mark s wrote:I'm not talking directly about your other views in particular, rather that your basis for interpreting this prophecy as non-literal is not based on the language and wording of the prophecy itself, but is instead based on the fact that you have views based on other passages that give the effect of rendering this one non-literal.
It's based much on the wording and prophecy itself, but not one prophecy stands alone, every one must be weighed against the others. But I have shown how the words used give it a Very Sound determination as to it's meaning
on your other recent thread.
mark s wrote:I had also referenced your comment that you didn't think it could physically occur because there would be so many people, but hopefully I've sufficiently answered that objections.
Physically possible mathematically I guess, but just doesn't seem likely to me. There would be quite a bit of logistics to go along with just the physical space. And that could be taken care of miraculously by God I'm sure too. But, as I said, it is Possible to have a literal event occur. I just don't think that will be the case.
Seems like more of a stretch to comprehend the literal and much less strain, and in more agreement with the words and context themselves to comprehend as Spiritual.
mark s wrote:When you say, "rigidly literal", what does that mean exactly? There is "literal", and then there is "rigidly literal", do you mean a difference between these?
By "rigidly literal", I mean by Naturally leaning and in some cases Straining toward the literal In Spite of very Sound Evidence to the Contrary.
In other words, Stubbornly clinging to the literal against any and all evidence against it.
"If the Plain Sense makes Sense, then you've discovered the True Sense".........OK, But that concept is Burdened with preconceptions, and you must admit that.
That brings me to this part next...
mark s wrote:Let's assume that we are all completely agree that Christ, and Sound Doctrine, are Pre-emanent. We believe that in our hearts. Which passages should be spiritualized, taken as symbol or allegory even though no symbols are named, and none are defined, and which should not? And how can you know?
The prophetic books are overwhelmingly full of Spiritual language in general, that's the Reason for looking First to the Spirit of the Prophecy, and then Secondly to the Literal and not the other way around. Of course that can be debated, but I think that rule is wise and true, or at least a "Middle Ground" be argued for.
We should not, IMO, seek the Literal FIRST in the prophetic books.
You say " even though no symbols are named, and none are defined". What I've noticed mark is that you tend to look Verse by Verse and Word by Word for the "Symbols". But that symbol that you're looking for to validate the possibility of the meaning may not exist in that One Specific Verse, and may exist, and often does, in the Context of Several Verses, or an Entire Chapter.
That's one good reason to read the entire chapter of Isaiah 66........with the Specific Intention of Allowing (not Disallowing by Preconceived Ideas) the Meaning to be Understood in the Spirit of Prophecy.
The Testimony of Jesus IS the Spirit of Prophecy.
mark s wrote: And how can you know?
Now I've just shown you how to Allow Your System, Method and Rule to be Tested.....but by your Own Willingness it must be done.
The Testimony OF Jesus IS the Spirit of prophecy.
The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675
Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.
Find seven years of tribulation plainly stated in the Bible.