How can we be confident in our theories about the Book of Revelation?

[Ripheus27]

I see so many posts, and I'll admit I've even made one or two or so myself, explaining some elaborate theory about what the events/things/beings in this book represent. Now no one seems to really agree about all of it, though. You'd think at least some of us would read a person's theory and if it were the true one, we'd be convinced because we were trying to agree with the true theory. But it seems more as if we just use our theories to justify our worldview somehow--like if we have certain views about certain political and church groups, we mold our Book of Revelation model in accordance with those attitudes, so we don't have a reason to listen to anyone else's model. Doesn't that make our theories suspect?

 

[Meta Tron]

.

 

[Awaken4Christ]

Sometimes A prophecy isn't discerned properly until the appointed time or times.

 

[Ripheus27]

But no one could know that a prophecy was fulfilled until after the fact, it seems. At any rate, they're not of much seeming use, except in Christ's case to verify His messianic stature.

 

[ananda]

Isn't the book of Revelation one of the weakest supported books in the Bible?

 

[2ducklow]

A big reason that people fail to understand the book of revelation is because they are confused about who Jesus is. another big reason is because most Christians don't realize that the bride of Christ isn't all Christians. Those two factors cause people not to have a clear picture of what Revelation is about.

 

[Notrash]

I see so many posts, and I'll admit I've even made one or two or so myself, explaining some elaborate theory about what the events/things/beings in this book represent. Now no one seems to really agree about all of it, though. You'd think at least some of us would read a person's theory and if it were the true one, we'd be convinced because we were trying to agree with the true theory. But it seems more as if we just use our theories to justify our worldview somehow--like if we have certain views about certain political and church groups, we mold our Book of Revelation model in accordance with those attitudes, so we don't have a reason to listen to anyone else's model. Doesn't that make our theories suspect?

Nice point and post. Most interpretations are indeed theories. As a full preterist, I find theorems gleaned from the letter. One major hint of its past subject matter and personal, subjective understanding is that in rev 15:3, the saints of the day sang the song of moses and the sing if the lamb. The song of Moses is Deut 32 and applied to the end of the mosaic covt and its nation and geneological purposes at the time of the coming if shiloh (Gen 49:1-10; the new prophet if deut 18:15-19 (Acts 3:22-24) Messiah, Immanuel etc.

To me, though I don't know every first century appllication or interpretation, the revelation being a first century applicatiin (with a few applications to 132-135 AD) has become a theorem.

Thus the time frame is first century and the subject matter best understoid by those who were come out of judaism, or of the tribes of Israel but who had thourough knowledge of the prophets.

 

[Martinius]

I see so many posts, and I'll admit I've even made one or two or so myself, explaining some elaborate theory about what the events/things/beings in this book represent. Now no one seems to really agree about all of it, though. You'd think at least some of us would read a person's theory and if it were the true one, we'd be convinced because we were trying to agree with the true theory. But it seems more as if we just use our theories to justify our worldview somehow--like if we have certain views about certain political and church groups, we mold our Book of Revelation model in accordance with those attitudes, so we don't have a reason to listen to anyone else's model. Doesn't that make our theories suspect?

Yes, it does. Every theory or point of view is suspect since there is no way to prove they are right or wrong. And yes, we do interpret scripture and adapt its teachings based on our own preconceived notions. It is a monumental waste of time and intellect to argue about such things as the meaning of the Book of Revelations.

You are much better off considering the basic doctrines of Jesus as found in the Gospels and ordering your life accordingly. But most of us would prefer to argue over Revelations (and Daniel, and Jonah, etc.) and what scripture means than to actually take the more difficult but important step, which is to be truly Christian. To do so, based on what most Christian denominations teach and what most of their followers believe, would make one who does very unorthodox.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Doesn't that make our theories suspect?

Of Course!!! "Eschatology" is just another way of saying "Rank Speculation".

All God's Chilluns gots "Theories".

The only thing that has ANY credibility at all - is that He'll be back - even as THEY saw Him go, and there will be a culmination of the age.

Simple as that.

 

[southcountry]

I see so many posts, and I'll admit I've even made one or two or so myself, explaining some elaborate theory about what the events/things/beings in this book represent. Now no one seems to really agree about all of it, though. You'd think at least some of us would read a person's theory and if it were the true one, we'd be convinced because we were trying to agree with the true theory. But it seems more as if we just use our theories to justify our worldview somehow--like if we have certain views about certain political and church groups, we mold our Book of Revelation model in accordance with those attitudes, so we don't have a reason to listen to anyone else's model. Doesn't that make our theories suspect?

I think the "world view" is a limiting factor in our understanding of the bible. The one standard to go by when trying to figure out the words you are reading is called "cross reference". The book of Revelation is cross-referenced in many places in the rest of the bible. You can decode meanings by "reverse engineering" so to speak. This doesnt mean that you make up things, but it does mean that you can start towards the end of the maze and connect the dots as you see them.

There are many out there who are trying to force world events into Revelation, and most of the time I think that is futile.

One thing we can agree upon is God made all of this, and he will destroy it. I think that is the subject at hand, and what we are told in Revelation is a description of what he plans to do with his creation which is spread out beneath the throne.

Man tends to be blinded by "time". His thoughts are very limited because he thinks its all about the "now". Knowledge stays obscured by this. You have to think of the big picture to make any sense of it.

 

[Albion]

I see so many posts, and I'll admit I've even made one or two or so myself, explaining some elaborate theory about what the events/things/beings in this book represent. Now no one seems to really agree about all of it, though. You'd think at least some of us would read a person's theory and if it were the true one, we'd be convinced because we were trying to agree with the true theory. But it seems more as if we just use our theories to justify our worldview somehow--like if we have certain views about certain political and church groups, we mold our Book of Revelation model in accordance with those attitudes, so we don't have a reason to listen to anyone else's model. Doesn't that make our theories suspect?

I think you're seeing this rightly. The Book of Revelation is clearly the account of a vision and never was intended to be a literal prediction or sermon. Very few conclusions reached about the specifics contained in it can be considered ironclad because of the nature of the writing.

 

[interpreter]

We can know when our interpretations are correct because the starguide of chapter 1 forms 21 vectors that point to all the good things foretold. The Revelation began unfolding in 312 AD, and all prophecies through chapter 16 have been fulfilled.

 

[Der Alte]

We can know when our interpretations are correct because the starguide of chapter 1 forms 21 vectors that point to all the good things foretold. The Revelation began unfolding in 312 AD, and all prophecies through chapter 16 have been fulfilled.

Nonsense! Constantine had absolutely nothing to do with the prophecies in Revelation. That is pure wild eyed conjecture.

 

[WitnessforGOD]

Revelation is to be interpreted through Gods visible organization on earth today. Only Jehovah's witnesses Imo have the correct interpretations.

 

[interpreter]

Nonsense! Constantine had absolutely nothing to do with the prophecies in Revelation. That is pure wild eyed conjecture.

The first seal was opened in 312 AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow. His two capitals, Rome and Constantinople, are both pointed to by the starguide of chapter 1.
Jesus now rules the earth through the US, founded by George Washington who rode a pale horse named Blueskin. New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington DC, the 3 historical capitals of the US, are pointed to like 3 ducks in a row by one of the vectors of the starguide.

 

[A New World]

My approach to Revelation begins by trying to understand the most clear and straightforward language. I consider the time statements and then apply the principle of Audience Relevance. John began by writing, "...The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that MUST SOON take place..." (Rev. 1:1)

 

[Albion]

I see so many posts, and I'll admit I've even made one or two or so myself, explaining some elaborate theory about what the events/things/beings in this book represent. Now no one seems to really agree about all of it, though. You'd think at least some of us would read a person's theory and if it were the true one, we'd be convinced because we were trying to agree with the true theory. But it seems more as if we just use our theories to justify our worldview somehow--like if we have certain views about certain political and church groups, we mold our Book of Revelation model in accordance with those attitudes, so we don't have a reason to listen to anyone else's model. Doesn't that make our theories suspect?

Well, Revelation is unlike any other book in the New Testament. It is entirely the report of a vision and John says that's the case. As a result, we only CAN have theories about what the various episodes or events mean (and in this thread, just look at some of the ones people have come up with! )

 

[A New World]

Well, Revelation is unlike any other book in the New Testament. It is entirely the report of a vision and John says that's the case. As a result, we only CAN have theories about what the various episodes or events mean (and in this thread, just look at some of the ones people have come up with! )

It was a vision but it was more than that. It was a divine interpretation of previous visions given to Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah and Moses. So, it is possible to understand the context.

The Old Testament prophets were given visions of the end of the age, Israel's last days. The New Testament writers were living in the last days (Heb. 1:2). They ALL posited the end as ABOUT TO BE, NEAR AND SOON. The end of that covenant age came in AD 70.

 

[Albion]

It was a vision but it was more than that.

Understood...but because it was a vision from beginning to end, its contents cannot be approached as though they are a literal statement of fact. Therefore, there are unavoidably going to be interpretations and theories.

 

[A New World]

Understood...but because it was a vision from beginning to end, its contents cannot be approached as though they are a literal statement of fact. Therefore, there are unavoidably going to be interpretations and theories.

While I disagree that Revelation was a vision from beginning to end, I obviously agree that there are unavoidably going to be interpretations and theories. Personal experience and documented history prove that. However, I still think it's possible to find the truth in the midst of chaos.

John was told, "Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are [about] to take place after this" (1:19). Since that referred to the past, present and imminent future he wasn't recording only what he was shown in visions.

I believe John was writing to specific audiences concerning events and circumstances that were relevant to them. Since they were intimately familiar with John's Old Testament sources, I believe they had no problem understanding his intended message. If it's true (and I believe it's demonstrable) that the book is about the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant age which came in AD 70, I believe it could, and can, be approached as though it was a literal statement of fact.