I don’t anyone who places Israel before God or Jesus. That’s never even crossed my mind.
I don’t think Israel in the Bible is the bride of Christ. I think Israel is Israel, Jerusalem is Jerusalem, a shining city on a hill, the Jordan River is the Jordan river and all the other places are pretty much who they are except of course, the rena…
I don’t anyone who places Israel before God or Jesus. That’s never even crossed my mind.
I don’t think Israel in the Bible is the bride of Christ. I think Israel is Israel, Jerusalem is Jerusalem, a shining city on a hill, the Jordan River is the Jordan river and all the other places are pretty much who they are except of course, the renamed places like Persia is Iran, I think, and so on. I DO think the USA is sort of “Israel, Jr.”.
Respectfully, I strongly suggest that you try to read Scripture through the lens of the people that wrote it, instead of imposing modern literalism on it. Otherwise, you miss so much of what it is saying. Many times, especially in prophecy, things like "Persia" and "Zion" are not strictly literal - eg, "Babylon" in Revelation should be an obvious example. Taking the figurative as literal is to misunderstand God's revelation.
It's as if someone told you they had "ants in their pants", and you asked what species of ant.
That’s pretty insulting, all the way around, even with your “respectfully…”beginning. But that’s ok.
I lean toward most scriptures being both literal and figurative. I can think of no other author, no other storyteller and no other being better able to weave a story/stories that transcend(s) time even as it speaks to the present.
It's certainly true that scripture has both literal and figurative, and that it weaves a coherent story from start to end. I'm just suggesting that some things in there are NOT literal, but entirely figurative, metaphorical, or hyperbolic. (For instance, calling the mustard tree the "largest of plants".)
Also, my apologies if there was any unnecessary insult, though I'm not sure it's possible to say "you're wrong" without at least some degree of offense.
I don’t anyone who places Israel before God or Jesus. That’s never even crossed my mind.
I don’t think Israel in the Bible is the bride of Christ. I think Israel is Israel, Jerusalem is Jerusalem, a shining city on a hill, the Jordan River is the Jordan river and all the other places are pretty much who they are except of course, the renamed places like Persia is Iran, I think, and so on. I DO think the USA is sort of “Israel, Jr.”.
Respectfully, I strongly suggest that you try to read Scripture through the lens of the people that wrote it, instead of imposing modern literalism on it. Otherwise, you miss so much of what it is saying. Many times, especially in prophecy, things like "Persia" and "Zion" are not strictly literal - eg, "Babylon" in Revelation should be an obvious example. Taking the figurative as literal is to misunderstand God's revelation.
It's as if someone told you they had "ants in their pants", and you asked what species of ant.
That’s pretty insulting, all the way around, even with your “respectfully…”beginning. But that’s ok.
I lean toward most scriptures being both literal and figurative. I can think of no other author, no other storyteller and no other being better able to weave a story/stories that transcend(s) time even as it speaks to the present.
It's certainly true that scripture has both literal and figurative, and that it weaves a coherent story from start to end. I'm just suggesting that some things in there are NOT literal, but entirely figurative, metaphorical, or hyperbolic. (For instance, calling the mustard tree the "largest of plants".)
Also, my apologies if there was any unnecessary insult, though I'm not sure it's possible to say "you're wrong" without at least some degree of offense.