SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Symbols or Literal?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )

Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131


I think Hank for the most part is right about the bible, I don't agree with much of partial preterism though.

I agree, anytime secular TV tries to tackle the bible it should be view as entertainment purposes only and to get a good laugh.

I remember a History Channel program that spoke of Revelation as either 'God's prophesy' or the 'ravings of a madman' and they brought out numerous 'scholars' who saw it as a mad man's fantasy.

 2007/4/25 12:05Profile

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK


KrispyKrittr on 2007/4/25 16:21:39[Quote]
...but the destroying angel that passed over all houses with the lamb's blood is symbolic for the wrath of God passing over all who are in Christ.

Here's an example where something in scripture is literal AND symbolic...

This isn't really the kind of 'symbol' that we have in the Revelation. This is really a type or shadow of a truth which would be seen later in full colour and dimension. In a sense it is a kind of a prophecy.

The 'symbols' of the Revelation are very different to OT types and figures. The event of the Passover was a literal event and a prefiguring of Christ's redeeming death but the signs/symbols of the Revelation are more like a 'code' which needs a careful interpretation.

Whose interpretation? Well that is the issue under discussion. I don't think anyone believes that Christ is holding 7 stars or that there is a throne in heaven with a bloodied Lamb. I don't think anyone believes that Lamb has 7 eyes and 7 horns. These are not literal events at all in the manner of the Passover. The question is why do we choose to interpret any of these 'signs' as literal events?

In Rev 1:16 the figure representing Christ holds 7 stars in his right hand. In the next verse the figure places his right hand upon John... what happened to the seven stars he was holding? ;-)

The word translated 'signified' in Rev 1:1 is the translation of a Greek word which, like the English equivalent, has the word for 'sign' within it. This is a book of signs; we need to be cautious about how we decode it.

It would be very complex if with a modern secular code we were sometimes using the code and sometimes using uncoded words. How would we ever work out what was 'code' and what was real? The traditional Dispensational view is to say something like 'literal where possible'. I think perhaps with the Revelation that ought to be 'figurative unless impossible'?

Ron Bailey

 2007/4/25 12:09Profile

Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri


Is this what Hank is teaching? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I have not read the book per se but have listened to him talk about the subject many times. I gather that he believes most of the events have been fulfilled literally. For years he would never take a firm stand on pre or post trib, etc.,. He says over and over that we need to read the bible for all it is worth and basically discounts premil., post mil, pre trib, etc. He is way outside evangelical mainstream from what I gather.

Robert Wurtz II

 2007/4/25 12:29Profile


You know Krispy, they say the heart of rock n' roll is still beating...and from what I see I believe it!

LOL... ya know... that bad boy may be barely breathin'...


 2007/4/25 12:50

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy