Millennial Reign <bring.it.on@revelation.bible>

Was "Re: Literal imagery in Revelation?"

I recently came across the following viewpoint presented in response to an
individual who stated that they did not think that certain books in the
Bible that make extensive use of symbols and imagery should be taken
literally.

"I believe that there are places in Revelation that even imagery should be
taken literally. For example, if John saw, say, a nuclear blast, or a jet
in a vision, he wouldn't call it that. He would simply describe it as
best
as he could. An unbeliever may question why God didn't reveal to him what
exactly it was, if He's "all powerful". To me, the answer is simple. No
one reading it at that time would understand, nor pay attention to the
writings, if John used those words. Yet we, in this time, can easily
understand that John would have been describing what he saw, to the best
of
his abilities. This way, both generations can learn from it."

What do posters to these groups make of issues surrounding literal
interpretation of symbolic imagery?

Hello,

Little interpretations of what is meant to be symbolic (or metaphoric)
imagery, can cause all kinds of problems. Here are a couple of
examples. Notice Jesus' statement at Mt 5:31,

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it
away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have
your whole body go into Gehenna." (NAB)

If we literally take Jesus' words here, then a lot of Christians would
probably have a lot less body parts, since all of us are sinners. No,
Jesus didn't mean for these words to be taken literally. Jesus meant
that if something was as precious to you as a hand or a foot, but it
made you sin, then you should get rid of it. (cut if off etc)

Another example is the popular 'hellfire' doctrine. Hellfire is NOT a
Bible teaching. Even common sense tells you that "love" and 'torture'
are not glued together. It is always a person is either 'loving' OR a
person is a 'torturer'. Never a person is loving AND a torturer. Even
the definitions are quite opposite:

"Love.... 1. fond or tender feeling; warm liking; affection;
attachment."

"torture...1. the act or fact of inflicting very severe pain. 2a. a
very severe pain or suffering; agony."

Would a 'loving' parent stick his child's hand on a red-hot burner, as
a form of punishment for some serious wrongdoing? Would not such an
act be considered sadistic, and the parent arrested if found out? Do
humans have a better sense of right and wrong, than God? Of course
not.

Guess who would like all humans to believe that God tortures people in
literal fire forever and ever. Yes, that is God's adversary, the great
LIAR, Satan the Devil. (see Joh 8:44)

The God of the Bible is a loving God. (1 Jo 4:8) Yes, He also is a God
of justice, and will punish the wicked for their bad deeds, etc. But
God doesn't torture any animals, insects, microbes, or humans when He
exercises His judgements.

If God's personality permitted 'frying' humans, then why didn't that
form of punishment show up in all the many laws given to the nation of
Israel? Punishment was always swift, and fire was never used as an
instrument of punishment on a live person. For example, while under
that law covenant, notice Jer 7:31,

"They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben
Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire--something I did
not command, nor did it enter my mind." (NIV)

Where some people point in the Bible as a supposed 'hellfire' place is
Re 20:14,

"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of
fire is the second death." (NIV)

The question here is, is that "fire" literal?

A close look at that verse shows that it is not. Notice that "death"
is tossed into that claimed literal "fire". Can "death" be burned? Can
"death" be picked up and "thrown" somewhere? No, it cannot. That is
because "death" is an abstraction. Thus the "lake of fire" is symbolic
here in this HIGHLY symbolic book of Revelation. But just what is the
"lake of fire" symbolic of?

That same verse says "the second death". So the Bible is telling us
that the lake of fire represents "the second death". That means there
had to be a 'first' death. The first death is the death that we all
inherited from Adam. (see 1 Co 15:22) No human today lives forever, we
all die at some time. But humans can get out of the 'first' death by
means of a resurrection. Luke is one who talked about this at Ac
24:15,

"and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a
resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked." (NIV)

But what about the "second" death? That one is permanent, with no
possibility of a resurrection. It is like when a fire consumes
something, the thing is never again recoverable. So the "lake of fire"
represents a continual death of non-existence. There is no conscience
pain of 'fire' associated it, but rather it is a death sleep. And at
death, the Bible says there is no conscience existence:

"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing;
they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is
forgotten." (Ec 9:5; NIV)

"Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no
salvation. 4 His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very
day his thoughts perish." (Ps 146:3,4; NASB)

These are Bible truths, and the true worshippers always try to follow
the Bible, whether doing so is socially acceptable or not. They firmly
believe the words of the apostle Paul at 2 Ti 3:16,

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness," (NIV)


Sincerely, James


***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:45:08 +1300, Millennial Reign
<bring.it.on@revelation.bible> spake thusly:

I recently came across the following viewpoint presented in response to an
individual who stated that they did not think that certain books in the
Bible that make extensive use of symbols and imagery should be taken
literally.

"I believe that there are places in Revelation that even imagery should be
taken literally. For example, if John saw, say, a nuclear blast, or a jet
in a vision, he wouldn't call it that. He would simply describe it as best
as he could. An unbeliever may question why God didn't reveal to him what
exactly it was, if He's "all powerful". To me, the answer is simple. No
one reading it at that time would understand, nor pay attention to the
writings, if John used those words. Yet we, in this time, can easily
understand that John would have been describing what he saw, to the best of
his abilities. This way, both generations can learn from it."

What do posters to these groups make of issues surrounding literal
interpretation of symbolic imagery?

John didn't describe a nuclear blast.