Replacement Theology Man Highlights

[Sean]

He can even be invisible to the mortal eye, or appear as a cloven tongue of fire.

[Sean]

Only an imbecile would deny that Jesus, as God, can appear in various forms as He wishes.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Sean

My rules Bowas?

You have a right to interpret it as much as I do, right?

Just dont CHANGE it to say something else.....



"capeesh"?(LOL)

Actually, and to be quite honest with you, I DON'T have the right to interpret, because invariably, no two people would agree on the correct meaning of certain passages.

I think that may be part of the problem as because people think they have the right to interpret. I don't think so.

It seems to me, we should let the scripture interpret scripture and then it is incumbent upon me to align my views with the Bibles internal interpretation.

I would never change anything in it to mean anything other than what THEY understood it to mean, which is not always what I was originally taught.

I have only been asking about your interpretive method because I always give people the benefit of the doubt that their view has to be based on something solid or at least with some degree of consistency.

There has to be a solid rule(s) to keep our personal experience, thoughts or imaginations out of the equation.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Bowas

Actually, and to be quite honest with you, I DON'T have the right to interpret, because invariably, no two people would agree on the correct meaning of certain passages.

I think that may be part of the problem as because people think they have the right to interpret. I don't think so.

It seems to me, we should let the scripture interpret scripture and then it is incumbent upon me to align my views with the Bibles internal interpretation.

I would never change anything in it to mean anything other than what THEY understood it to mean, which is not always what I was originally taught.

I have only been asking about your interpretive method because I always give people the benefit of the doubt that their view has to be based on something solid or at least with some degree of consistency.

There has to be a solid rule(s) to keep our personal experience, thoughts or imaginations out of the equation.

Agreed, but our personal thoughts may only be in the form of suggestions, that MAGNIFY the original wording in the verse, if we may.

I think we need to read the book of Relevation and believe it as we see it. If we really dont understand something, then leave it alone, instead of wandering all over the Bible, looking for synonyms or like words. That is where EVERYONE louses it up.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Sean

Agreed, but our personal thoughts may only be in the form of suggestions, that MAGNIFY the original wording in the verse, if we may.

I think we need to read the book of Relevation and believe it as we see it. If we really dont understand something, then leave it alone, instead of wandering all over the Bible, looking for synonyms or like words. That is where EVERYONE louses it up.

That is where you are so wrong, the Revelation was written in apocalyptic language, the only way to understand the language is to study the prophecies of old to see how they wrote and understood said language. Scripture interprets scripture.
Apocalyptic is not literal and you cannot read a apocalyptic prophecy literally and get the meaning.
Disp. change the interpretation all the time based on the present news media, I mean common in the 70's the mark of the beast was going to be a tattoo in invisible ink, now it is a computer chip, the antichrist has been everyone from Hitler to Henry Kiesinger, who knows who they are claiming him to be today. Most recently it was the blood moons, and we see how that was. The Russelites claimed they were the chosen until they numbered 144,000 then they had to change their teaching to the meek shall inherit the earth and call themselves Jehovah's witness.
All this from reading the prophecies literally. You would think people would get a clue.

[Sean]

Loren, have fun metaphorizing(lying) the book as much as you desire. I cant stop you.

All I can say is I tried.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Sean

The literalist reads and believes this....

22 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb(Jesus).

2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.


Piece of cake, few sign/symbols needed here.







Now the metaphorist(preterist) says.....

22 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the CHURCH, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the CHURCH were for the healing of the nations.


A clear change of the meaning here.

Have fun, Loren.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Sean

I told you the rules of interpreting the book of Revelation was this.....


18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



Now, if you just metaphorize what Jesus said here like this.....



18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall LITERALIZE these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall LITERALIZE from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.....



You will do just fine my friend, then have a blast metaphorizing the entire book!

Have fun, Loren.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Sean

What method?

Is there some kind of method to make sure the Book of Revelation is saying what we read?

Like this....22 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

My method is to believe the words I am reading as literal as possible, not in any way attempting to change it to appear to be saying something else.

I guess I take this more seriously than you, my friend.......

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



I can only suggest you believe what you read and understand literally, as much as you can also.

But, you still must give an account for the changes you make in the wording of this book, regardless of how much fun you are having metaphorizing it.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

That is where you are so wrong, the Revelation was written in apocalyptic language, the only way to understand the language is to study the prophecies of old to see how they wrote and understood said language. Scripture interprets scripture.
Apocalyptic is not literal and you cannot read a apocalyptic prophecy literally and get the meaning.
Disp. change the interpretation all the time based on the present news media, I mean common in the 70's the mark of the beast was going to be a tattoo in invisible ink, now it is a computer chip, the antichrist has been everyone from Hitler to Henry Kiesinger, who knows who they are claiming him to be today. Most recently it was the blood moons, and we see how that was. The Russelites claimed they were the chosen until they numbered 144,000 then they had to change their teaching to the meek shall inherit the earth and call themselves Jehovah's witness.
All this from reading the prophecies literally. You would think people would get a clue.

Godsdrummer I haven't been on in a while but it is good to be back although I am afraid that we will still disagree about many things. To say that someone is changing their interpretation of scripture because they change who they feel the antichrist might be or how the mark of the beast will manifest is false and I give you credit to know that is not a change of interpretation but rather a change of APPLICATION. The interpretation remains the same a literal antichrist and a literal mark.