Literally?

[msortwell]

TRUE or FALSE?

Isaiah 9:7 will be fulfilled literally.

Isa 9:7, Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (KJV)

 

[msortwell]

TRUE or FALSE?

Isaiah 9:7 will be fulfilled literally.

Isa 9:7, Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (KJV)

O.K., I'll answer my own question to get things started. The correct answer is FALSE. This would be the case whether you're a dispensationalist or covenantal.

And the reason for this would be . . . ?

 

[mannysee]

I have read that people ought to define their terms e.g. "literally", before moving forward in a discussion.

My position would be that is has been fulfilled literally, from the time of Christ's ascension and reign in heaven on David's throne (which is in Jerusalem btw).

I suppose that others may call that "spiritually" fulfilled.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

[Biblewriter]

TRUE or FALSE?

Isaiah 9:7 will be fulfilled literally.

Isa 9:7, Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (KJV)

I will answer quite simply. Is the Bible the word of God, or is it only the word of man?

God cannot lie. If he said that such-and-such is going to happen. That particular such-and such will most certainly happen.

If the Bible says that such-and such is going to happen, and if that particular such-and-such is not going to happen, then (at least that portion of) the Bible is not true. And if it is not true, it did not come from God.

We cannot logically have it both ways. Either the Bible is completely reliable, or it is not the word of God. To claim an in-between position is to suggest that God might sometimes lie.

This, of course, means the Bible as God originally gave it. And we most certainly have (at least reasonably) good copies of that original document.

 

[Dispy]

I will answer quite simply. Is the Bible the word of God, or is it only the word of man?

God cannot lie. If he said that such-and-such is going to happen. That particular such-and such will most certainly happen.

If the Bible says that such-and such is going to happen, and if that particular such-and-such is not going to happen, then (at least that portion of) the Bible is not true. And if it is not true, it did not come from God.

We cannot logically have it both ways. Either the Bible is completely reliable, or it is not the word of God. To claim an in-between position is to suggest that God might sometimes lie.

This, of course, means the Bible as God originally gave it. And we most certainly have (at least reasonably) good copies of that original document.

I agree with Biblewriter. Isaiah 9:7 will be fulfilled literally at His 2nd coming.

 

[TotalDispy]

I also agree. Literally fulfilled...at His Second Coming.

 

[Hentenza]

O.K., I'll answer my own question to get things started. The correct answer is FALSE. This would be the case whether you're a dispensationalist or covenantal.

And the reason for this would be . . . ?

Why is it false?

 

[pehkay]

From the time, in Genesis 11, when mankind gave up God as their governor and made themselves the governors, the matter of government has been a great problem to man. But when the restoration comes, Christ will be the unique Governor, and the government of the Triune God will be upon His shoulders. This government will increase and fill every corner of this earth.


The increase of Christ's government and His peace will have no end. Peace is a sign that justice and righteousness are present. In the new heaven and new earth, everything will be just and right (2 Pet. 3:13). When Christ becomes Governor of this earth, the earth will be full of peace.

 

[_JJM]

I will answer quite simply. Is the Bible the word of God, or is it only the word of man?

God cannot lie. If he said that such-and-such is going to happen. That particular such-and such will most certainly happen.

If the Bible says that such-and such is going to happen, and if that particular such-and-such is not going to happen, then (at least that portion of) the Bible is not true. And if it is not true, it did not come from God.

We cannot logically have it both ways. Either the Bible is completely reliable, or it is not the word of God. To claim an in-between position is to suggest that God might sometimes lie.

This, of course, means the Bible as God originally gave it. And we most certainly have (at least reasonably) good copies of that original document.

We all agree that things are to be taken literally, unless it is absurd to do so. The problem we have in the Christian Theological community is in determining when the occasion has become absurd.

The dispensationalist will say they plainly interpret scripture. Everyone who considers the Bible the inspired word of God could make this statement. It's a matter of interpretation, not whether it's taken plainly or not.

 

[Biblewriter]

We all agree that things are to be taken literally, unless it is absurd to do so. The problem we have in the Christian Theological community is in determining when the occasion has become absurd.

I'm afraid I cannot quite agree with this statement. I do not reserve to myself the right to determine whether or not a passage of scripture is to be taken literally. All scripture is to be taken literally unless something in the passage makes it plain that figurative language is being used.

What could have been more absurd than to say that a virgin would be with child and bear a son? But this plainly absurd prophecy in Isaiah 7 was literally fulfilled.

What could have been more absurd that to say that the promised great conquering Messiah would be slain? But this plainly absurd prophecy from Isaiah 53 was literally fulfilled.

The dispensationalist will say they plainly interpret scripture. Everyone who considers the Bible the inspired word of God could make this statement. It's a matter of interpretation, not whether it's taken plainly or not.

But if my interpretation of any scripture is contradicted by any other scripture, I have interpreted incorrectly.

 

[_JJM]

I'm afraid I cannot quite agree with this statement. I do not reserve to myself the right to determine whether or not a passage of scripture is to be taken literally. All scripture is to be taken literally unless something in the passage makes it plain that figurative language is being used.

That much of scripture is a dark saying, requiring much wisdom to interpret, is without question. Again, it's a matter of interpretation when something is literal or not. It's not as "plain" as some brothers in Christ make it out to be.

 

[Biblewriter]

That much of scripture is a dark saying, requiring much wisdom to interpret, is without question. Again, it's a matter of interpretation when something is literal or not. It's not as "plain" as some brothers in Christ make it out to be.

And that much of scripture is explicitly stated in plain words is also unquestionable. The interpretation of the "dark sayings" must in every case, line up with the explicitly stated passages.

In every prophetic vision in the entire Bible for which we are given a divinely inspired interpretation, the interpretation was something different from what the prophet saw. So we have no scriptural authority for saying that something a prophet saw in a vision will literally happen, but rather the opposite. For every prophetic vision that was interpreted in the Bible was symbolic.

But many prophecies in the Bible are not given in the form of visions. Instead, God explicitly said that certain things would happen. This is radically different from symbolic visions. Without even one exception, every prophetic statement about an ancient king, war, or battle, was fulfilled literally in the finest detail. take, for example, Daniel 11:5-32. The account of the ancient 130 year war between the Selucids (the kings of the north) and the Ptolemies (the kings of the south) was so highly accurate that unbelievers claim that its very accuracy proves it could not have been written before it happened. Then a situation was described that would persist "even to the time of the end," and then the account of the wars between the king of the north and the king of the south goes on. But nothing after the words "even to the time of the end" has happened. It would be illogical to imagine that the last part of this account was only symbolic when the first part was fulfilled so exceedingly literally.

Again, in Micah 5:5-6 we read, "...when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men. 6And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders."

It would be illogical to assume that this very explicit statement symbolized something other than an attack on Israel by "the Assyrian," followed by a punitive Israeli attack on Assyria. This has unquestionably never happened. It would be simple unbelief to deny that it will happen in a coming day.