What is biblical literalism?

[Decoder]

Good for you.........it hasn"t.

Because you hold to partial preterism, you believe that the prophecies in Daniel, Matt. 24, and Revelation (with the exception of the last two or three chapters) have already been fulfilled and were fulfilled no later than the first century AD.

According to partial preterism, there is no rapture, and passages describing the tribulation and the Antichrist are actually referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the Roman emperor Titus. Partial preterists do believe in the return of Christ to earth and a future resurrection and judgment, but they do not teach a millennial kingdom or that Israel as a nation has a place in God’s future plan. According to partial preterists, the Bible’s references to “the last days” are speaking of the last days of the Old Jewish Covenant, not the last days of the earth itself.

I have read the book too!

no on some things; this is why not to use labels.

If anything, the anti-messiah must be Jewish, and deceive his own people. 3 of them were seen in the Jewish War, 66+. John of Gischala in Galilee wrested the most control. The greatest national help Jesus was to his people was not to try to resist Rome, but to work in his mission. All Jewish anti-messiahs of the time tried to fight Rome, Acts 5 (Judas the Galilean); they even fought themselves, even when there was no food in Jerusalem! They started eating babies!

The NT is full of references that that generation was the last times. Acts 2. In Lk 23:38, the babies nursing at that time would (as adults) see their city plundered and men calling on the mountains to fall on them as an improvement. This is repeated again in the Rev, which has a way of dating it.

The NT clearly distances itself from the race-nation. A son of God is not born of descendancy or flesh. The faith-based group is everything. It includes Gentiles who believe. See the technical terms in Ephesians 2 through 3. Citizenship, membership, partnership, commonwealth, share, inheritance, you name it.

 

[Major]

To comment further on the quickness of the end event: this always comes back to 'tachei' (quickly, soon) of Rev 1. The concrete examples given in the lexicon are a mix of both: the things are coming soon, and they will happen quickly. Acts 17:15, Mk 9:39. There isn't a clear example of them being a long ways away and happening quickly, nor coming soon but unfolding slowly.

This matters to discussion of the Rev because there are many indications all through the NT that all of these things were to take place at the end of that generation. See Paul advise about marriage in I Cor 7 and say the time is short; don't get married.

I still can't see where resurrection is used of those going to condemnation; it is inherently a blessed thing.

Because of 'tachei', I have concluded that the delay doctrine is best: the things mentioned in Mt 24 and the others before v29 were 1st century Judean setting, and then the whole world was supposed to be judged 'right after', but God has delayed.

Because of Matt. 24:34..............
"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

YOU as a preterists insist that all of the things spoken about in this chapter, including…

• the Tribulation events (spoken of in Revelation)
• and the coming of Christ

…had to have occurred before the generation of people living at the time of Jesus, died off.

Well, IMHO, that is NOT what Jesus Literally said. Correct exegesis is always mastered by CONTEXT!

“Then, what ‘generation’ was Jesus talking about in Matthew 24:34?”
He was talking about the generation that would see “all” (v. 34) the things He just mentioned.

The key to understanding this verse of Matthew 24:34 is found by backing up a verse. Notice verse 33. Jesus said…

33 “Even so you too, when you see these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I say to you, this generation [What generation? the generation who, in v. 33, sees “all” those things] will not pass away until all these things take place.”

So, Jesus says “when you see all these things” (v. 33).

What things?

• The “Abomination of Desolation” (v.15)
• The time of “great tribulation” (v. 21) “such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now nor ever shall.”
• The stars falling from the skies (v. 29)

To This day.....today, Feb. 26, 2022....none of those things have happened!!!!

That generation (the Tribulation generation) will not pass away without also seeing the coming of the Son of Man to the Earth (mentioned in v. 30).

Jesus was talking LITERALLY about the generation of people who would be alive during the events leading up to His Second Coming, that is, during the time of tribulation.

 

[Major]

no on some things; this is why not to use labels.

If anything, the anti-messiah must be Jewish, and deceive his own people. 3 of them were seen in the Jewish War, 66+. John of Gischala in Galilee wrested the most control. The greatest national help Jesus was to his people was not to try to resist Rome, but to work in his mission. All Jewish anti-messiahs of the time tried to fight Rome, Acts 5 (Judas the Galilean); they even fought themselves, even when there was no food in Jerusalem! They started eating babies!

The NT is full of references that that generation was the last times. "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."the babies nursing at that time would (as adults) see their city plundered and men calling on the mountains to fall on them as an improvement. This is repeated again in the Rev, which has a way of dating it.

The NT clearly distances itself from the race-nation. A son of God is not born of descendancy or flesh. The faith-based group is everything. It includes Gentiles who believe. See the technical terms in Ephesians 2 through 3. Citizenship, membership, partnership, commonwealth, share, inheritance, you name it.

Labels are what we say we are. If you do not lake lables, I suggest that you do not promote Preterist theology and I will not call you a Preterist.

If an animal walks like a duck and quakes......we call it a duck.

Karl Marxx was Jewish and it was said was Hitler and some same he was a Catholic. (?).

The A/C may be a Jew......unknown as Far as I can tell but the Bible suggests he will be gay.

However, that is not the point. The point is that the Bible does not say LITERALLY that the Tribliation Peroid happened in 70 AD.

Acts, and Luke do NOT anything at all about the event in 70 AD being the event Jesus was speaking about. Simply because it happened does not make it the one YOU want it to be.

Another thing. Do you really believe that when John wrote the Revelation in 95 AD that he did not have any knowledge about Jerusalem being destroyed????? He knew what had happened.

The only way to make Preterism work is to change the date of the Revelation!

Revelation chapters 6—22 were written about events that have yet to occur. If taken as written, LITERALLY then these chapters speak of a future seven-year period during which there will be a world ruler, a new Jewish temple that will be built and then desecrated, a time of great tribulation, and a final battle at Armageddon between the people of God and His enemies at which Christ returns in victory. This will be followed by the millennial reign of Jesus and ultimately a new heavenly city, new heavens, and a new earth where God's people will dwell with Him forever. Much must be changed in order to make these sweeping predictions fit events that took place by the fall of Jerusalem in 70.

An excellant production written by Mark Hitchcock is titled...... "A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation"/

It offers a comprehensive look at the lines of evidence that support this date. Those who hold to the Preterist view must be able to prove that the Book of Revelation was written prior to 70 to demonstrate that its view is even possible.

 

[Major]

To comment further on the quickness of the end event: this always comes back to 'tachei' (quickly, soon) of Rev 1. The concrete examples given in the lexicon are a mix of both: the things are coming soon, and they will happen quickly. Acts 17:15, Mk 9:39. There isn't a clear example of them being a long ways away and happening quickly, nor coming soon but unfolding slowly.

This matters to discussion of the Rev because there are many indications all through the NT that all of these things were to take place at the end of that generation. See Paul advise about marriage in I Cor 7 and say the time is short; don't get married.

I still can't see where resurrection is used of those going to condemnation; it is inherently a blessed thing.

Because of 'tachei', I have concluded that the delay doctrine is best: the things mentioned in Mt 24 and the others before v29 were 1st century Judean setting, and then the whole world was supposed to be judged 'right after', but God has delayed.

This is the classic error of "forcing" the Scriptures into a pre-conceived notion instead of taking them LITERALLY as they are written.

Some have called this method the "Burger King" method and some others....."The Cafeteria Approach".

This being the case, Decoder as a "partial preterist" is being inconsistent in using the references to “soon,” “shortly,” and “near” to refer to A.D. 70, for then he must admit that there is no future resurrection and Second Coming–which is the heretical view of full preterism. wcih he says he is not.

As demonstrated from the Greek, as Decoder has just done......= “shortly” and/or tachei means “quickly” or at a rapid rate.

Now consider Philipians 4:5 and James 5:8 And “at hand” where it means imminent, not necessarily what will happen in a short time.
Likewise, terms like “a little while” (Haggai 2:6-7) can mean hundreds of years.

You see, time is relative to God (2 Peter 3:9). If so, then their argument for preterism fails at this point. If your foundation is weak, the roof will always fall in!

 

[Major]

You must mean No about some particular thing, but I don't know which.

He was merely showing that there was another type of existence when people are raised.

The 'at his coming' line is actually a good reason not to get too elaborate. Most of the descriptions of the 2nd coming are very short, brief, like it: judgement occurs and then the bliss of the NHNE begins. That's how 2 Peter 3 reads. So I have little confidence in elaborate schemes and diagrams.

I mean NO to Your question................

You asked in #51 ..
"(1) wasn't the first resurrection Jesus'? (2) Or Lazarus? Or when Jesus said he was the resurrection and the life?

NO to Lazarus as the 1st Resurrection. Was Lazarus raised from the dead before Jesus rose? YES but his was not the 1st Fruits of THE resurrection.

 

[Decoder]

Because of Matt. 24:34..............
"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

YOU as a preterists insist that all of the things spoken about in this chapter, including…

• the Tribulation events (spoken of in Revelation)
• and the coming of Christ

…had to have occurred before the generation of people living at the time of Jesus, died off.

Well, IMHO, that is NOT what Jesus Literally said. Correct exegesis is always mastered by CONTEXT!

“Then, what ‘generation’ was Jesus talking about in Matthew 24:34?”
He was talking about the generation that would see “all” (v. 34) the things He just mentioned.

The key to understanding this verse of Matthew 24:34 is found by backing up a verse. Notice verse 33. Jesus said…

33 “Even so you too, when you see these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I say to you, this generation [What generation? the generation who, in v. 33, sees “all” those things] will not pass away until all these things take place.”

So, Jesus says “when you see all these things” (v. 33).

What things?

• The “Abomination of Desolation” (v.15)
• The time of “great tribulation” (v. 21) “such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now nor ever shall.”
• The stars falling from the skies (v. 29)

To This day.....today, Feb. 26, 2022....none of those things have happened!!!!

That generation (the Tribulation generation) will not pass away without also seeing the coming of the Son of Man to the Earth (mentioned in v. 30).

Jesus was talking LITERALLY about the generation of people who would be alive during the events leading up to His Second Coming, that is, during the time of tribulation.

Why would a person give detailed instructions to pregnant women in a Judean setting about not moving on the Sabbath or winter, but it was all really about something X000 years away.

You have looked at some things in the context but not enough. A little knowledge is dangerous.

The abomination was originally called the rebellion that desolates in Daniel 8:13. It was coming during one of the occupying powers of ch 2, the last. In the next chapter when the destruction of the country is described, he is the abomination that desolates the country.

God did not desolate Israel in 70 because of a Roman. He did it because Israel was going 180 from the Gospel, in the person of zealots who wanted to get rid of Rome and believed that God would supernaturally fight for Israel in such a conflict. See for ex., 'the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness' from Qumran collection. This is why he said it needed to seek the terms of peace in Lk 13 and 17.

The whole Roman empire nearly fell apart, in addition to Israel's revolt in league with Idumea (they wanted to break the control of the rim of the Meditteranean. Many things were in serious upheaval, even the food supply.

The events of 66--72 are quite stunning even if we only accept half of what Josephus recorded. He mentioned things that were specifically directed at Israel understanding that it was losing its standing, sometimes supernatural things (the sword that swept over the city, the voice that said 'we have departed' etc.).

As I have said several times here, the hitch is v29. You either toss the whole thing, or you have a delay principle. I'm for delay. The things after 29 are universal and are the final judgement of God.

That's where such major signs as stars falling take place.

After v29, it is not clear how far back he is reaching for each succeeding verse. Back to Judea, or just to the final judgement.

I happen to believe there will be a gathering up of believers, because we know that they are removed from judgement. What we don't know (now) is how much difficulty is to be endured as the time runs out. By "now" I mean since the things that were going to happen in the close of that generation did not.

As an interesting example of how these things can go sideways: in 69 the Christians in Jerusalem (who should have left upon seeing a vile person like John of Gischala, or Phineas or Judas bar-Giora) had a window of escape because the seige was paused. Vespasian left to be an emperor and sent his son Titus back. Many of them went to Pella, we have learned, and were safe. So they escaped the horror of the next year. It is not the 'rapture' but it is a form of protection no one knew in detail would happen.

So your categories are not very useful. They may be about someone else.

The people Jesus was speaking to saw that one stone was not left on another. Which were the stones that cried out to that generation.

 

[Major]

The 'first resurrection' line was said to be about those beheaded; they were immediately reigning with Christ. That is different from others who died. The passage is showing honor for those who died cruelly, like the honor shown Stephen.

The reign of Christ (the long period) is the kingdom of God, which Dan 2 said would never end once started. It started during the 4th occupying power (Rome). Jesus said it is here, among you, upon you; that some of you are not in it, that some are great in it, that some are the least in it. He was enthroned, says Acts 2:30, 31, 36.

God's oath to David is known as the "Davidic Covenant". God promised to David "your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.

This is not a bilateral covenant, like the contract God made with Israel and their kings that if they obeyed Him, He would bless them and Acts 2:30 does not say that the kingdom began.

This is a unilateral covenant, like the one God made to Abraham, that Abraham's descendants would become a great nation (Genesis 12:1–3) and inherit a large territory (Genesis 15:18–21). There was nothing for Abraham and David to do to ensure God would fulfill His promises to them (2 Chronicles 6:16).

Much of God's oath to David applied to Solomon. Solomon's reign was the grandest in Israel's history. He ruled over more land, accumulated more wealth, and experienced more peace than any other king but he or no one else ever took control of ALL THAT GOD PROMISED.

But after him, the throne was split into northern and southern kingdoms. Jesus, who is descended from David both legally through Joseph and biologically through Mary, is the ultimate fulfillment of God's promise to David.

The manner of Jesus' place on the throne has been subject to much debate over the centuries. Suffice it to say that Jesus reigns in the hearts of His followers now. In the millennial kingdom, He will reign in Jerusalem. And He will reign ultimately in eternity.

 

[Decoder]

This is the classic error of "forcing" the Scriptures into a pre-conceived notion instead of taking them LITERALLY as they are written.

Some have called this method the "Burger King" method and some others....."The Cafeteria Approach".

This being the case, Decoder as a "partial preterist" is being inconsistent in using the references to “soon,” “shortly,” and “near” to refer to A.D. 70, for then he must admit that there is no future resurrection and Second Coming–which is the heretical view of full preterism. wcih he says he is not.

As demonstrated from the Greek, as Decoder has just done......= “shortly” and/or tachei means “quickly” or at a rapid rate.

Now consider Philipians 4:5 and James 5:8 And “at hand” where it means imminent, not necessarily what will happen in a short time.
Likewise, terms like “a little while” (Haggai 2:6-7) can mean hundreds of years.

You see, time is relative to God (2 Peter 3:9). If so, then their argument for preterism fails at this point. If your foundation is weak, the roof will always fall in!

The problem is Jesus dated it with the destruction of the city, the rise of revolt, and the biological timestamp in Lk 23:38 about asking the mountains to fall. The babies in that crowd at that time would do that when they became adults. I don't know how it could be more clear or confined.

You are wrong about the 2nd coming. You have completely missed the meaning of the delay view I explained. Don't use labels. Just read one issue at a time.

 

[Decoder]

God's oath to David is known as the "Davidic Covenant". God promised to David "your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.

This is not a bilateral covenant, like the contract God made with Israel and their kings that if they obeyed Him, He would bless them and Acts 2:30 does not say that the kingdom began.

This is a unilateral covenant, like the one God made to Abraham, that Abraham's descendants would become a great nation (Genesis 12:1–3) and inherit a large territory (Genesis 15:18–21). There was nothing for Abraham and David to do to ensure God would fulfill His promises to them (2 Chronicles 6:16).

Much of God's oath to David applied to Solomon. Solomon's reign was the grandest in Israel's history. He ruled over more land, accumulated more wealth, and experienced more peace than any other king but he or no one else ever took control of ALL THAT GOD PROMISED.

But after him, the throne was split into northern and southern kingdoms. Jesus, who is descended from David both legally through Joseph and biologically through Mary, is the ultimate fulfillment of God's promise to David.

The manner of Jesus' place on the throne has been subject to much debate over the centuries. Suffice it to say that Jesus reigns in the hearts of His followers now. In the millennial kingdom, He will reign in Jerusalem. And He will reign ultimately in eternity.

The apostles own words are what matters. Davidics figure several times in early Acts. The most important is that "David foresaw the enthronement and spoke of the resurrection." 2:30, 31. There is no way around it. Because the conclusion of the message is that God has made Jesus Lord and Christ. Exactly what David foresaw. The NT gloriously refers to the resurrection as the enthronement of Christ, the reward for his suffering. Eph 1, Col 1, Phil 2. Raised above every name and title. In Acts 13, 'the oaths made to David are transfered' to Christ. David's Lord was the Lord and will plunder the nations on the last day.

There is no NT location where there is a clear enough connection to Jerusalem being a "Davidic" kingdom again.

 

[Decoder]

I mean NO to Your question................

You asked in #51 ..
"(1) wasn't the first resurrection Jesus'? (2) Or Lazarus? Or when Jesus said he was the resurrection and the life?

NO to Lazarus as the 1st Resurrection. Was Lazarus raised from the dead before Jesus rose? YES but his was not the 1st Fruits of THE resurrection.

That's why I'm not a literalist. Things have to be compared, idioms accounted for, nuances recognized.

 

[Decoder]

Not only is early Acts saying the kingdom began, it shows it in strategic word choices. The 'clothing with power' of Lk 24 and Acts 1 is priests garments. The 'receiving of power' is kingdom authority terminology. Because their job was to say to all leaders and people that this earth is Christ's; he deserves it. He was raised as a reward for his travail, and all people of all kinds, must honor Him or he will smash them. If Ps 2 and 110 are used properly, like Paul, the resurrection proves that God will judge the world through Christ, which is a very powerful declaration.

The Spirit was given to 'publicize' these facts all over the known world--because those attending Pentecost would go home and tell their synagogues back home what happened and that God was now giving out forgiveness of sins--even Israel's sins! The Spirit was a gift to Christ from God to honor him.

I can't repeat my entire study of early Acts, but you will find it nearby. It's title is something like 'Acts 1--4, the apostles teaching.'

 

[Decoder]

In the late part of Revelation, two cities are demolished; they seem to be the same. One is called 'where the Lord was crucified.' Then there is a city that God loves in ch 20 that gets surrounded at the end of time by Satan's army, but it is delivered. It is a huge mistake to narrow either one down to actual cities we know; we would miss the point.

 

[Decoder]

The main reason for not leaving that generation (Jesus' generation) is because of the line from Luke (prob transcribing Paul) 21 that the destruction of the city would be the fulfillment of all the wrath written about them. Paul echoes this in 2 Thess 2, even saying it has come fully upon them before the event.

So to absorb that and the fact that the world did not end 'right after' (Mt 24:29), I find that the delay view is the best. The judgement of the world has been delayed, but was originally planned for right after the destruction of Israel.

 

[ModeratorTeam]

STAFF CAUTION: This thread has been reported to the staff 4 times so far this weekend for an on-going derailment of the original topic and for comment after comment of a topic on the Forum, "Topics which may not be discussed at CFS" list. A Reminder: "(4) Predestination, Calvinism, Arminianism or Preterism - (or any variations.)"

If the primary participants in this thread wish for it to remain open, then Get Your Act Together and return to the original topic without bickering, demeaning others, name calling and no mention of banned topics. The Banned Topics List was put in place many years ago to prevent just this sort of unfriendly behavior from taking place.

Major - since you started this thread, we expect you to take the lead on this return to the original topic and please keep it there.

Thank you.


23

`

 

[Major]

STAFF CAUTION: This thread has been reported to the staff 4 times so far this weekend for an on-going derailment of the original topic and for comment after comment of a topic on the Forum, "Topics which may not be discussed at CFS" list. A Reminder: "(4) Predestination, Calvinism, Arminianism or Preterism - (or any variations.)"

If the primary participants in this thread wish for it to remain open, then Get Your Act Together and return to the original topic without bickering, demeaning others, name calling and no mention of banned topics. The Banned Topics List was put in place many years ago to prevent just this sort of unfriendly behavior from taking place.

Major - since you started this thread, we expect you to take the lead on this return to the original topic and please keep it there.

Thank you.


23

`

I hear you and agree!

LITERALISM is in my opinion the best way to understand the word of God.

Historically when people do not like what the Bible says or they want to make it fit their philosophical bent or a pre-conceived agenda, they allegorize what the Bible literally says. This is what Philo did with the Jewish Bible in Alexandria, Egypt and, early on, some Christians picked up this habit from him and imported it into the church.

Clearly, even those of us with a high view of Scripture don’t take everything literally.
Example:
1. Jesus is the “door,” but He’s not made of wood.
2. We are the “branches,” but we’re not sprouting leaves.

Common sense that God gave all believers at some point should take over our understanding.

On the other hand, we do take seriously accounts others find fanciful and far-fetched:
Example:
1. a man made from mud (Adam),
2. loaves and fishes miraculously multiplied,
3. vivified corpses rising from graves.

So then--Let’s start with a definition.
According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word “literal” means “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion.”

With that in mind then when critics agree with the point of a passage, they take the words in their ordinary and customary sense. They naturally understand that language works a certain way in everyday communication, and it never occurs to them to think otherwise.

Unless, of course, the details of the text trouble them for some reason.

1. What of the opening chapters of Genesis? Is this a straightforward account describing historical events the way they actually happened?
2. Were Adam and Eve real people, the first human beings?
3. Was Adam created from dust?
4. Did Eve really come from Adam’s rib?
5. Did Jonah actually survive three days in the belly of a great fish?
6. Did a virgin really have a baby?

Such claims from the Bible seem so fanciful to many people it’s hard for them to take the statements at face value.

 

[Musicmaster]

Here's a prime example of biblical literalism:

Romans 11:25-27

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

As an Israeli, I can take this literally...to mean exactly what it says. Those who might wish to argue the timeframe of that prophecy in relation to us today, as if this has already been fulfilled, well, such a one has a very hard road to go on this one to ever convince not only myself, but many other of my Israeli brothers and sisters in the faith who have studied the scriptures for many decades, and have spent considerable time in relationship with the One who inspired its writing. (1 John 2:27)

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

The main reason for not leaving that generation (Jesus' generation) is because of the line from Luke (prob transcribing Paul) 21 that the destruction of the city would be the fulfillment of all the wrath written about them. Paul echoes this in 2 Thess 2, even saying it has come fully upon them before the event.

So to absorb that and the fact that the world did not end 'right after' (Mt 24:29), I find that the delay view is the best. The judgement of the world has been delayed, but was originally planned for right after the destruction of Israel.

With respect to the topical theme of this thread, the non-literal idea of "delay" is not just outlandish and runs contrary to the fact that the Lord is never surprised by anything. So, to say there was a "delay" can only rest in the arms of man's perspective...or, rather, YOUR perspective, which renders the idea into the arena of non-consideration to be taken seriously.

LITERALISM applied to the texts of scripture rips the legs out from under the assumptions of the -isms that zing all around our heads from all the soothsayers out there trying to gain for themselves a following of supporters for their doctrinal slants, especially in the arena of eschatology. This is the very reason I personally apply, first and foremost, the literalistic study of ALL scripture, and if that reveals the necessity to apply a parallel path of allegory and/or spiritualization, then that will become apparent to the serious student of scripture who relies upon prayer and the Spirit to give revelation.

The book of Revelation is an interesting study in literalism, because that is how we can easily see the shifts between events on earth and those things occurring in Heaven.

Delay? No. I don't buy it. That's Eisegetical rather than Exegetical, especially when it defies and assaults the absolute Deity of the Most High. Literalism is simply a tool in my arsenal, not a weapon. It helps to rightly divide the word, not pound it into conformity to my personal desires.

MM

 

[Major]

Here's a prime example of biblical literalism:

Romans 11:25-27

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

As an Israeli, I can take this literally...to mean exactly what it says. Those who might wish to argue the timeframe of that prophecy in relation to us today, as if this has already been fulfilled, well, such a one has a very hard road to go on this one to ever convince not only myself, but many other of my Israeli brothers and sisters in the faith who have studied the scriptures for many decades, and have spent considerable time in relationship with the One who inspired its writing. (1 John 2:27)

MM

Amen!

 

[Major]

With respect to the topical theme of this thread, the non-literal idea of "delay" is not just outlandish and runs contrary to the fact that the Lord is never surprised by anything. So, to say there was a "delay" can only rest in the arms of man's perspective...or, rather, YOUR perspective, which renders the idea into the arena of non-consideration to be taken seriously.

LITERALISM applied to the texts of scripture rips the legs out from under the assumptions of the -isms that zing all around our heads from all the soothsayers out there trying to gain for themselves a following of supporters for their doctrinal slants, especially in the arena of eschatology. This is the very reason I personally apply, first and foremost, the literalistic study of ALL scripture, and if that reveals the necessity to apply a parallel path of allegory and/or spiritualization, then that will become apparent to the serious student of scripture who relies upon prayer and the Spirit to give revelation.

The book of Revelation is an interesting study in literalism, because that is how we can easily see the shifts between events on earth and those things occurring in Heaven.

Delay? No. I don't buy it. That's Eisegetical rather than Exegetical, especially when it defies and assaults the absolute Deity of the Most High. Literalism is simply a tool in my arsenal, not a weapon. It helps to rightly divide the word, not pound it into conformity to my personal desires.

MM

As God said to David........You are a man after my own heart!

 

[Major]

With respect to the topical theme of this thread, the non-literal idea of "delay" is not just outlandish and runs contrary to the fact that the Lord is never surprised by anything. So, to say there was a "delay" can only rest in the arms of man's perspective...or, rather, YOUR perspective, which renders the idea into the arena of non-consideration to be taken seriously.

LITERALISM applied to the texts of scripture rips the legs out from under the assumptions of the -isms that zing all around our heads from all the soothsayers out there trying to gain for themselves a following of supporters for their doctrinal slants, especially in the arena of eschatology. This is the very reason I personally apply, first and foremost, the literalistic study of ALL scripture, and if that reveals the necessity to apply a parallel path of allegory and/or spiritualization, then that will become apparent to the serious student of scripture who relies upon prayer and the Spirit to give revelation.

The book of Revelation is an interesting study in literalism, because that is how we can easily see the shifts between events on earth and those things occurring in Heaven.

Delay? No. I don't buy it. That's Eisegetical rather than Exegetical, especially when it defies and assaults the absolute Deity of the Most High. Literalism is simply a tool in my arsenal, not a weapon. It helps to rightly divide the word, not pound it into conformity to my personal desires.

MM

To me ...MM... Why is biblical literalism so important to conservatives like me, need only steal a glance at the Presbyterians or the United Methodists or the Episcopalians to appreciate the significance of biblical inerrancy and literalism.
Those denominations currently are racked by discussion - and dissension - over attempts to redefine Christian teachings regarding homosexuality, abortion and other social issues.

The bottom line in such proposals is the "liberal" notion that the Bible is a collection of writings that reflect cultural biases as well as eternal truths and that Christian theology must therefore be adapted to our present culture.

By insisting upon biblical inerrancy, and the literal understanding of the Scriptures, we can avoid such nasty debates altogether. The Bible contains some unequivocal and convicting passages condemning homosexuality, extramarital relations and even women preachers, according to the Literal words found on the pages of the Bible.

Now, the question must be........
Was God lying?
Did God mean to say what He actually said when what He said was written down?
Has God changed His mind about homosexuality, or adultery or abortion and women pastors?

For a biblical literalist, those passages settle the issue. Religious faith becomes less a matter of struggling with difficult moral choices than of simply clinging to the absolutes that God established for men thousands of years ago.