Instances of dispensationalists not taking scripture literal

[Guest]

Here's another goody that they don't take literuuuully.

Ezekiel's temple found in Ezekiel 40-48. They say...Ohhhhh it has to be literal because it has very real, very literal dimensions. Yet their literal interpretation goes out the door when someone points out that there is no height described in the passage.

Literalism leads to a two dimensional temple, painted on the sands of the middle east and a high mountain that looks down on Jerusalem that doesn't even exist.

Pmike

P.S. They always harp on very literal dimensions. I've always wondered and NNNEEEVVVEEERRR gotten a response as to what a non literal dimension would look like. The question must scare them away.

[Guest]

My brother is quite adversarial in his dispensational position. He sometimes repeats the refrain, "literal interpretation of Scripture."
While there is no discussing this issue with my brother, I'd like to be able to tear down this straw man, so I'd like to build a list of instances where dispensationalists don't take Scripture literally.
I'm getting ever more chagrined with dispensationalism because of it's emphasis on a future literal kingdom rather than the present spiritual (but just as real and more germane to our lives) kingdom.

Interestingly, I just remembered discussing "turning the other cheek" whereby I thought Jesus meant much by what he said but that it included literal assualts and he disagreed.

Anyway, in which cases do Amillennialists take a passage literally where Dispensationalists take it figuratively?

Jn 6;39,40,44,54