Prophecy vs. Apocalyptic

Trekson said:

Hi Naomi, I hope this day finds you doing well.

Obviously, it’s not that clear or thousands of us wouldn’t be having these discussions. We agree that there is an order of fulfillment but differ in the amount of time involved, specifically, the thousand years.

Click to expand...

Hi Trekson! Yes, I am doing well, thanks...I just had a lovely craft weekend away!

Fair point. I should say..."I" think it's clear that the bible teaches a single event. And...I'm not alone in that belief.
But, putting aside that for a moment, I think one of the points I'm attempting to make is that the bible teaches us that with God, time is not a sure thing....not as we percieve it, anyway. Peter tells us that 1000 years is as a day and vise versa. John tells us the last 2000 years has been the 'last hour'. The 'Day' of the Lord might be both a longer period of judgement and also the last moment of human history.
Therefore, I argue that when we come to something like the 1000 years in Revelation, which is a book known to use both imagery and symbology in general and in numbers, it cannot be assumed that it HAS to be a literal 1000 years, especially when a biblical precedent has been set elsewhere in scripture.

First, 2 Peter 3 isn’t a guide for prophetic interpretation, it’s simply saying that eternity will seem very different from normal time, secondly, 1 John 2 can mean hour, but it can also mean “season”. As history has shown, what is “near” from a heavenly perspective is much longer when viewed from our human perspective. Even if we consider that the 1000 yrs. is as a day as an accurate view of “heaven” time, then from Jesus’s pov it’s only been a couple of days!

Click to expand...

It isn't a guide for prophetic interpretation? Perhaps not in a strict sense, but to dismiss scripture as a tool in interpreting other scripture, you are, in point of fact, tossing away one of the most widely held and acknowledged tool FOR interpreting scripture. Every biblical scholar will tell you: when it comes to difficult parts of scripture we use easy parts of scripture to help us determine it's meaning. Because the bible has 1 true author. That means that they are not individual books that have no correlation. And the reason we are able to pull a passage from this book, and a passage from that book and compile it all together and form doctrines, is because all the books of the bible...even prophecy...are moving together for a purpose. The first, or second coming of Christ and God's plan of salvation for mankind.

The point I am attempting to make by highlighting the different usages of time throughout scripture and how they are not used exactly (an hour, being an hour; a day being a day, and so on) is that even Dispensationalists agree that there is flexibility in how scripture uses these terms and the point behind them. Clearly, when John tells us "this is the last hour" we can see it is not literal...we've been here for 2000 years! And that's ok. Dispensationalists also acknowledge the fact that numbers have symbolic meaning: the number 7, or 12, for example. My point is that when we consider these two facts in conjunction and look at the 1000 years without feeling the necessity of being within a scrict 'time boundary', then other scriptures jump out at us in regards to Christ's Kingdom.

The word “face” from cp. 6 simply means his “presence, appearance or countenance” not that they could see his actual face, it’s an expression. The phrase “has become” is “are become” in the present/future tense in the KJV. It could also be read “are becoming”. It is showing that the wrath of the Lamb (the Son) is over and is announcing the wrath of God (the Father, Rev. 11: 17-18) is about to begin. The bowls might be completed in as little as 30 days, where the trumpets will most likely be spread over a couple of years. From the first trumpet through the 7th bowl every prophesied event that occurs is bringing us nearer and closer to his actual earthly return. If you’re speaking of Rev. 10:7, then it is the “mystery” of God that is finished, not the prophecies of his return.

Click to expand...

See...this is another one of those "we take scripture literally...except all the times we don't" moments. I would have thought the 'literal' interpretation of this text would be: when it says 'hide us from the face of the Lamb and his wrath' that it means they are attempting to hide from his face and the wrath of his judgement (Matt 25, incidently). They cry out "who can stand, for the great day of their wrath has come?" HAS COME. Not 'coming', not 'started'. The day has come...hide us from the face of the lamb and the one seated on the throne. I think a 'literalist' has to do some pretty non-literal dancing to avoid that one.

Again, I'm not sure how a literalist gets around "the Kingdom of our world HAS BECOME the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ and he shall reign forever and ever". Even by making 'has become' 'are becoming'...which I'd argue it a linguistic stretch...it still doesn't change the obvious outcome of the meaning...God's plan for the Kingdom...that which Christ taught us to pray in the Lords prayer...thine Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven....has at that point, been fulfilled. That IS the mystery.

Once more..."It is finished" is rather obvious, any which way you look at it.

Trekson said:

You were speaking of times that you thought were showing Christ’s arrival, I’m assuming, like Rev. 6:16, 11:15, the beginning of cp. 14. The latter part of cp. 14 is speaking forward to the time of the sheep and goat judgement of Matt. 25 which will occur shortly after the bowls, when Armageddon is done, then leading up to the actual time of his return in cp. 19.

Click to expand...

Yes, I was speaking to that, thanks. However, in regards to your point of Chapter 14 'speaking forward', to me, this is just another place where Dispensationalists cannot hold up their 'chronological' scheme of Revelation. For those who see Revelation as a series of recapitulating visions (one return of Christ, but that return being shown from various different 'angles'), such things don't give us problems. Neither does the fitting in of Matt 25. It very neatly fits in where scripture says it does: "when Jesus returns, then he will sit on his throne and judge". So, when we look at Revelation as a cycle of repeating visions, each 'cycle' being from a slightly different point of view, then we don't get endlessly lost in jumping timelines that just never quite add up.

Actually, that’s not historically accurate. As a genre, it didn’t begin until roughly 150 yrs. after the last of the OT prophets was written. When historians began to identify it as a genre, they back dated it to include some of the OT prophets because they had similarities but really, no one (except the Catholics) believe the Apocrypha have any God given authority or accuracy to them.

Click to expand...

Well....how can you really and truly say that the genre didn't begin in the exile in Babylon, but 150 years after the last OT book was written when Daniel's book (Daniel BEING an exile in Babylon) wrote a book that is chock-a-block full of apocolyptic goodiness?

Isn't that a bit like saying that Greek tragedies weren't written until the modern century?

I don’t believe that John saw multiple “visions”. I believe he was shown, just that one time while he was actually, in heaven the events in the order that he later described, that he wrote down when he returned from heaven. One experience = one angle.

Click to expand...

And around and around we go. This is where I say, again: how can it be 'one vision' when we see multiple comings of Christ, and many world-ending natural phenomena? Except, since we've been there, done that; to no avail, let's just skip it, huh?

We see these things from different perspectives. I think that what the seven churches were experiencing was a “starting point” but not “the main” point! John was on Patmos for a long time and he wrote to many churches during that time, not just these seven. So, why these seven? I believe that God knew they were the best to ensure that his message for future generations would be preserved and passed on. I think that only the small parts for each church in cps. 2 & 3 were for them, the rest of Rev. was for all the future generations that might be here when the time for all these thing to be fulfilled came to be. Another reason is because these churches were on the Christian “mail route” that started at Patmos and took a circular route to return to Patmos because I believe that he received messages of encouragement as well as sending them. I’m sure Rev. was not the only message he sent to them during his exile. A third reason is because God knew that what was happening to these churches would be reflective of what all individual Christians and churches would be going through throughout the passage of time so it serves as encouragement to all the future generations as well. I also don’t see Rev. as being “full” of triumph. Do we triumph in the end? Yes, but the vast majority of Rev. is warning both sinners and saints of what is to come. Judgment for the unrepentant sinners and (the great) tribulation for God’s church. Well, I’ve got some work to do, so more to come in a little while.

Click to expand...

I don't see John's "starting" audience as the only audience either; but too often Dispensationalists dismiss Revelation's relevence to those people back then, and to all the Christians in the interadvental period. They push it off onto that terminal generation, and I think that is in serious error and is missing the main point of the book.
Why 7? Like you, there's been speculation aplenty! 7, being a highly symbolic number, is most often used for completion, totality. So, basically, we should understand that those letters cover the entire Church. And I think in that lies our answer; I think Christ knew that in those 7 Churches lay the struggles, triumphs and hardships that would plague and follow all 'churches' for all time; thus what he said in comfort, encouragement or condemnation to them would be relevant to everyone in every generation.
So...in some regards you and I see some things similarly!
As far as the 'triumph' theme....it's not "our" triumph....it is the Lambs! Read Revelation again and consider the perspective of heaven/the Lamb. He is given the right to open the scroll, to loose judgement and God's ultimate purpose upon the Earth. It is his wrath, his judgement, his 'reaping'. He comforts those in white robes, and calls forth earthquakes and fire from heaven upon the unjust and unrepentant. It catalogues his defeat over the the beasts, the Dragon and the ease of both. It is his marriage supper, his victory, his New City. The whole book screams his triumph!

Trekson said:

So....there is no mysterious or symbolic language. At all? You willing to put money on that? Especially since you then go on to talk about the symbols and how to interpret them...
You don't know the 'details' but know what it's talking about?

The only symbolic “language” I can think of is called hieroglyphics.

Click to expand...

Then you weren't paying attention in English class. "When an author wants to suggest a certain mood or emotion, he can also use symbolism to hint at it, rather than just blatantly saying it", or "The actions of a character, word, action, or event that have a deeper meaning in the context of the whole story".

I would guess you're already familiar with symbols being used in practical ways: red roses symbolize love...most people would recognize that...in our culture, anyway.
But when it comes to language, we see similar things being recognized...usually the language is describing symbols in a visual way; what people would see; but considering that words are how we think and communicate, and pictures and images are how we see...sometimes how we think too, depending on the person, then the two become somewhat inextricably linked.
For example, in scripture, Solomon calls his bride “a lily among thorns” he is using symbols to declare the desirability and uniqueness of his love. Jesus' teaching was full of symoblism; he likened himself to bread, water, a shepherd, a sower, a bridegroom, a door, a cornerstone, a vine, light.
There are hundreds of examples in scripture where language is used symbolically...and that's not even in Revelation.

The problem with saying people like me use a 'false decoder of symbolism' is that we pretty much just pull our meanings from scripture. Babylon, in the OT, was always the enemy of the people of God. The two witnesses...we are told there and then how to interpret that...it says that they are the two olive trees and lampstands. Where have we seen that before? How about in chapter 1, where we are told the Churches are the lampstands, and Christ walks amongst them. Why only 2? Perhaps because there were only 2 Churches that Christ didn't find any fault with.
So...you can see that we don't just pluck things out of the air for feel good, liberal motives. How we interpret these things comes straight from scripture itself...which I would content is a little better than just 'winging' it...airplanes...really? (cute)

Some people may use scripture but others do not. Actually, this is a pretty good example to work with. When interpreting images such as these we need to search all of scripture and not just jump to conclusions based what first comes to mind. You’re right in that we need to look in scripture for our answers. Was the lampstand (candlestick in the KJV) and olive tree (branch) imagery used before Rev. 1? Btw, when picturing the (7) lampstands, picture “a” Menorah. Go back to Zech. 4. The Rev. 1 imagery comes from this. We are told that they represent the seven churches and by Rev. 4:5 we know they are “lit”. That is the key, they are spirit-filled (Rev. 4:5, Zech. 4:6) churches. The two olive trees comes from this same chapter (Zech. 4:3, 14). These are not churches, they are individuals. I believe they are Enoch and Elijah because as far as we know they are the only two prophets which have not experienced death…yet. The latter part of Rev. 11 can only be speaking of individuals. Check out Zech. 4:12. These two are really full of the Holy Spirit, so much so, that they can through the spirit, spew out flame from their mouths Rev. 11:5. Why are they called lampstands? Because while they are ministering on the earth they are the only two physical remnants of God’s messengers. They will be doing the job that the churches did but by this time the church has been raptured. God will not leave the church w/o a witness. When the church goes, the two witnesses come, when they go angels of the Lord come, Rev. 14:6-11. During each stage of representation some people will heed their warnings and turn to God for salvation as Rev. 14:13 shows.

Imagery and symbolism are two different things. The point is that although Daniel sees images, they are usually explained in the context whereas symbolism usually isn’t explained and leaves you guessing what they might stand for. For example Rev. 1:12, 16 gives us imagery, Rev. 1:20 defines that imagery so, by definition that is NOT symbolism. Symbolism is abstract w/ many possible meanings. Look up the definition of symbolism for yourself.

Click to expand...

It's certainly interesting that the 2 witnesses goes back to Zech 4; but not unsurprising or necessarily problematic. Revelation harks back to the OT more than any other NT book at all.
Could the 2 witnesses actually be 2 people? Sure...I'm not against that at all, but I believe that if it is 2 people, they'd be symbolic of God's people as a whole...something I'm sure you'd agree with; these witnesses represent us. But on the flip side, it's also possible that the 'two' here in Revelation is the symbol at play here, and it's talking about the people of God now. And throughout history, there have been, let's say, two people's of God. OT - old covenanat, and NT - new covenant. Represented by the 12 tribes and the 12 disciples; seen in the 24 thrones around God's throne.
To my mind, either is a very valid interpretation, neither dismisses the importance of what is being said in the text; these witnesses stand up for God and his people; and the unrighteous people of the World who resist God will oppose them.

Please, let’s not add to what I have said. I never said there weren’t any symbols, I said that they are not some form of “mysterious or symbolic language”.

Click to expand...

And yet, at the top of this page you say that the only "symbolic language" you can think of is hieroglyphics (which is just a different language...*cough*. So...they would be saying "the only 'symbolic language' I can think of is that strange English language"). To me, this suggests that you are just not getting it. Language is what we have. We use it to do all sorts of niffty things. Sometimes we use it to paint word pictures and comparisons. Sometimes we use it to describes things we've seen that defy rational explination. But the very fact that we have the word "symbolic" or "metaphor" or "figurative" means that we can, and do, use language...our language, for these purposes. And yes...sometimes the outcomes is bizarre, strange or mysterious. See....that's another word we have "mysterious". Paul uses it a lot...John even uses it in Revelation. Don't you think there might be a reason for that? It's something we can overcome with thought and study...but it's still there.

The first one isn’t saying: “I see you, I love you, look at what I am doing" and the second one is, in my opinion, the raptured church arriving in heaven so of course we would be praising and thanking God for His deliverance.

Click to expand...

Then I don't think you're considering it enough. Or, more than likely, you can't consider it enough. You are so "in" your mindset that you will be Raptured out before the 'going gets tough' that you cannot see what an amazing blessing it might be to a Church to realise that God telling them that he is holding them and directing things even during calamity, is a comfort; is our God telling them he loves them.
Every time in Revelation that God makes a declaration, either of judgement or of redemption, all of heaven bursts forth in song; praise and glory. Do you suppose that, reading that...being shown that in Revelation as we are...as every Church going through persecution has been through the centuries...that we should not do the same?

Trekson said:

This is the crux of our problem, you see symbolism as simply “the use of symbols”, where many of us see symbolism as the “interpretation of symbols”. I’m going to use some quotes from spiritandtruth.org as they say it better than I. Speaking of Revelation, Fruchtenbaum has observed the tendency toward two extremes:

Click to expand...

I'm sorry...but...isn't it just two sides of the same coin? One can't "interpret symbols" if they haven't been "used" in the first place. No?

“The existence of these symbols has led to two extremes. One extreme states that the existence of these symbols shows that this book cannot be understood and must simply be interpreted in terms of a general conflict between good and evil, (your viewpoint) the good winning out in the end.”

Click to expand...

Okay...let me just stop you there for a second: you know how you're always asking me to correctly quote you etc? Well...my "viewpoint" is not just a "general conflict between good and evil". I'd say its the definite over-arching theme of the book, as would anyone with a head on their sholders. But does that mean I dismiss some of the details in the book? No, not at all. And just because these details are described in symbolic terms doesn't mean I dismiss them either. I've tried on numerous occasions with numerous Dispensationalists to get this point across: lets use Daniel as our example: he used the mixed beast as a symbol of the future nations that would arise. As well as the 'mixed' metal statue. But...did that mean that the nations that came after Babylon were not very real? No! Of course they were real. But instead of going "Hey Daniel, after this kingdom, there's gonna be Persia, then Greece..." and what-have-you, God chose to use symbolic images to make that message known. Likewise in Revelation.

Because of this “they bring with them a certain amount of “interpretive baggage”—biases and pre-understandings which flavor their assessment of the facts of history and the text. These have a huge effect upon the interpretation of the book of Revelation for two primary reasons:

1. The book is often categorized as being written in an apocalyptic literary genre by design.
2. The book contains numerous symbols.

Click to expand...

My best wishes to Mr Fruchtenbaum, but the man states the obvious without addressing the glaringly self-evident. Everyone comes to biblical interpretation with interpretive baggage...that includes Dispensationalists as well as Amillennialists. They'll just have different baggage and presuppositions.

Now, in regards to the genre and if it was written that way by design....don't you think that that's not for you or I to answer? If it IS written in apocolytic style, then we must suppose, God being the author, that he didn't so do by mistake. It would be rather ridiculous to think he did.
Fruchtenbaum then goes on to say that my 'baggage' is a problem "because the book contains numeous symbols". Now...I confess, I am unsure what his point is. Is it a problem that I am saying the book contains symbols, or is it a problem that my presuppositions warp the symbols? Because either way, this conversation becomes much, much longer. In order to determine if my presuppositions are faulty and that is where my erroneous reading of Revelation comes from, we'd have to go back and start at the difference between covenantal theology and Dispenstational theology. And that, like I said, is a much larger and more complicated conversation. But, for now, let's perhaps leave it at this:
We can agree, can we not, that Revelation does, in fact, use at least SOME symbolic language? And to answer no to this is to deny the "Lion and Lamb" symbol of Christ that is used, so I am assuming you must at least agree "yes in part".

Once a work is defined to be apocalyptic in genre, the door is opened to a wide array of interpretive treatments as it becomes fashionable to understand the surface-level literary work on the basis of hidden, mysterious, or unstated secondary meaning below the text itself. The inclusion of symbols leads in this direction as various interpreters see license in the symbology for a further separation between the meaning of the text and the real intent of the author. The wider the gap which can be asserted between the text itself and the intended meaning of the author, the greater the room for conjecture and supposition by the interpreter. When given free reign with the book of Revelation, the sad result of such license is often the very negation of the stated purpose of the book of Revelation:

Click to expand...

This implies that those of us who apply such an understanding to Revelation (apocolyptic genre) enjoy engaging in this "hidden, mysterious, unstated second meaning below the text itself" type of skull-daggery. And that seems to be the intent of Fruchtenbaum, implying that we see this as license to apply whatever meaning we want and thereby divorcing any real meaning the text ever had in application. However he, and as I've pointed out before to you, is ignoring the fact that we do not see a symbol, rub our hands with glee and skip off the path wondering where it might take us, fully determined that it be somewhere new. No...when we see a symbol has been used...something that is obviously not to be taken in its clear and literal sense, and where the symbol is not already explained for us (as some are), we then carefully go back through scripture searching for where God has used such symbols before. So, if you really feel letting God's own word and his own past use of such symbols interpret Revelation is a sad use of 'license' and a divorce of what the text is truly intending...then in point of fact, I would question your presuppositions and what you are coming to scripture to get out of it. Should it not be what God's own interpretation is? Would that not be the most sure and safe way to search for it?

Trekson said:

The Apocalypse (“unveiling”) has become Apocrypha (“hidden”). This should not be. The book was written to show those things which were coming to pass, not to obscure them in a maze of symbolism and dark sayings. Great blessing was promised to all who would read (or even hear) the words of the book of this 1:3‣), but how could anyone be blessed by words he could not even understand?”

Click to expand...

Oh, come now! If this is the best objection this man can muster against genre and the use of symbolism then he should just go home. He writes about unveiling and how the book was written to be shown! And then misses the point completely. What do we see with? Eyes? Pictures? Images? What sort of images can often convey the most? Symbols! What do we understand when we see a heart? That it is an anatomical organ? No! That it symbolises love, which in itself speaks a hundred words! What about a skull and crossbones? Again...a human skelletal remains? No! Danger and a thousand other things that relate to danger! Pirates, dangerous chemicals, malware. This list goes on...but you get my picture.
When John sees a Lion, does he actually see an animal? Is Christ really a Lion? No. Why a Lion? Scripture tells us that he is "the Lion of the tribe of Judah". This is an image of triumph...he has conquered. But, when John turns to look at this triumphant Lion, he sees a Lamb that looked as if it were slain. Is Christ actually a lamb? No. Again, it's a symbol. Christ, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. But why use these symbols, and why in this order? Because....Christ has conquered BY being slain.
By dismissing the symbols, by dismissing the wonderful imagery, so much is missed in this wonderful book. Now, you and Mr Fruchtenbaum can say that people like me hide Revelation under a maze of 'symbolism and dark sayings'...but isn't it just MORE...knowing that Jesus Christ triumphs and has defeated Satan BECAUSE he was slain for the sins of his people. Isn't that beautiful and illuminating?

This minimalist (literal) interpretation is the way a reader would most likely understand the text when absent from the guidance of an allegorical interpreter. The best interpretation of a historical record is no interpretation but simply letting the divine Author of the record say what He says and assuming He says what He means. For example, “If one were on a desert island and read Revelation for the first time, how would he normally interpret the book? The answer would be “actual and literal,” unless there was an amillennialist and allegorist around to say, “No, no, these events are not real! They have some hidden meaning that no one is sure of, but don’t let that bother you!” (end of quotes)

Click to expand...

The problem with the "if a reader was on a desert island" argument is that it's nonsensical and therefore pointless. No one comes to the bible 'in a vacuum'. Every single person alive has some sort of influences or opinions that have weighed against or on them as they have grown up and to or from scripture.
So to say "our interpretation is the most pure and the most likely one people in a vacuum would pick" is idiotic and itself biased. Sorry.

Is the aod in the time frame of the 70th week? Yes, but it is not the whole of the seven years as you seemed to imply.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply it was the whole 7 years, just that if the AOD occured within that 7 year period, and the AOD was decribed as happened at a certain point, then you could presummably put the two together....if you follow me....

It’s simply based on what can be seen. If seen, it’s real even if operating under a spiritual power. If unseen it’s spiritual in nature, but that’s only me.

Click to expand...

Yes...that's most definitely only you. Normally, what helps us decide if something is spiritual or if something is physical is the words: spiritual/physical.
But I suppose whatever floats your boat. It does make it a little hard for the rest of us though, when words don't mean the same thing as...well...words.

It’s not that cut and dried. Sometimes multiple symbols are used to describe the same thing, other times once a symbol is used and a meaning defined, believing it must always have the same interpretation is, imo, close-minded and errant. For a quick example, some believe the fig tree in Matt. 24:32 is symbolic of Israel, but that would not be the same as the symbolic (imagery) use of the fig tree in Rev. 6:13.

Click to expand...

Of course nothing is ever that 'cut and dried'. Sometimes it's hard to try and determine God's intent. My rule of thumb is to put Christ and his coming before OT revelation...the new covenant made some changes that we have to factor in...things that Christ and Paul tell us about. That's why going back and starting with Covenant theology can be so important, it walks you through a basic understanding of the OT and then how Christ's coming fulfilled and built on it.
But one thing I can tell you with absolute surety: everything in the bible will get you a lot closer to God's intent than trying to do newspaper exegesis.

Trekson said:

Well, NO because the scripture does NOT refer to them as “angelic” beings. They are called the “four living creatures” and that is exactly what they are. Unique creations of God made for his purposes! Therefore, equating them w/ fallen angels in not good hermeneutics and is another case of symbolism run amok. I agree that there is a demonic force behind them just as there is with the liberal democrats in our country and communistic/socialist societies around the world. Speaking only for myself, your interpretation doesn’t make “sense” to me, so I seek another “sense”. Could I be wrong? Absolutely, but it satisfies me, for now.

Click to expand...

So...we're talking about creatures who dwell around the Throne of God, praising him constantly, who have bizarre appearances (so not humans), and you're stalling on the "angel" part? Tell me....are we told of any other sort of creation it could be? We're told there are different 'levels', you could say, of angelic being; cherubim, seruphim, that sort of thing...but still 'angelic'. You're not willing to go out on a limb and say "angel", but your willing to go out on one and say "entirely new creation that the bible doesn't even mention"...and then point the finger at me for dodgy hermeneutics?

Yes, it can be if it’s the wrong interpretation! We have the 12 and 12 represented in the description of the NJ so jumping to the conclusion that these represent old and new testament people of God, isn’t a good thing. Are there other possible interpretations? I believe so. One of the problems is the use of the word “us” in Rev. 5:9, which, imo, is an errant translation. The majority of translations word it this way: “And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation,” (ASV) some other versions use “people” or “persons”. My point is that they seem to be referring to creations other than themselves and in light of this I believe the 24 are a hierarchy among the ranks of the angels, possibly “archangels”.

Click to expand...

Wait....so...the other guys around the throne aren't angels. You say so because it does't say so and you don't want to be accused of dodgy hermenutics. But you want to prove your point that my use of number symbology is "off" by saying this lot is angelic and therefore cannot be representatives of the OT people of God and the NT people of God. Sure.
Boiled down....it IS dodgy hermeneutics....dodgy and wildly inconsistent. On your part. Sorry.

Trekson said:

This is also how false doctrines arise. People pooling together scriptures that they feel prove their point and then create a doctrine out of them when their original interpretation is flawed to begin with. Thus, everything that follows becomes in error because it’s roots are in error.

Click to expand...

Well, by all means....if false doctrines are made the same way sound doctrines are, let's just do away with them both!!
Except...that's a little like shooting ourselves in the foot, wouldn't you say?

Regarding the emboldened parts. Two questions: 1. Assuming Peter is speaking a literal truth, that to God a day is as a thousand yrs. and a thousand years are as a day, can you give me a time when the bible gives an actual number 14, 57 whatever and it doesn’t really mean that number? 2. What are the “symbolic meanings” for 7 or 12 besides them being the actual numbers 7 or 12?

Click to expand...

Well, off the top of my head the number 1000 springs to mind. In the OT we are told that God keeps his promises to 1000 generations, and that he owns the cattle on a 1000 hills. Now, clearly in context we are being told that God owns everything and he keeps his promises infinitely. We are not to expect generation 1001 and hill 1001 belong to someone else 'cause God's ownership or patience with promises ran out. So, those are 2 clear examples.
And in the NT when Christ tells his Disciples that they are to forgive 70x7 times, he isn't really telling them to forgive 490 times...he's telling them to just keep forgiving.
So...these examples are case in point of them being symbolic. All throughout scripture we see the number 7 appearing. Appearing in fact, sure. But when we consider HOW it keeps croping up, a pattern emerges...when 7 is used, we know that at the end of the 7, God's plan will be perfectly complete. Thus, we see 7 days of creation. Joshua walked the people of Israel around Jericho 7 times before it fell. Daniel's prohpecy has 7's all through it, and regardless of how you see that prophecy unfolding, most people agree that when it is complete, God's purposes for earth, his people and redemption will be complete.
Number 12 is usually seen as representing fullness and the fullness of God's plan or people. In the OT there is the 12 Tribes of Israel, the NT has the 12 Disciples. In Revelation the thrones around God's Throne are 24, representing the fullness of the people of God. In the NJ we see 12 again being represented, which is made more obvious as the city itself is described as the bride...a people of God of whom Christ is the cornerstone.

Surely you must know by now that not every word that was translated was translated in the proper sense and it’s not “has come”, it is “is come”. That is where our study tools come in handy. In several cases, you just can’t take things at “face value” (pun intended). You have to dig deeper, try to find a consensus with other scriptures to reach a greater understanding. Yes, the phrase “has come” does mean it is starting with what we know as the trumpet judgments. The bible uses “his” wrath (the Lamb), it does not use “their wrath” and no this is not the sheep and goat judgment of Matt. 25. The emboldened phrase is backwards, it is “from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne and the wrath of the Lamb”, Read Ex. 33:11, then vss. 20, 23. So if the holy men like Moses can’t see “his face” then surely sinners can’t!! I stand by what I said, it’s just an expression.

Click to expand...

Um. "Is come" and "Has come" means the SAME thing. You know that right? Right? Surely you have to know it means EXACTLY the same thing.
So, your point....moot. Sorry.

We “get around” it by acknowledging the definition of faith “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” or in other words, believing in things that are not until they become reality. Angels and even the trinity exercise faith all the time. That is what the phrase, “speaking forward in faith” means. “It is finished” isn’t in Rev. but the mystery of God and the final judgment of the earth are really not the same things.

Click to expand...

Rev 16:17 says "It is done!" Γέγονεν....or, "it has become". The same word/usage is again seen in Rev 21:6 and the context if fairly clear. No faith in 'forward actions' is required. What had been purposed, has been accomplished.

Who says we get “lost in the timelines”? I don’t, you just don’t believe in how I explain it and that’s okay. We do, however, acknowledge the simple truth, that at times in Rev. there are pauses in the chronology to add more detail and to explain things spoken of previously or to give some insight into what is about to happen next. (Rev. 13, 14, 17). So when we see that “when the voice of the 7th angel shall begin to sound that the mystery of God “is finished” it is obvious (to me anyway) that it is speaking of the trumpet judgments/the wrath of the lamb that will be finished.

Click to expand...

Well, if you can feel happy with your reading of it, that's good. But I'm not sure in my reading of Dispensationalists I've found any who can agree on the exact timing of things in Revelation. It does make for some confusion when attempting to sort out exactly how they see it. And, indeed, even here I've seen Dispensationalists voicing some confusion over the timing.
But, like I said, If you're comfy, I'll leave it be.

All I was saying was that Daniel did not know he was writing an “apocalyptic style book” whereas the writers of the apocrypha did so deliberately! Do you see the difference?

Click to expand...

I am sure I've made this point before, but I'll make it again: so what? Does it MATTER if Daniel KNEW what style he was writing in? He wrote what God commanded him to write, what God showed him. How we classified it later doesn't really come into it at the point of contact he had with the Spirit or angel who was delivering it, does it? And the same point could be made for John and the Revelation. If God chose to give us these books in a certain genre; be they an acknowledged genre at the time or not, be they established genres of the bible at the time or not, then who on earth are we to judge? The fact is; they ARE books of the bible, and they ARE clearly in a particular style, so our only job is to do as God has asked us and read it accordingly.

I don’t think Plato or whoever sat down and said, I think I’ll write a “Greek tragedy” today. It was something that was “called” that centuries later.

Click to expand...

Not my point....the point is, what was written was still written as was, regardless of classification then or later. Classification didn't change it, it just labelled it.

Trekson said:

Concerning the emboldened statement above, that is not true. While I do believe in a rapture, it’s not a pre-trib one. I believe that the Great Trib. is Satan’s wrath upon the church (Rev. 12:17). I believe we will be here to experience that and it will the largest anti-christian time of persecution and martyrdom the church has ever or will ever endure. I believe our deaths will dwarf the holocaust in body count. So, no I don’t see us leaving before “the going gets tough”. In Rev.7:9, the amount of people that arrive in heaven are too big to count, yet John is able to count millions in earlier chapters.

Click to expand...

So, you'd be Pre-wrath? Mid-trib? (Same thing?) Sometimes assigning labels is tedious and frustrating, but I suppose it's somewhat necessary in conversations like this, so we can know where each other stands in such matters.

But, to the topic at hand...I would think, then, if you do believe that Christians will be present for massive persecution from the hands of unbelievers, that my original point would be valid indeed. That a Church going through immense hardship, persecution and death would receive a 'letter' like Revelation and see the had of God behind everything; the triumph of the Lamb a certainty, and that every time a Christian stood strong in their faith even in the face of death they too triumphed, that that would be an incredible encouragement from God. To know, for a fact, that God has a plan and a day of judgement lined up for the unjust and Satan and his followers and the evil they pour on this world, that too would be a gift of love from God. "Hold fast, I love you, this is my plan".
I'm really not sure how you can read Revelation and NOT get that picture...even if you read it your way, that message still shines through.

Maybe it’s just a matter of semantics with me. I don’t “interpret” symbols to discover their possible meaning. I “define” them, if possible by using other scripture. The former can lead to questionable understandings while the latter has already been revealed (for the most part) in scripture.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that's stretching it so thin, your argument is barely there. You don't "interpret" symbols, but "define" them by using other scripture? Seriously? Have I not been saying...multiple times....that that is exactly what we do? We come to a symbol...an image that is clearly not to be seen as literal, so we look back through scripture to find its meaning? That's what I've been trumpeting from the beginning! Talk about frustration.
We get accused ALL the time of 'spiritualizing' things...making them say whatever we want and waving the 'real' meaning away. But this is simply NOT true.

Sounds like an interesting discussion, I’m game if you ever want to do it.

Click to expand...

Maybe at some point in the future, but probably not right now...I've got a busy time coming up and might have some large chunks away from the computer.

I believe that Rev. was written for Christians who have a modicum of Christian knowledge and experience. So did John see an actual lion and an actual lamb? Yes, I believe he did but he as well as we just know what they mean, they do not need “interpreting”.

Click to expand...

You miss the point! The interpretation is made instantly upon seeing of the image! Some symbols are so recognizable that understanding is instant! What does a cross mean to us? When we see it, do we need to think to ourselves "now...that cross probably stands for something...ah! Jesus died upon a cross, so it's probably pointing to our Christian faith and what Jesus did for us...how he died for us and our salvation!" No!! When we see it, wear it, talk of 'the cross', we....even non-Christians at this point, know what that symbol stands for! Jesus Christ!
But, just because something can be interpreted easily or instantly, doesn't mean it's NOT a symbol! The cross is still a symbol of Christ and what he did. If it weren't a symbol, we would see Christ instead of the cross.

You said earlier that most people who see symbolic over literal don’t rub their hands together w/ glee and try to find multiple ways to confuse the plain sense of scripture (paraphrased). However, many do. In my opinion, as one who dwells on the symbolic you are an exception to the rule.

Click to expand...

Well...thank you...but...I'm not sure who you've been listening to or reading. Most Amillennialists I've read/listened to have an amazing way of clearing away fuss and striking at the heart of the matter, which is always Jesus, really. Revelation, in its way, is no different. Yes, it has lots of 'actors', but 'the lamb' is still centre stage.
And to be upfront about everything, what swayed me from Dispensationalism to Amillennialism was how much more simple and just biblical the layout and interpretation was...of Revelation and of the end times. When people say "oh, they spiritualize it", that gives the impression of making it all into something wafty...something you can't pin down and something that can mean whatever you want it to. But in truth, that's not right. We keep it simple: we pull our meanings from other scriptures...that's it. I've not yet heard an exegesis done on Revelation by an Amil person that wasn't pulled, bit by bit from, interpretive wise, from other scripture, and nowhere else. No newspapers, No modern day Israel hysterics, just bible. And for me, there is a wonderful sense in that; God speaking and interpreting his own word for us.

I’m not pointing any figures, I’m just acknowledging that our God is a creator. The bible says God rested on the 7th day, not that he never created anything else again. I believe in heaven and possibly other planets there are way more creations that we don’t know about then there are the ones we do. Obviously the bible mentions them or we wouldn’t be talking about them but I believe they are just simply what the bible says they are “four living creatures”! The scriptures don’t call them angels, so why should one assume they are, just because they’re in heaven??

Click to expand...

But again...you are not "willing to assume" that they are angelic beings, but your happy to consider that God created other beings, even other life on other planets...even though there is nothing in scripture that even hints it? This is wild inconsistency in your hermeneutics, seemingly to fit what you'd like to 'be', not based on what scripture actually confirms or not.

While you may not appreciate the approach to my reasoning, you also are not understanding my method which is one of pure deduction, my dear Watson. First, I don’t believe they are human representatives because the time of judgement and the rewarding of His saints has not arrived yet, so it would be premature for them to have received crowns and thrones. Secondly, if half of the 24 were the disciples don’t you think John would have recognized them? Or at least himself, seeing as how he was one of the 12. If 12 were of the OT that would make them either the 12 sons or 12 prophets. Of the former, I don’t know how many actually made it into heaven, I think some of them might be highly questionable. As far as prophets go we know there were 12 “minor” prophets but what of the major ones like Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah or Isaiah? So you don’t think assuming the 12 and 12 are OT and NT isn’t jumping to conclusions? I think it’s a major leap but only done so because you are focusing on the supposed symbolism behind any of the numbers mentioned. Thirdly, when properly translated from “us” to men, people or persons it’s not hard to believe that they must be talking of folks other than themselves. We do know there is a hierarchy of angels called “archangels” but we don’t know how many there are. Many believe that everything on earth first had its origins in heaven, including the tools/furniture of worship and all that was created and even the numbering system. We know that Satan, was right up there in leadership and authority, so it’s safe to assume that some of those who stayed with God would assume the mantles vacated by the fallen. Realistically, Some of the angels had to be among the first beings created and that would earn them the title of elders. Nothing in these passages mentions them “judging” anyone or anything. That is reserved for humans as we will even have authority over the angels, so scripture says.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the idea of 'hermeneutics'. It's basically your system of interpreting scripture. So...if you make the claim, as you did, that you are unwilling to label something in scripture as one thing, because scripture itself does not "refer" to them in that way, then according to your own hermeneutical principle, you need to continue in that light. Which would mean that in coming to the 24 thrones around God's throne, where it does NOT refer to them as angelic beings, assuming...or even "deducing" with logic that they might be, is against your own hermeneutic.

Now...according to my hermeneutic, deducing that such things are possible, without a direct 'reference' is, in fact, in line with my hermeneutic. Why? Because my hermeneutic says that if I collect several verses that lead me to the same conclusion and don't contradict God's word or each other...then at the very least it's a viable thought, if nothing else. Which is what you are attempting to do above, except what you've just done is expressly against what you've previously stated shouldn't be done.

As many of the points in these discussions were repeated, I greatly edited my responses for brevity’s sake but even though nothing has really been settled between us, I enjoyed the opportunity to indulge in discussion w/o one of us getting mean or insulting or cantankerous or so full of ourselves that pride becomes an obstacle. Till next time.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Trekson said:

Okay, you met the challenge so I’ll offer half a touche regarding the 1000 and 70x7. However, I do believe the 1000 yrs. of the millennium are different because of how it is represented. It has a definitive end and is used 6 times in 6 consecutive verses. Rev. 20:2-3 – Satan bound for a 1000 yrs., Satan loosed when 1000 yrs. fulfilled, vss. 4-5 – Saints reign a 1000 yrs., 1000 yrs. are finished, vss. 6-7 – repeating saints shall reign a 1000 yrs., 1000 yrs. are expired.

Click to expand...

I can certainly see how you would view it as 'represented differently' and I suppose really it does come down to different interpretations at this point...which I am okay with. I think my main goal in arguing for Amillennialism, in large part, is to fight against many of those who say that it's just not biblical. And to answer that, especially in response to this particular issue you've raised...the "it has a definitive end", I would say...that's not actually any different to any of the other places I've shown where the numbers were used symbolically...where you admitted they had been used thus.
Consider: we are not saying that the 1000 years of Rev 20 'has no end'. It has a very definite end. 1 Cor 15 says that when Christ returns he hands over the Kingdom to the Father, after defeating all enemies. That is a very definite end. All we are saying is that the 1000 years is being used, as it has in other places, to speak of a time period where Gods purposes are fulfilled perfectly and completely. When that 1000 years is up, we may be sure that all of God's promises, plans and purposes that were foretold have been bought to pass. Just like God "owns all" cows (he is overseer of all animals; the perfect, complete owner, not one escapes his notice or care) and his promises stretch to "all generations" (his promises are perfect, complete and not lacking in breadth or depth or longevity)...we may be sure that his Kingdom, once finished, will have established all his purposes. And, as I said, that is exactly what 1 Cor 15 tells us! It tells us that AT Christ's return he does what? He defeats death. It's this action that allows him to hand over the Kingdom, thus declaring it 'done'. What do we see in Revelation 20, at the end of the 1000 years? Satan is defeated, and death and Hades are defeated and they are all thrown into the Lake of Fire! That IS the defeat of death! It's the same event.

Not really, “is come” is in the present/future tense and “has come” is in the present/past tense. For ex., the time of judgment is come (meaning about to start) the time of judgment has come and it is over.

Click to expand...

So...I'm getting a little confused about where this all started. I THINK it started with

calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” -Revelation 6:16–17

I said this showed that it was a theophany...people on earth...the unrighteous on earth, were trembling and attempting to hide from the face of God and the Lamb. It's judgement. "the great day of their wrath has come"...
And thus came the "has come"...."is come"...conversation.
But here's where I'm also confused. Does it MATTER which one it is? In the context of the passage and for the point that I'm trying to make, I don't think either matters, because as I said, they both essentially mean the SAME thing!
I think you were attempting to say that this 'day of judgement' was actually "is coming". (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not trying to misrepresent you, I'm just struggling to remember back several posts!).
But, as far as I can tell, it doesn't say that. And regardless if it is a present/future tense thing or a present/past tense thing (which I still think is stretching it)...it still actually means that it is happening THEN! IS come (right then and onwards to the future) and HAS come (before now and still happening now) still means that it is happening to these people THEN. Thus we see them in fear and trying to hide. The passage wouldn't be describing it if it wasn't happening, right? The passage doesn't say "the people of the earth trembled and tried to hide for the judgement they realised was coming upon the earth". No! It says that trembled and hid from the face and the judgement for the day had come.
I'd say that is quite clear.

Really!!, in the context it’s after the 7th angel pours out the 7th vial and the angel is saying the time of pouring out the vials “is done” or stretching it out, the time of God the Father’s judgment is done. Turning that into “everything” is done isn’t logical, imo.

Click to expand...

Well, it comes down to interpretation, doesn't it. You read many things in Revelation that don't seem logical at all to me.

Well, I can’t argue w/ that, we certainly don’t agree but that’s not a reason to do away w/ all timing or generalizing the timing.

Click to expand...

True! Not all Amil's agree either. I don't think we'll ever really know for sure the exact truth of all this stuff until Christ's return. I'm kinda interested to see who'll be closest, just for interests sake...although when that great event happens, I doubt I'll be giving it a lick of thought!

Pre-wrath and that is not the same as mid-trib.

Click to expand...

Yeah...didn't think it was...not that I could tell you exactly what the timing difference of the Pre-wrath was...just that it was before God's wrath poured out, whereas the 'mid-tribbers' just go squarely mid-trib, I think. Ah! The choices!

Trekson said:

I guess I understand that but that is true for only a small part of Rev. Much of Rev. can not be pulled from scripture such as Rev. 8:8-9 and the rest or Rev. 16:1-2 and the rest without either errant guesswork or improper exegesis. When you try to change these judgments from literal to “things are gonna get worse”, that is ‘spiritualizing”.

Click to expand...

See, I'd actually disagree with you there. MOST of Revelation references back to the OT in some way. And "spiritualizing" is not just dismissing stuff as "things are gonna get worse"...although we all know they are going to, and that's simply because Christ told us they would.
Let me use the example you gave to show you what I mean: Rev 8:8-9

The second angel blew his trumpet, and something like a great mountain, burning with fire, was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. A third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

Ok. Where else in scripture do we see this image of a great mountain, burning with fire?


“I will repay Babylon and all the inhabitants of Chaldea before your very eyes for all the evil that they have done in Zion, declares the LORD.
“Behold, I am against you, O destroying mountain,
declares the LORD,
which destroys the whole earth;
I will stretch out my hand against you,
and roll you down from the crags,
and make you a burnt mountain. -Jeremiah 51:24–25

As in Daniel, Jerimiah describes Babylon as a 'great mountain' that destroyes and crushes nations...but will now be destroyed by God...again seen in Daniel.
We know that throughout scripture, Babylon, even after she ceased to be an actual city, was used to describe godless society...a world system that opposed God and his people. Rome is also called "Babylon", because of her characteristics, not because she was actually Babylon.
If Revelation speaks of Babylon in such terms as well, should we not be surprised? Do we not see a plethora of countries, governments and political parties who oppose Christian world views? Should we not suspect in the last days that a nation, or a governing power or body, should 'come down' on the world like a flaming mountain....in power to destroy all before it should they not bow? It happened to Israel with Babylon, and then Rome. God's people will always be hated...and the bible has long used images such as these to paint her enemies.
But...is that the end of the imagry used in these verse? Not really! It speaks of the sea turning to blood...which is an image we know well! The Trumpet Judgements parallel the Exodus judgements against Egypt (which were a judgement against that people's worship of creation, rather than Creator!). In this 'plague' we see the seas being turned to blood. In the other Trumpet judgements we see hail, darkness and locusts.

So...what do we surmize from this 'picking from the OT'? You call it 'spiritualizing', which many say is a dangerous dismissal of literal and real things.
However, what have I suggested by my looking back to the OT for my understanding of these images? That we will see an ungodly, Babylon-like force 'push' all resistance away from them, just as Babylon or Rome conquered. How is that so different from what others say? Are we not expecting and even seeing growing liberal movements all across the globe that seek to push out conservative and godly views in order to prepare for an "all-tolerant" (yeah, right) movement? Could this come as a global government...which seems unlikely, but plenty of powerful, weathly people are pushing for it. Or a movement...'free-speech' is becoming a thing of the past, or conquest? China right now looks more like George Orwell married the Antichrist than anyone could have believed...even for us Amillennialists! And as an Aussie, I often raise an eyebrow at their beligerance on my Northern border.
The other 'Spiritualizing' thing I'm suggesting from this passage is that God will go "wide" with his Egyptian plagues in judgement of man choosing creation rather than Creator. That's not very 'wishy-washy', huh?

John apparently has no problem recognizing angels when he sees them, so describing these in detail and labeling them as “beasts”, imo, takes them out of “angelic” consideration.

Click to expand...

But this is not about John, or what he labelled anything. This is about you, about what your basic hermeneutic is. You can't assume one thing over here based on one set of 'understandings', then turn that understanding on it's head to assume something else over there. That is the very basis for bad hermeneutics, that will allow us to make scripture tell us anything we want it to say!
IF you posit that you cannot assume upon scripture, of what something MIGHT be, because scripture doesn't say it, you cannot, therefore, turn around and do that very thing for something else.
IF you claim you cannot gather together other scriptures and reason and logic to suggest that the 'living creatures' around the throne might be angels when it doesn't say they are...especially BECAUSE it doesn't say they are, then you most certainly shouldn't, under every logical rule or reason there is, gather together other scriptures, reason and logic to suggest that the 24 elders are, in fact, angels, BECAUSE it doesn't say they are.

I respectfully disagree. If they were represented differently or appeared differently or said things differently, I would amend my reasoning, accordingly, but when they are simply called ‘elders” and you add all these things together within the context and the language used considering them as other than representing the OT and NT is not out of the range of possibility. If the nos. three score and six elders were used then your interpretation might be valid.

Another consideration should be, how literal was God in the past? Did the prophesied captivity actually happen? Was there really an ark, was there really a lot of rain as prophesied or were they symbolic for “things got worse, evil reigned and God judged them in a way not specific to the details given? In my opinion, if all the prophesies given that we know w/o a doubt are fulfilled used symbols but were fulfilled literally, then no other consideration should be used for prophecies that remain unfulfilled.

Click to expand...

I simply fail to see what any of that has to do with estabilishing hermeneutics. Sure, fine...if you believe all those things happened 'literally' in the past, fine. In fact, so do I...all those books and accounts are presented historically and not apocolyptically.
But it simply does not change the fact that you basically said "if the bible does not outright state that these beings are angels, I refuse to 'assume' they are. In fact I feel more comfortable assuming they are some sort of other created being that scripture doesn't even speak about."
And in the next paragraph, you then went on to do the exact thing you just said you would not do.
That's not hermenuetics, that's wild inconsistency. Flat out. No matter how you look at it or how you wiggle your 'interpretive view'.

In this scenario I believe you consider them the way you do simply because the 12 tribes and 12 disciples are used in regard to the NJ but that, imo, is a giant leap. Was their another example you took from scripture to make this assumption?

Click to expand...

I dunno Trekson. I guess I'm finding it real hard to swallow the fact that you seem more eager to accept the idea that these things could be something the bible doesn't even speak of...at all, rather than consider they could be something the bible DOES talk of.
Honestly...I don't care if they're NOT the 12 Tribles and the 12 Disciples. That's not the point...the point is the number, and the number of 'thrones' clearly represent those people or groups...God's people.
But I suppose if you want to start making a category for something that you can never know about and the bible never speaks about...well, that's your choice, I suppose.

Naomi25 said:

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?



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.


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.



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.



"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.



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 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....


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.



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.

Click to expand...

That is a good patient response, and accurate. Your doubts regards dispensational teachings I agree with, but would take them a step further...the complete lack of accurate evidence to a "7 year tribulation". Also, the designated dispensations described, OT law...NT grace...Millennial kingdom rod of iron... There are many who have different views on the millennium; his earthly 1000 year personal reign just one of many, and an assumed one at that. The more startling claim however, and one which I see fat too often among people who should know better, is the concept that anyone in the OT was saved through the law...that is just plain downright nonsense. No-one, from at any time in human history, will be saved by anything other than grace through faith.
Any other objections to his treatise I might have had you dealt with most admirably.

brakelite said:

That is a good patient response, and accurate. Your doubts regards dispensational teachings I agree with, but would take them a step further...the complete lack of accurate evidence to a "7 year tribulation". Also, the designated dispensations described, OT law...NT grace...Millennial kingdom rod of iron... There are many who have different views on the millennium; his earthly 1000 year personal reign just one of many, and an assumed one at that. The more startling claim however, and one which I see fat too often among people who should know better, is the concept that anyone in the OT was saved through the law...that is just plain downright nonsense. No-one, from at any time in human history, will be saved by anything other than grace through faith.
Any other objections to his treatise I might have had you dealt with most admirably.

Click to expand...

I like talking about the Millennium; I most definitely see it one way and like discussing how I see the bible painting it, but when push comes to shove I don't think I'd cry if I was wrong. I mean...honestly...what do I care if I'm wrong! Oh no! Christ is here on earth and stuff is way better...that would be terrible.
But I totally agree with you...I think the NT is emphatic enough...grace and faith have always been the only way...human nature is what it is. The law was to point that out and show our need for something better, not circumnavigate it until Christ came. And, well, the OT is full of Israel showing us that the law didn't work except as a diagnosis tool. It pointed to sin. Faith pointed to the promised Messiah...even if they didn't know who it would be yet.

Trekson said:

1 Cor 15 tells us! It tells us that AT Christ's return he does what? He defeats death. It's this action that allows him to hand over the Kingdom, thus declaring it 'done'. What do we see in Revelation 20, at the end of the 1000 years? Satan is defeated, and death and Hades are defeated and they are all thrown into the Lake of Fire! That IS the defeat of death! It's the same event.

Click to expand...

Jesus defeated Death at His resurrection, but humans will still die right up until the end of the Millennium. Isaiah 65:20
The Great White Throne Judgment takes place after the Millennium, when Pauls prophecy in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 50-56 also happens.
There is no immortality given before then; only when the Book of Life is opened. People should never confuse what happens at the Return, with events after the Millennium.

Trekson said:

Sorry for the delayed response but good weather means its time to work around the old homestead.

Click to expand...

Whenever I get a reply from you, I'm like, "yikes, here I go...I'm in for a long one!" So...here we go..!

To the last sentence, yes, that is when death will be defeated at the end of the 1000yrs. I believe you are reading into 1 Cor. 15 things that aren’t really being said. There is nothing that suggests that vs. 24 happens prophetically, immediately after vs. 23. Paul is giving us a list of the order of resurrections. 1. Christ the firstfruits. 2. Those that are Christ’s at his appearing. 3. The end, after the 1000yrs. at the resurrection of the rest of humanity for the GWTJ. As vs. 25 declares he can’t do that until death is finally defeated after the millennium. In a spiritual sense, Christ defeated death at the cross. After the GWTJ, when there are no more flesh beings, that will be the actual time that “death is defeated”. Seeing as Jesus defeated death at the cross, Paul is NOT saying that Jesus defeats death at his return. He is teaching that because of OUR faith in Christ’s FINISHED WORK, WE defeat death at the rapture/resurrection.

Click to expand...

Nothing to suggest V24 comes after V23 except that it does! And that in any normal reading one would understanding the wording it uses to mean just that! If I told you this:
"It goes in this order: first this, then that", what would your reasonable understanding be?
Because that's what it says!
"But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power."

The natural reading puts these things one after another. To suggest that there must be great time gaps inbetween is reading inbetween the words themselves. The only theologically sound way to do this is to find other, sound scriptures that tell us these 'gaps' must be there, and as I keep saying, I believe the preponderance of scripture suggests the opposite.
You say that it hinges on death only being defeated at the GWT, but you ignore what 1 Cor 15:23 and 50-55 says. Death is defeated when "perishable puts on imperhisable", and that happens and Christ's return, when we receive what he was "firstfruits of". This is the very order the passage is speaking of, and it is telling us outright that when this event happens, death is defeated. There is absolutely no reference here to a future period or a period of waiting while death finishes it throes. The passage is clear. Therefore we must understand Rev 20, when it speaks of Death being thrown into the Lake of Fire, to be speaking of this event...which is clearly after the 1000 years. That in itself matches 1 Cor 15 when Paul tells us that at Christ's return, at his defeat of death, he delivers the Kingdom to the Father.

Regarding the highlighted part, yes, that is exactly what the verse is saying! That is what “is come” means! It’s all about the timing and the order of events. You want to combine and mishmash them all together but imo, that isn’t the correct way to do it. There is a divine order to these judgments. The seals are NOT part of the Lamb’s judgement, that is why they hide after the 6th seal, they have finally realized that because of the signs of the 6th seal, they now recognize that judgment is (about to) come. For prewrath the timing is important because we see the raptured/resurrected church arriving in heaven at Rev. 7:14, after the 6th seal but before the 7th seal/first trumpet!

Click to expand...

No...that is NOT what the verse is saying. Let us step away from "has come/is come" for just a second, since apparently it is/has getting us nowhere.
Look AT the context of the passage.

When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. [Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” -Revelation 6:12–17

Does this description sound, even remotely, like something that is only COMING upon the world? Or does it sound like something that has ARRIVED upon the world? When we are repeatedly told and shown that people do not repent even in the face of overwhelming 'signs' (Rev 9:20, 16:9,11), why should we expect people to 'hide themselves and call for the mountains to fall on them to hide them from wrath" from only something that is "coming"?

In Daniel, Babylon isn’t the “great” mountain, Jesus and his millennial kingdom is.

Click to expand...

In Daniel 2, yes, absolutely! Annnd...I was pretty sure there was another reference in Daniel, that I can't find now! You know how sometimes you can get some nice quiet to type these things up...it's fairly easy to think...and other times...not so much?!
Anyway, even forgetting the Daniel reference, my point, I believe, still stands, Jer 51:24-25 still standing in good stead.

Not so much a godless society that opposes God but more of an idolatrous society.

Click to expand...

I suppose when I say 'godless' society, I'm talking of and absence of the one true God. I wasn't really counting false gods! But yes...godless/idolatrous...absolutely. Back then it would have been more pagan then it is now, we have athiesm more now, I think, although there seems to be a large resurgance of paganism, which shouldn't, perhaps, be surprising.

Let’s not confuse realities, Babylon overcame Israel as a judgement of God for their sins and since Babylon wasn’t the mountain, the imagery just doesn’t work in Rev. because they are separate things.

Click to expand...

Why does't the imagry work in Revelation? Because it certainly seems that scripture has availed itself of the 'image' of Babylon plenty of times before, even after God had 'finished' using that 'actual' Babylon to bring judgement upon Israel, and then judge Babylon itself. Rome is described as Babylon, we can all guess why. And then Revelation again pulls the image of that city forth. Why? Many believe because that actual city will be rebuilt, but Jer 50 tells us that will never happen. So...why the use of that name? It has to be symbolic, if she won't be rebuilt. Symbolic of what? Well...I've been over that.

Trekson said:

While there are a couple of similarities it’s a big stretch to consider them “parallel”.

Click to expand...

And I'd say that it would be a mistake to miss the very obvious references to both the plagues of Egypt and how both of them relate to creation, and how people have always had a tendancy to worship created things rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25).

Creation: darkness, light, heavens and earth, land and water, trees and vegetation. Sun, moon and stars, creatures in the waters, creatures in the air, creatures on the land. Man.

If we look at the plagues of Egypt and what they affected or fouled:
they touched the waters (blood), food stores and water (frogs), animals and people (gnats), "the land was ruined" (flies), death came upon them (plague upon livestock), man and beast were both affected (sores and boils), every plant and every tree, animals and people, were struck down (hail and fire), everything that was left, of tree or field, was eaten (Locusts), darkness so complete no one could see another, and the Angel of Death came for the Egyptian firstborns.


1st Trumpet: hail, fire and blood - 1/3 of the trees and grass are burned up.
2nd Trumpet: great, burning mountain is thrown into the sea, which becomes blood - 1/3 of the sea creatures and sea ships perish
3rd Trumpet: great star falls from heaven, falls on 1/3 of rivers and springs - the waters become bitter and many people die.
4th Trumpet: 1/3 of the sun, moon and stars are struck
5th Trumpet: fallen star who is given a key to the pit, out come 'locust-like' creatures who torment people for 5 months
6th Trumpet: 4 angels at the Euphrates are released to kill a 1/3 of mankind.

Can we see similarities here? Should we? I think so. We see God taking away his blessings, both in Eygpt and in Revelation, of clean water, which will kill fish and animals. He will give us a taste of what it is like not to feel the warm sun in our "Goldilocks" zone..bringing darkness upon us. He will use the creatures of this world, that many esteem more than God himself, to torment us, and he will bring death, not life. I think that's the image of what's being spoken of. As you know, I believe the 'Locust'-like creatures in Rev 9 are likely demonic creatures...but as they are bound to God's bidding in this matter, as are all creatures on earth, I don't suppose it matters.
What matters in this, I believe, is that humans have, from the garden, attempted to take God's rightful place on the Throne. As bad as that is, they then go further and worship things God has created for us to enjoy...things that should point, as Paul tells us (Rom 1:19-20) to God himself. So God systematically breaks these objects of our worship down and uses those very things to judge an unrepentant generation.
We see this in action today! Consider this passage:



God's Wrath on Unrighteousness

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. -Romans 1:18–25

And now consider the ever-growing 'climate change' people. Those who would force everyone else to worship the environment above and beyond anything else. The growing fevor of animal activists, who don't give a toss that human babies are now legally killed a second before they're delivered! God is using the very thing they 'worship' to bring judgement upon them. And it may very well be that the environment is not the healthiest; how many people does unclean water kill each year? Pollution in China and India is growing worse each year, causing real health problems to those who live there. Here in Australia we just endured the hottest Summer I can ever remember, I have no doubt that people died from the heat. But is the answer to worship the environment even more? Will that change things ultimately? No.

A couple of things, in Rev. Babylon and the 10 nation confederacy are two different things. Jer. 50 &51 is basically the same prophecy as Rev. 17 & 18. They are speaking of the same characters and of the same time.

Click to expand...

So, wait...you're saying that when Jeremiah prophecies that Babylon will fall, for good, you think it's speaking of the same, last days Revelation "Babylon"? How is that remotely a feasable idea? Jeremiah is writing just as Israel is being carted off into captivity, I believe. That's when we get, a few years later, writings such as Daniel, coming out of the Babylonian empire. Jeremiah is obviously talking about the demise of THAT nation, which came to pass. We can know this because Babylon is currently a pile of stone with no one living there...sounds like God got it right...unsurprisingly.
Put that together with ver 50 that says that Babylon will never be inhabited again, and I feel safe in making the assumption that the Babylon that is being spoken of in Revelation, is not that one.