Evidence of a 1000 years rest

[Guest shiloh357]

I am not using the English language incorrectly.   In fact, I am using the way EVERYONE else on this thread who opposes you is using.   You seem to not understand the difference between the different ways the word "literal" is used.    And I can understand that.   You have an agenda.   If you can't force everyone else to use the word "literal"  the way you use it, if you can't make your definitions of words the working definition that the rest of us have to use, then your entire pathetic theological platform collapses.

 

I have provided example after example of how we approach metaphorical language in the Bible and in ordinary life.  We naturally understand figurative devices in the light of the literal meaning the author intends.   I have demonstrated how one can use a word like "love"  to mean "hate" in a literary setting, and that "literal meaning"   means something different in literary analysis than it means when you are talking about the literal meaning of the word.

 

To argue that we don't look for literal meaning behind figurative devices is contrary to what our own empirical experiences.    It is simply delusional on your part.   So far, in case you haven't picked up on it yet,  NO ONE is agreeing with you.   So far, I have not had to read any posts by anyone on this board who sees things your way.   Your views on this have been rejected by everyone who has bothered to address what you are claiming.

 

So I am not alone on this matter.

[thereselittleflower]

Shiloh, you said:

 

"I am not using the English language incorrectly.   In fact, I am using the way EVERYONE else on this thread who opposes you is using. "

 

 

You are most definitely using the English language incorrectly.  Just because others also use it incorrectly in the same way does not make your use therefore correct.  It is still incorrect.

 

 

This appeal to majority is not logical proof or evidence you are using a word or phrase correctly.  Just because a group of people also use it incorrectly simply means you are ALL using it incorrectly and not the way the rest of the world uses the English language.    I would love to know the common source of this distortion of the English language and the meanings and use of the words "real" and "literal."

 

At one time people believed the world to be flat.   They were wrong.  Just because others agree with you does not make you right and it does not make them right.   To claim so is to engage in the logical fallacy of

 

"Argumentum ad populum "   "Appeal to Popularity" or "Appeal to Majority."

 

This argument has the form:

 

The majority (of people, nations, etc.) believe p; therefore, p is true.

 

In this case, the subjective state of large numbers of people, not just a single person, is being used as evidence for the truth of a proposition. But the argument is still subjective--and still fallacious. We can see why, once again, by identifying the implicit assumption: namely, that whatever the majority believes to be true is true. Majority opinion is obviously not infallible.

 

 

We can discuss logic and logical fallacies if you would like.

[Last Daze]

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 ...

[Guest shiloh357]

That's the problem, Last Daze...    What do they mean?   We are not arguing over definitions as much as we are arguing over how literary devices are meant to be handled and what they mean. She needs for us to discard literalism in interpretation because if literary devices have literal meanings behind them, littleflower's entire argument implodes on itself. 

[Guest shiloh357]

I am not using the English language incorrectly and neither are those who are posting in this thread who also disagree with you.   We are using the English language correctly.  

 

But this is not about language as much as it is the principles that undergird literary analysis.   I have already demonstrated that word usage trumps word meaning in literature.   You understand an author by how he uses his word, not merely the meaning of the words, because words can be used in ways that depart from their lexical definitions.

 

In addition, figurative devices are just that they are figurative.  Figurative devices are not interpreted at face value or in a nonfigurative way.   That means when Jesus says he is "the door"  we don't interpret that non-figuratively.  In other words we don't interpret Jesus to mean he is an actual door.   The proper approach is for us to see what Jesus literally meant.   He meant that he is means by which we are saved.  That's the literal meaning.

 

I don't and never will accept any correction from you.  You don't know what you're talking about.   I know literary analysis far better than you do, and I have long track record on this board and in the classroom where hermeneutics are concerned.

[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.

[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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ezra]

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!

[Ezra]

That's the problem, Last Daze...    What do they mean?   We are not arguing over definitions as much as we are arguing over how literary devices are meant to be handled and what they mean. She needs for us to discard literalism in interpretation because if literary devices have literal meanings behind them, littleflower's entire argument implodes on itself. 

There should come a time when someone who is clearly mistaken admit it frankly and gracefully and move on. It appears that Christians (of all people) frequently or constantly do not want to admit that they are off track, but would rather cling tenaciously to their own fantasies.  That's why you will never get people who hold to false doctrine ever candidly admit that they were mistaken, and that it is time to change course.

[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.