Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Complete nonsense and human fabrication. God decides who has Dominion . . . and it is US! Jesus removed death as a fear and connected ALL of us with God through His love and His Holy Spirit. We can expect and receive spiritual help from the Holy Spirit . . . but not physical or carnal.
When did God give mankind dominion over the earth? In Eden, it was given to Adam.
Who did Adam give dominion to? Satan, when he chose to disobey God. That is why ever since Eden we have been born in sin and shaped in iniquity.
Why is Christ called the 2nd Adam? Because He reclaimed dominion of the earth and reconnected us to God.
When did God give mankind dominion over the earth? In Eden, it was given to Adam.
Who did Adam give dominion to? Satan, when he chose to disobey God. That is why ever since Eden we have been born in sin and shaped in iniquity.
Why is Christ called the 2nd Adam? Because He reclaimed dominion of the earth and reconnected us to God.
It is far from nonsense.
"Precepts and doctrines of men" . . . second guessing God and interpreting His motives. God is not an indian giver (sorry to all the NDNs . . . but it is a common idiom).
"Precepts and doctrines of men" . . . second guessing God and interpreting His motives. God is not an indian giver (sorry to all the NDNs . . . but it is a common idiom).
Common idiom or not, surely one with a PhD could have found a better way to illustrate said point. No one here is second guessing God or questioning His motives. It isn't a matter of God taking back from us what was given originally. It is God taking it from Satan, who we gave it to in Eden. Why do you think that Christ is called Lord of Lords and King of Kings? Christ came and reclaimed for the human race what Adam lost. He didn't come and take it from Adam. Do you see the distinction there as it relates to your idiom reference? Remember when Christ was tempted in the wilderness by Satan? Notice Matt. 4:8-10 " 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. [COLOR="rgb(160, 82, 45)"]9[/color] "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." 10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"
Did you notice that Christ did not try to correct Satan by telling him that the world was not his to give? The only reason Satan knew he could make that offer to Christ, was because he knew that he gained dominion over it when Adam fell. However, what Christ knew was, that He would reclaim it at the cross of Calvary. What a beautiful moment it will be when this earth is made knew, and Christ gives back to Adam the keys to the Garden.
Ilene, I'm terribly sorry, but your post leaves me quite perplexed. I mentioned to you in my post that I didn't need you to quote me texts that show fire being used metaphorically, I know they are there. The two texts that you just quoted CLEARLY are metaphors, but then you mention an aspect of Sodom and Gomorrah that I did not bring up, and shot off on a tangent about the word usage of "forever", on which I have always agreed. Furthermore you completely disregarded the aspect about S&G that I did bring up, namely the aspect of the fact that the Bible was clearly speaking of a literal consuming and destructive fire, because we all know that S&G were destroyed. The destruction of S&G included it's inhabitants, save a lucky few who escaped. What scriptural support do you have that specifies the nature of the fire, spoken of in Revelation, as strictly a spiritual fire? Also, one other thing you did not address was the need for the 2nd resurrection if "Those who are in need of "refinement" will be tried by God's Holy "spiritual fire" which is something we experience in the here and no"? If everyone will be refined or is being refined now, then why won't everybody simply be resurrected at the 2nd coming?
My post was very self explanatory but you simply refuse to see the truth. I addressed all of what you said, but you refuse to comprehend. Thanks to Ironmaw for trying once again to help you understand but I see it was a total waste of time. You should really read the thread link that I posted.
My post was very self explanatory but you simply refuse to see the truth. I addressed all of what you said, but you refuse to comprehend. Thanks to Ironmaw for trying once again to help you understand but I see it was a total waste of time. You should really read the thread link that I posted.
Ilene, would you mind pointing out where in your post you mentioned anything regarding the literal fire that destroyed S&G? You did mention S&G, and talked about the "eternal" aspect of its burning and said how that word was mistranslated, but if you would read my other post again, it had nothing to do with that aspect of S&G. I know it didn't because I have long understood the nature of the word eternal, as used in scripture, and know that in many areas it is used to simply mean "for as long as it lasts" or, as it was in S&G's case "until there was nothing left to burn". I get all that. The part you completely ignored though, was the part where I mentioned that when the bible talked about a fire consuming and destroying S&G, it was talking about an actual fire, not a metaphorical spiritual fire. What biblical text do you have specifically stating that the fire mentioned in Rev 20 is not just as real as the fire that destroyed S&G? This is the question that I asked and the one you did not address.
What biblical text do you have specifically stating that the fire mentioned in Rev 20 is not just as real as the fire that destroyed S&G? This is the question that I asked and the one you did not address.
Revelation is the most abstruse and overtly symbolic and metaphorical of the texts . . . it is YOU who must explain how and why you could take ANYTHING in it literally.
Ilene, would you mind pointing out where in your post you mentioned anything regarding the literal fire that destroyed S&G? You did mention S&G, and talked about the "eternal" aspect of its burning and said how that word was mistranslated, but if you would read my other post again, it had nothing to do with that aspect of S&G. I know it didn't because I have long understood the nature of the word eternal, as used in scripture, and know that in many areas it is used to simply mean "for as long as it lasts" or, as it was in S&G's case "until there was nothing left to burn". I get all that. The part you completely ignored though, was the part where I mentioned that when the bible talked about a fire consuming and destroying S&G, it was talking about an actual fire, not a metaphorical spiritual fire. What biblical text do you have specifically stating that the fire mentioned in Rev 20 is not just as real as the fire that destroyed S&G? This is the question that I asked and the one you did not address.
I understand what you were asking but there's no need to address something that is obviously literal. It takes nothing more than a little dash of common sense to be able to know when the Bible is speaking literally or metaphorically/symbolically. Like Mystic said above, Revelation is filled with dreamlike metaphors and symbolism and there's no reason to believe the "fire" that is mentioned is anything other than symbolic since the entire book is symbolic in nature.
Revelation is the most abstruse and overtly symbolic and metaphorical of the texts . . . it is YOU who must explain how and why you could take ANYTHING in it literally.
ANYTHING Mystic!? really? How about the 2nd coming of Christ? Is that literal, or is it your assertion that Christ was being symbolic when He told the apostles He would return? Just because some parts of a book are symbolic, doesn't mean every part of the book is symbolic. What is the story of S&G if not a clear example of how sin will finally be dealt with by God?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilene Wright
I understand what you were asking but there's no need to address something that is obviously literal. It takes nothing more than a little dash of common sense to be able to know when the Bible is speaking literally or metaphorically/symbolically. Like Mystic said above, Revelation is filled with dreamlike metaphors and symbolism and there's no reason to believe the "fire" that is mentioned is anything other than symbolic since the entire book is symbolic in nature.
So you admit that the destruction of S&G by fire was an obviously literal event, but you can't see how that situation mirrors, the final destruction of the wicked? As I stated above, in response to Mystic, just because Revelation is filled with symbolism and metaphors, does not mean that all of the book is strictly symbolic/metaphorical. Your assertion that "there's no reason to believe the "fire" that is mentioned is anything other than symbolic since the entire book is symbolic in nature." has a few issues. First, God's clear dealings with the wicked throughout scripture is ample reason to believe the fire in Revelation is literal, so to assert that there is NO reason, is fairly short/narrow sighted. Second, your statement asserts that the entire book of Revelation is symbolic in nature, which would imply that Christ's second coming is symbolic and not literal, since that is discussed in Revelation, along with us one day walking on streets of gold, having every tear wiped away, and pain and suffering being no more.
ANYTHING Mystic!? really? How about the 2nd coming of Christ? Is that literal, or is it your assertion that Christ was being symbolic when He told the apostles He would return? Just because some parts of a book are symbolic, doesn't mean every part of the book is symbolic. What is the story of S&G if not a clear example of how sin will finally be dealt with by God?
I am about as knowledgeable in hermeneutics as anyone on this board (if not anywhere) . . . and I tell you that pretending to KNOW ABSOLUTELY what the heck Revelation actually intends to communicate is nothing but extreme arrogance and hubris, period. We can engage in all sorts of inferential antics with varying degrees of probability and confidence reflecting our preferences and biases . . . but basing anything concrete on those inferences is a risky business. Besides . . . the nature of God revealed in the ignorant descriptions and interpretations of Jehovah . . . when compared to what Christians should believe about the true nature of God as revealed and exemplified by Jesus . . . is completely contradictory. So to use how God treats the wicked as portrayed in those writings under the veil of primitive ignorance is just ANTI-CHRISTian.
Rev 22 - I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You should really read the thread link that I posted.
