 

 

Circular reasoning would be   "A: a thousand years' is literal because B: it is a literal "thousand years"  - >  " B: It is a ilteral "thousand years" because A: a "thousand years" is literal."  - >  "A: a thousand years' is literal because B: it is a literal "thousand years" 

 

It just revolves around on itself.

 

 

Linear would be     A: Fact:- Apocalyptic Genre is highly symbolic and imargry and numbers in this genre are symbolilcally used. + Fact: Revelation is of the Apolcalytic Genre - > B: Revelation is highly symbollc, imagery and numbers are symbolically used - >  C: "a thousand years" uses a number which is symbolic (because numbers are symbolic in apocalyptic literature) - > D: this means "a thousand years" is not a literal 1000 years.

 

You start at one point and end at another.   You do not start over again at the beginning.   Giving the reason why something is true is not the same thing as using what is true to support the reason.  

 

 

By your argument then saying that  "

 

The Hobbit is fantasy because it belongs to the Fantasy Genre"

 

would be a circular argument.    That makes no sense whatsoever my friend.

[Guest shiloh357]

Amazing how no one but littleflower understands what words mean or how the rules of interpretation or anything else works.  

 

Littleflower is trying to make her subjective definitions of terms the working definitions for everyone else because she can't do hermeneutics in an honest manner.   She can't make her case using the rules of literature or literary analysis as they actually are.  She can't do real exegesis.    So now she has try and force everyone to abide by her rules and her definitions, or else they are not capable of logical conversation.

 

That's what this whole thing has boiled down to. It is good to see that no one is buying into her nonsense. 

[Guest shiloh357]

The problem is that littleflower applies symbolism where no symbolism is indicated in the Bible.   She is as nearly as bad at exegesis  as you are. 

 

The antediluvian angels were thrown into abyss.   But Satan and his demons are not bound and are still roaming free.  The antediluvian angels are not roaming the earth.

[Guest shiloh357]

Now, your mixing genres.  Satan is literally bound and cast into the abyss for 1,000 years.  There is no symbolism in that text (except what you and littleflower try to manufacture.

 

The Psalmist speaking figuratively about his emotional state.   There is a difference.  If you were a Bible believer, you would understand the difference.