>Well, thanks for bearing with me, I can imagine you would get a little bit tired of me.

Not even. You've given me a lot to reflect upon and consider. I've appreciated our exchange.


>However I like to point out that it is not only what I say, but you can ask any Jewish
>New Testament scholar that in a jewish marriage the virgins that are invited to the
>marriage are bride's maids. It's not a matter of interpretation, it is a fact that the
>bridegroom does not marry any of the several virgins that would be appearing
>at the wedding and it is a historical fact.

This is true. But the marriage that is the marriage of the Lamb is not like Earthly marriages. The Earthly marriages are the foreshadowing of the true marriage that will take place in eternity, just as the sacrifice of animals and their blood offering was the foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice at the cross. I hope that helps make it clearer.


>The nature of a parable is in my view that all details of the parable are true in the context
>of the setting. It is used to explain a more complex truth using a simpler image to explain
>that truth in a language that the people would understand.

It was prophesied that Jesus would come speaking in parables. And Jesus explains that He has done this so that some will hear and relate in a worldly way (not understanding the spiritual aspect), but some will hear and understand the spiritual aspect of the teachings through spiritual discernment. The sowing of seed is a good example. Everyone from that time period could understand the sowing of seeds, falling on good soil, rocky, shallow. But that's not what Jesus was talking about with the sowing, for Jesus was talking about the eternal sowing of faith and salvation through the word of God.


>I sometimes ask a Christian what he says was the name of the woman in the garden
>of Eden. In almost all cases they give me the wrong answer, and that shows me that
>they really only follow tradition rather than the Bible.

I don't understand what you mean here.