Featured Who Gave the Right to Interpret "Spiritually"?

Absolutely! The Scriptures are not in any sort of code, but they do employ imagery, metaphor and various figures of speech.
This is what the Baptist 1689 Confession says (1:7, 9):

All things in Scripture are not equally plain in themselves, nor equally clear to everyone (2 Peter 3:16), yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and revealed in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the educated but also the uneducated may attain a sufficient understanding of them by the due use of ordinary means (Psalm 19:7; Psalm 119:130).

The infallible rule for the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, and therefore whenever there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other passages which speak more fully (2 Peter 1:20-21; Acts 15:15-16).

N.B. The phrase, 'which is not manifold but one' means that the Scripture is not merely a library of books, or a collection of important writings or 'insights.' As God's word, it is one harmonious message without contradiction or confusion. Therefore the practice of interpreting one passage by reference to another is bound to be a trustworthy method of interpretation.

To understand the Bible properly takes earnest and humble study. 'Be diligent to present yourself approved by God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth' (2 Timothy 2:15).

 

I'm going out to a meeting in a few minutes, but I would have thought that the difference between the two texts is obvious:
one of them has been interpreted literally by about half the people in the world who claim the name of Christ to mean that the bread at communion literally becomes His body. If you asked a Roman Catholic about this, he would answer, "What gives you the right to decide what is a metaphor and what isn't?" In the other text, not even the Church of Rome is so foolish as to suppose that we are to preach the Gospel to pigs, horses and flies.

 

Deliberate misreading - I wrote "accusations of unjustified..." and of course I NEVER use unjustified spiritual interpretation, nor do I allegorize Scripture.

Nor did I define any system of Dispensationalism or futurism. I just said literal interpretation was used to develop it.

Those OC prophecies were related to the exile and the return, but sadly the Jews continued the cycle of disobedience, repentance and reinstatement.

The priest-king promises in Jeremiah 33 were fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ, in person for the church, or they were broken for 2500 years and waiting. See Zechariah 6:9-13 1 Peter 2.

 

Do you see a literal second coming, asJesus coming nack in his physical form, and then we alive resurrected physically?

 

Because you do, quite rightly, what you keep denying you do. You see, correctly, that John 6:35 cannot be interpreted literally and you see that Mark 16:15 can and should be. In this we are of one mind. The difference between us is that I admit that I do it and you don't admit it.

 

These are all good. As you would expect, similar books are available in the Reformed tradition. The one I use is Principles of Biblical Interpretation by Louis Berkhof.

 

So are figures of speech to be interpreted 'literally,' or not? You seem confused, and you're certainly confusing me.

 

Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate that.

By no means only Daniel. John alludes to several OT books.

But Daniel doesn't speak of 70 'weeks,' does he? He speaks of 70 'sevens.' (cf. Matthew 18:22 ). When Jeremiah speaks of 70 years, he is clear and 'literal;' Daniel isn't. I don't think that interpreting '70 sevens' as 490 years is necessarily a literal interpretation. Moreover, in prophecy, sevens, tens and twelves figure a great deal and I think it's dangerous to take them literally. Where are the eights and elevens?

No, I don't. The 42 months/1260 days/'Time, times and half a time' are
The time that the Gentiles tread the holy city underfoot (11:2- logically, that is from AD 70 or 135 until either 1917, 1948, 1967 or some date in the future).
The time that the two witnesses are prophesying (11:3).
The time that the woman is in the wilderness (12:6).
The time that she is nourished in the wilderness (12:14).
The time that the beast is given authority (13:5). Also
The time that the 'little horn' will persecute the saints (Daniel 7:25).
The time for 'the fulfilment of these wonders' (Daniel 12:6-7).

I do not believe that all these times can be taken as a literal 3.5 years..

I don't believe that all the OT prophesies concerning Christ were fulfilled literally. To give one example, Christ never reigned literally upon the throne of David (Isaiah 9:7). 'From that time forth' precludes us from putting it into the future. Christ is actually reigning upon a much greater throne in the heavenly Jerusalem (Psalm 110:1-2).

 

Please explain your reasoning.

 

That right there is probably why you do not believe in the pre trib rapture.

Do you really believe these are weeks that Daniel prophesied? Do you also believe that at the end of the 70thweek, some time in 400BCs, eternal righteousness was brought in for the Jews (Dan. 9:24)?

They are "sevens", and the Hebrew word is translated so elsewhere in the Bible. They indicate years instead of weeks. Seventy sevens, which equals 490 years, were determined for the Jews, to bring in a slew of good things, one of the most notable being everlasting righteousness (Dan 9:24). This time countdown is now on hold because Daniel didn't see the present mystery age (Ephesians 3:1-6).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sure. Those wicked husbandmen killed the incarnate Jehovah and the glorified Jehovah returned 40 years later (before that generation passed away) and miserbly destroyed those miserable men.