Subject: Jewish law during the millenium |
Bible Note: Keily, Forgive me, I must have been unclear. I am not at all suggesting that I read rev 20:1-3 literally. Quite the opposite. What I am saying is that a person must make a choice. Look at Matthew 25. Actually go look at it so you see what I'm referring to. The judgement here is clearly depicting one judgement of both the saved and unsaved in one event. The traditional dispensational reading of revelation 20 places the judgements 1000 years apart. Now you must make a choice. Which passage are you going to read literally and which is not literal? I could press you on matthew 25 with the same accusations you place against me regarding revelation 20. The truth be told, one of them is not intending the reader to understand it literally. My point is this, if you choose to read Rev 20 literally, you must say not only matthew 25, but MANY other passages are not literal. The question is this: which do you want to say is literal, either half a dozen passages from almost every genre in scripture, or a single passage in Rev? Do you see the choice now? You can't pass yourself off as somebody who reads scripture literally while the amill person does not. The truth is we MUST both claim something is not being understood literally. Anyways, I'm happy to let the discussion end, I just would be dissapointed if you left not understanding the view I'm trying to articulate due to my short comings in explaining it. After all, I'm attempting to express to you a view that has been around for 2,000 years, not simply my own personal take on scripture. I'd feel bad messing that up for you and other readers. In Christ, Beja |