Apostles

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are we supposed to consider the two witnesses to be "pictures, types, metaphors, etc?" I don't think so.

Why do you think not? I'm not saying they are not literal. But there is evidence that the whole thing is pictures, types, and metaphors.

Originally Posted by Ohio

How about when they "prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days?" That is not metaphorical either.

Again, why not? A week is not a 7 days. 7 weeks is not 49 days. What makes 1,230 literal, but 49 not?

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Sackcloth" is a sign, as are "the two olive trees and the two candlesticks."

Is sackcloth a sign? It was literal in its use in OT times. What makes it a sign now?

I must admit that I probably agree that it is a sign. Or a picture. Or part of a metaphor. Why are other potentially literal items not signs, pictures, or metaphors?

Originally Posted by Ohio

As to whether the "fire that proceedeth out of their mouth" is a sign or not is uncertain. What should be taken literally is that there will be two witnesses for over three years who possess extraordinary powers. This part is not a sign.

Again. Why? Because we can create a structure in which it makes sense? What if that is not God's structure?

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a prophecy so that the people of God will know when the time comes.

But I thought that the people of God get raptured. If that is the case, why do they care? (Don't rush to answer this one. I must admit that I have some serious problems with much of the dispensational/rapture theology. I'm not sure who will or won't be around to care.)

Originally Posted by Ohio

When their testimony is completed, they will be killed somewhat near where the Lord was crucified. This is not a sign. This is a prophecy that will definitely come to pass.

And every prophecy that has ever come to pass was, upon hindsight, found to read literally? Actually, fairly few are that direct. There is something that fits. And once the real deal comes, then you understand it. But if it was so obvious, then they would have been looking for a baby born in Bethlehem that would be the Messiah. But the religious know-it-alls had no clue. It was not because the prophecy had been forgotten. It was that it was not understood. It was not obvious before it came to be. And the birth of a child would not prove it true. The results of a life born in Bethlehem would.

We can argue forever about how to read the prophecies in Revelation. If we are around to see it play out, then we will actually realize the meaning of them. And we may be very surprised as to what was pretty straight forward and what was not. There may be little about a literal 10-headed/horned (whatever) beast that we now want to call the European Union. A couple of centuries ago there was something else that was presumed to be the precursor of the beast. And the final battle may not actually be in the literal Kidron Valley. Or the Mount of Olives might not actually split open to save the Jews. But those things stand for something. Something that should keep you watching. And virtually every generation from the first until now had something to watch for. And I'm not suggesting that it is a hoax of generalities to keep us toeing the line. It is real. But what is literal may not look anything like what we are expecting. Yet if we are here to see it, I expect we will understand it.