It doesn’t make sense to you but to many of us it does make sense. You perceive it as Christ returning more than once, where we see it as different aspects of the same event. Since we don’t really understand what “to roll up like a scroll” looks like, it is wrong to see it as a “world-ending event” (btw, this particular terminology is only used once in Rev. 6:14)
Wait....hang on. You see the seeming fact that Christ returns multiple times, as "different aspects of the same event"?
In other words.....the same event being repeated....described slightly differently?
HOW is that any different to recapitulation?
The problem is that Revelation doesn’t read in a cyclical manner. For that to be true, all of the events would have to match in the EXACT order has given. The second seal, second trump and second bowl must be the EXACT same thing, but they are not. Do some of them have similarities to each other? Yes, they do, but the difference is in the scope of the judgement. There is a big difference between 1/3 and ALL. In this case, they are either all identical or they are not. If not, than any type of interpretation that relies upon an apocalyptical, symbolic nature must be rejected!
Problem number one...you yourself have just said above that you see a single event being described again and again. Which is cyclical.
Problem number two...no, events do not have to match exactly. That would assume that the persepective from which they are being described are exactly the same. If I gave you my perspective of a birthday party, they would be one way, and then if you gave me yours, they would be another. They would both be of the same event and share many same characteristics: the birthday person, the place, the cake, the people present. But they would differ in perspective, how we got there...things like that.
Revelations repeated visions are not just on repeat of a stagnant view from one angle, but from many angles.
Here are some requirements for something to be determined as apocalyptical or not.
1. All apocalyptic literature claims to be revelation of new/hidden knowledge.
Rev. does not apply because most of it is not new, but expands and builds upon many other OT and NT prophecies.
I'd have to beg to differ on that. The IMAGES it uses to portray it's message are not new. It uses images, symbols and figurative language that we see all throughout the OT...it is rich with them. But...if we actually study them, while the symbology is similar enough to help us understand the meaning behind the use of them, the actual message is new. The message of Revelation was not an old message, stuck back in the time it drew it's symbols from. It was for the Churches of John's time and for all the Churches since. It gives the body of Christ special knowledge of how God is in exquisite control of everything...even through hard times of persecution and suffering, we are to know that even if the days are dark and evil, God is drawing things to a glorious end where he, and consequently we, shall triumph.
2. The literature uses mysterious and symbolic language.
While Rev. does use some symbolism at times the vast majority of the book can best be understood as literal.
I'm sorry...are you honestly trying to dismiss "uses myterious and symbolic language" when speaking of Revelation?
The book is plump with symbolism and 'mysterious' language. Goodness, we even have "mystery Babylon"....a 'titled' mystery!
People have spent generations attempting to guess what 666 means. Who the beasts might be, who the false prophet and AC could be, where Babylon might be rebuilt, or if it will be rebuilt at all. Debate rages over the 'mark', the wittnesses, the women, the 'wings of an eagle', the woman's crown of stars.
You might think 'reading it literally' sees everything 'come out plain', and that's nice for you, but history and plain sense would disagree.
3. Most apocalyptical literature is pseudonymous.
Rev, stands alone as NOT being pseudonymous.
"Most". "Stands alone". Well, which is it? If Daniel is also apocolyptic, then it too cannot be pseudonymous, can it. Which means that Rev cannot "stand alone". Which means that by saying "most" you're just hoping on a larger percentage rather than fact...and...that just seems to be stretching if you ask me.
4. Both Daniel and the Revelation contain revelations using some symbolism; but they differ from your typical non-God inspired apocalyptic literature in that they are genuine experiences rather than imitative literary works, and do not rewrite history under the guise of prophecy.
I'm not sure what your point is? There can be no doubt that Daniel's eschatological prophetic sections are clearly in the apocolyptic style, heavy with symbols. And there also can be no doubt that there is a strong connection between it and Revelation.
I think giving Rev. the credit for the survival of the church is just wrong. Only to God can be the glory. The church would have survived w/o Rev.
I never meant to imply that Revelation saved the Church. Revelation was given by God to encourage the Church. If you were suffering horribly, no doubt God would see you through as a Christian...you are saved, grace is assured. But how would you feel in the midst of your pain to receive a letter from God saying "I see you, I love you, look at what I am doing"...and then painting for you a vivid picture of good triumphing over evil. It's like Paul said in Rom 8:18...our suffering of this present time is not worthy to be compared to the glory that will be revealed....
And I take it that you think that dispensationalism is a bad thing?! Here’s the definition: A doctrine prevalent in some forms of Protestant Christianity that divides history into distinct periods, each marked by a different dispensation or relationship between God and humanity. Well, I have to say I agree w/ that def. and the bible clearly does as well. OT = the law, NT = grace, Millennium = rod of iron w/ Christ literally reigning upon the earth. Three distinctly different ways God has and will deal w/ humanity.
I think Dispensationalism is mistaken on many fronts. My growing concern with it is that I am seeing not just a mistaken understanding about what will happen in those last 7 years, but where the understanding branches out and touches other ideas in scripture. For example, the idea that some have that Israel is still, even now, surplanting the Church on some things. Do not mistake me; I believe God loves Israel and has plans for her. But Dispensationalism teaches a dangerous view on what Paul spends so much time and effort pushing; that the Church is one people; Jew and Gentile in Christ; and the 'children of promise'. This is not 'replacement theology' as some like to panic and point fingers at...this is just pure Paul and scripture. And yet Dispensationalism would have these massive promises of God that Paul says are ours, only for a people who at present, reject their messiah. That leaves a division that is just not seen in scripture.
So...yeah...I suppose I do have a problem with it.
If events had occurred there would be a record of it somewhere. Birth pangs do not last thousands of years. When the events begin, they will all apparently happen within at most a seven year period, increasing in strength and intensifying in nature, as birth pangs do.
Events like earthquakes, wars, diseases, famines, meteors, persecution? Solar eclipse, blood moons, comets passing us by?
Things like that? Things like Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse? Things like the 4 horsemen?
And who are we to say how long the birth pangs will go on? Remember, for the Lord, a day is like 1000 years, and 1000 years is as a day. I'm thinking we're just along for the ride.
But we definitely can't say that things like he said have not happened or been happening. In fact, they've been happening non-stop.