The plain meaning of a text is always the preferred interpretation. There is a never reason to spiritualize, to allegorize, to try to explain a text away if the plain meaning is clear.
Who decides if a text is clear or not? You decide for everyone? Does your theory of how we should interpret scripture match up with what Paul wrote here:
1 Corinthians 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so
the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know
the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
To me, your approach is the approach "the natural man" wants to take. To be clear, I'm not equating you personally with "the natural man", I'm talking about the approach that you take to scripture. Paul indicated, however, that the "things also we speak", which are things he and other authors of scripture wrote down that we can still read today, "are spiritually discerned". Why is spiritual discernment unnecessary in your method of interpreting scripture? Is scripture not different than reading a news article? Or is spiritual discernment required to understand it? Especially the deeper things that we discuss on this forum? Paul says spiritual discernment is required.
Only if the context of the passage gives compelling reason to assume that the language is somehow symbolic or somehow spiritual should we look for other than the obvious meaning. Where the plain sense of Scripture makes good sense, to seek any other sense is nonsense.
That statement itself is nonsense, because it pretends as if there is a consensus on "the plain sense of Scripture", which forums like this prove that there is not. Again, who decides what is plain in scripture? You? And, again, is no spiritual discernment required?
For that reason, I believe, that millennialism, or premillennialism, meaning Christ will come before the Millennium and establish it, best reflects the correct and consistent understanding of Scripture.
Based on your flawed approach to interpreting scripture, which does not line up with how scripture itself says we should approach it, that is not surprising.
Christ will return to earth to judge the world, establish His Kingdom for a thousand years during which Satan will be bound and his demons, Revelation 20 settles this question definitively and there is no other passage in Scripture that suggests any different scenario.
LOL. There are many passages in scripture which suggest a different scenario.
In 1 Corinthians 15:22-23;51-52 it indicates that all of the dead in Christ will be resurrected when He returns and all living believers will be changed to have immortal bodies at that time. And then other scripture indicates that all living unbelievers will be destroyed at that time, such as Matthew 24:35-39, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. So, what mortals does that leave to populate an earthly kingdom for a thousand years?
Why do you believe that there is a high amount if symbolism, when anywhere else in the Bible isn't the case?
Why do I believe that there is a high amount of symbolism in the book of Revelation? Is this a serious question? A book containing a description of things like a harlot woman sitting on a seven-headed, ten-horned beast on many waters who is drunken with the blood of the saints is not highly symbolic?
If we start taking things symbolically, it all falls apart.
Is this a serious statement? Should we take things like a harlot woman sitting on a seven-headed, ten-horned beast on many waters who is drunken with the blood of the saints literally or else our interpretation will fall apart?
Yes, there are symbols in the book of Revelation, but only few.
Are we reading the same book? There are certainly more than a few symbols in the book of Revelation.
Let me give you an example. The 144,000, if you take it symbolically and call the 144,000 the Church as I hear amillenialists, then from what tribe do you come from ? Judah? Naphtali? See, it makes no sense. the 144,000 Jewish evangelist in the future - during the 7 year tribulation.
They are described as firstfruits and their location is near the throne of God which is in heaven. Using scripture to interpret scripture, is there any reason to think they are not the same Jewish firstfruits that James wrote about here:
James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting...18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that
we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
James described his fellow Jewish Christians as "a kind of firstfruits of his creatures". Their souls are all in heaven now with Jesus before the throne. It seems to match up. This is certainly a viable interpretation if that is meant to be interpreted literally, at least in terms of them being Jewish.
What about the two witnesses? Who are they? I keep hearing that it is symbolic, it is the Church but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Why not? They are also described as two olive trees (Revelation 11:4). In Romans 11, there is a description of branches from a wild olive tree being grafted in with branches of a cultivated/good olive tree which represents Gentile believers being joined with Israelite believers as one group. Why can't the two witnesses symbolically represent this the same way as we see in Romans 11, especially since they are described as two olive trees? Do you have something against symbolism?
We should take literal approach to the Word of God unless a passage is clearly meant to be taken otherwise based on its context and verbiage.
You don't decide for me or anyone else what is supposedly clear or not. Spiritual discernment is required, according to Paul, so I will continue to use that approach rather than your man-made literal approach that doesn't work.
