[Uncle Chip]

Figurative truth is just as true as literal truth. It does not imply a lack of respect for the scriptures to interpret obviously figurative language figuratively. For instance there are many references to "The Lamb" in the Revelation. Are we to take that as figurative language, or are we to worship an actual four legged animal?

Despite the obvious and necessary overall message of final victory, there are some things hard to understand about the book of Revelation. But it was simple and plain to the people it was addressed to, the early Christians of the seven churches of Asia. It was addressed to them, not to us. I wouldn't worry about fitting a 1st Century message into the 21st Century.

Okay, here is a great exercise for us. Which of the words in your post above should I take literally and which of those should I take figuratively???

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Okay, here is a great exercise for us. Which of the words in your post above should I take literally and which of those should I take figuratively???

Maybe if he wrote you a second letter and TOLD you which ones were figurative, maybe that might be a clue?

[Colonel Kangaroo]

I've been taught a good rule in understanding the Bible:

Plain passages should be used to explain more obscure passages.

In John 18:36 we read "my kingdom is not of this world". That simple statement alone should indicate that 99% of the speculation on the book of Revelation is on the wrong trail.

God expects us to use common sense. Jesus called Herod a fox. Does that mean that Herod is a literal hairy four legged little animal?

Is calling Herod a fox literally true or literally false?

Is calling Herod a fox figuratively true or figuratively false?

Is calling Herod a fox true or false?

Figurative truth is just as valid as literal truth.

If we always keep in mind the clear context of the Bible it helps greatly in knowing what the figurative language is about and not about.