>>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.

Thanks, I feel likewise.

>>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.

Of course that is the nature of a parable. The content itself of the parable is not what the message is acually about. So we of course know that Jesus was not talking about how to get a good crop, and he did not try to teach how to sow seed and how we must avoid planting our crops on stony ground. What I meant to say was, that the content of the parable must stay intact. So in the case of the seed, all the details of the parable relating to what happens to the seed in an earthly sense are true. When the seed falls on stony ground, it indeed dries up and dies. Same as the parable of the wedding: The virgins come to meet the bridegroom and the bridegroom is going to marry his wife. That is the direct content of the parable and therefore I am against when people are trying to change this and say the bridegroom is going to marry the 10 virgins. It just does not make sense for the parable. Also in revelation, it says clearly that the Lamb is going to marry his bride. Not the virgins and not the servants.

Very important to understand this parable is also to know why Jesus told this parable to his disciples. This is necessary to understand the context and time setting. Most people that are trying to explain this parable are just talking a lot of ideas they have about it, but don't show any proof from scripture or otherwise to give a foundation for their opinion.

>
>I don't understand what you mean here.

I just ask sometimes someone "what is the name by which God called the woman in the garden of Eden" and 99 out of 100 I get the wrong answer. Then I try to explain them "You've got to read the Bible, not the commentaries about the Bible".