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

[Jaxxi]

Oh Im sorry. John 3:5 " Truly, truly I say to you unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot see the Kingdom of God." what does that mean to you?

John 3:3 does not say "if you do not get baptized of the water you will not see the Kingdom of God!"

 

[Der Alte]

Oh Im sorry. John 3:5 " Truly, truly I say to you unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot see the Kingdom of God." what does that mean to you?

"Born of water" does not mean baptism. Read verse 6 where it explains what is meant by 'born of water"
.

Joh 3:5-6
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

Baptism does not portray birth but burial and resurrection.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. ​

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. ​

 

[Jaxxi]

I understand that. I know what baptism is. What makes you think i do not?

 

[Jaxxi]

Romans 6:3 or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Jesus Christ have been baptized into His death?

 

[Jaxxi]

"Born of water" does not mean baptism. Read verse 6 where it explains what is meant by 'born of water"
.

Joh 3:5-6
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

Baptism does not portray birth but burial and resurrection.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. ​

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. ​

please see above

 

[Der Alte]

Yes but if you do not get baptized of the water you will not see the Kingdom of God. So it is saying you must be baptized of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in water to go to heaven but those of Jewish faith arent baptized as Christians so...they wont be entering is how Im reading it! John 3:3. is the scripture I am referring to. I feel the New Testament is also telling us No one gets to the Father except through the Son. Those who believe might be saved but just because you are saved does not mean you are worthy of the Kingdom of God unless you believe in the Christ. Is this correct?

John 3:3 does not say "if you do not get baptized of the water you will not see the Kingdom of God!"

I understand that. I know what baptism is. What makes you think i do not?

Your previous post quoted above.

 

[Barraco]

Yes but if you do not get baptized of the water you will not see the Kingdom of God. So it is saying you must be baptized of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in water to go to heaven but those of Jewish faith arent baptized as Christians so...they wont be entering is how Im reading it! John 3:3. is the scripture I am referring to. I feel the New Testament is also telling us No one gets to the Father except through the Son. Those who believe might be saved but just because you are saved does not mean you are worthy of the Kingdom of God unless you believe in the Christ. Is this correct?

The kingdom of God denotes authority, not a political entity. When God's church spreads, His authority usurps Satan's authority over the peoples living in darkness. Therefore we pray, "Thy kingdom [authority] come, Thy will be done on the earth as it is in heaven."

 

[Jaxxi]

Right but I see it as The Kingdom of God is in heaven...and born of the water represents baptism. Thats how it reads.

 

[Barraco]

Oh Im sorry. John 3:5 " Truly, truly I say to you unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot see the Kingdom of God." what does that mean to you?

Birth by water speaks of a natural birth. Before the child comes into the world, the bag of waters ruptures.

When a person is born of the Spirit, he enters the Kingdom of God, which is the Church.

So a person isn't saved unless he is born both by natural (not specifically natural child-birthing methods) and spiritual birth.

 

[Jaxxi]

Ok but it says Mark 10:21 "go and sell all you possess and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven, and come follow Me" and 2 sentences later "And Jesus looked around at His disciples and said" How hard will it be for those who are wealthy to enter the Kingdom of God!."

How is He not talking about Heaven when He just mentioned it? He didnt say " My Fathers house" He said " Kingdom.

 

[Barraco]

Ok but it says Mark 10:21 "go and sell all you possess and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven, and come follow Me" and 2 sentences later "And Jesus looked around at His disciples and said" How hard will it be for those who are wealthy to enter the Kingdom of God!."

How is He not talking about Heaven when He just mentioned it? He didnt say " My Fathers house" He said " Kingdom.

The purpose of talking about treasure in heaven and wealth in the kingdom of God is explained in more detail later on in the chapter:

Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left hourse or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life (Mark 10:29-30 ESV)."

This was and is fulfilled in the expansion of the Church. Jesus hinted of it in John 17, that we may all be "one."

 

[Jaxxi]

The purpose of talking about treasure in heaven and wealth in the kingdom of God is explained in more detail later on in the chapter:

Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left hourse or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life (Mark 10:29-30 ESV)."

This was and is fulfilled in the expansion of the Church. Jesus hinted of it in John 17, that we may all be "one."

Ok

 

[Barraco]

Ok

Is everything okay?

 

[Jaxxi]

Is everything okay?

Well of course it is! I just think that Bible resignates differently with everyone and the way one interprets it from their perspective is at the essence of God reading and knowing what is in our hearts. He sees how we are choosing to read His word.Are we reading because we hang on every word , believing what it says, are we reading to prove to ourselves that it sounds far fetched, are we doing it to dissect its grammer and linguistics, - there are infinite reasons....


I do it because I love the Living Word.......<3<3

....
.

 

[createdtoworship]

That simply is not so, for Judah and Israel were broken as the stick which bore both of their names was broken. The reason was Judah took in the Kenites as scribes to keep the word of God intact. You will read that in 2nd Chronicles verse 55. The families of the Kenites attached themselves to Judah, and then later associated themselves to that tribe, even though they were not originally part of it. The word Kenite means descendants or sons of Cain. These people usurped the title of God's children and eventually forced all the rightful children of God out of the picture. Christ Himself, declares this in John Chapter 8. Paul claims to be a member of the tribe of Benjamin, but not as a Jew. Benjamin was one of the thirteen tribes of Israel.
If one can find the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, you will find an entry of the Kenites, who they were and what they did.
I have, personally but one not need to take my word for it.
We should always test our teachers. For further reading, go to John chapter 8 to see what Christ Himself had to say about these people.

I would double check your sources, I personally like the generations of noah books, myself. Quite a different age and generation, but very interesting in tracing geneologies.

 

[Jaxxi]

Is everything okay?

You didnt respond...does that make sense? Did i lose you?

 

[Barraco]

You didnt respond...does that make sense? Did i lose you?

Hi Jaxxi, sorry its taken me so long. I've had some class work to do and other things to take care of. Additionally, I didn't want to rush my answer. Your heart is truly in your answers, so I think you deserve the same in mine and everyone else's responses. I think I understand the points you made. As a student in biblical and theological studies at Liberty University, I have learned that both points have their advantages and disadvantages.

1) Inspired, Personal Interpretation: Reading while listening to what God is saying without taking the historical and cultural context allows a person to be moved with a sense of imperative and conviction. This benefits us when we feel uninspired or distracted by worldly and personal concerns. Using this method, essentially, moves us to take up the Great Commission and address ethical issues with a sense of accountability. The disadvantage of using this method is that the true intended meaning behind the biblical texts may be missed, causing one to miss the true principle behind what truly inspired the text. Additionally, the cultural influences that comes with each reader further divides us from the original intent of the text. Liberation Theologian Justo L. Gonzalez, in his book Christian Thought Revisited: Three Types of Theology, noted how Tertullian's Latin Stoic philosophy influenced the Roman Church's theology and how Origen's NeoPlatonic philosophy influenced the Greek Orthodox Church's theology. Needless to say, they disagreed on many points. I wonder if the process would have been the same if they had considered the culture that the text was actually written in.

2) Historical-Cultural Interpretation: Doing all the rigorous research of the history behind the biblical audience and the cultural lenses through which they understood the text may be an intimidating and frustrating endeavour, but it opens up to a deeper and more holistic understanding of the text. According to J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays in Grasping God's Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible, it's a five step process: 1) Interpret the text from the culture of the biblical audience. 2) Determine the differences between the audience's context and our's. 3) Find out what you and the biblical audience have in common. 4) Derive the principles from the text. 5) See if the principle is consistent with the rest of the Bible. This process may always not give readers a 100% accuracy, but it certainly roots out notable false interpretations. While God inspired the Word, it was communicated through Jews in time and space. Ignoring this fact, I believe, will only further divide Christ's beautiful bride the Church. May it not be so! The main disadvantage of this interpretation is that it takes a lot of time and thought. Knowing more about God's Word is worth it, IMO.

I think serious consideration into both these methods should be taken before determining what the Bible means. What do you think?

 

[Jaxxi]

I whole heartedly agree. I can see where one could misinterpret what they have read, because of their cultural background and also depending on which translated Bible they might be reading from. In one of my Bibles -

Psalm 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile

And my other Bible says
How blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit!

One version even altered the punctuation and used a different word altogether! So I can see where it can literally mean different things depending on which Bible you choose to study from as well. Thank you for your patient word and understanding.

 

[Barraco]

I whole heartedly agree. I can see where one could misinterpret what they have read, because of their cultural background and also depending on which translated Bible they might be reading from. In one of my Bibles -

Psalm 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile

And my other Bible says
How blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit!

One version even altered the punctuation and used a different word altogether! So I can see where it can literally mean different things depending on which Bible you choose to study from as well. Thank you for your patient word and understanding.

It's my pleasure! The information I have provided below was taken from the book I mentioned earlier, Grasping God's Word: A Hands on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible, by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays. (Thinking about my last post, I put steps 4 and 5 in the wrong order. Sorry!)

There are two methods of translation that I think Bible readers should be aware of. One is the literal translation method, or word-for-word. The benefit of this method is that it keeps as true as possible to the original translation and enables Bible readers to read the translation as close to how the original audience would have read it. For eschatologists, translating Daniel 9:27 using the literal translation method makes all the difference on how the passage, and its prophecy, is interpreted. As time goes by and culture changes, language and grammar changes as well. This calls for a new literal translation. This can be understood how the etymology of our words can change, such as how gay once meant happy but now means homosexual. Also, can you imagine reading everything in Shakespearian English?! The downside of the literal translation method is that our culture more than likely differs greatly from the original culture. When we read the Bible, we read it through a Westerner's eyes. Many times were are unaware of the literary methods used in the writing of the passage. Such is the case with the intersection of the story about the blind man in Mark 8, which intersects the narrative about being aware of the leaven of the Pharisees & Herod and the story about Peter confessing that Jesus is the Son of God. All this adds value to the story of Jesus feeding the four thousands. It was communicating that true teachings and true authority come from Jesus alone. A literal translation doesn't pick up on this literary tool. What method of translation can?

A method that could possibly expose literary tools and communicate messages the way the original authors intended is called the application translation method. In this method, the translators try to capture the message of a passage and communicate it in a way that modern readers can understand. As time goes by and our culture changes, a newer translation is needed. The new translation will seek to make good use of modern communication and idiomatic expressions to get the message through. This kind of translation is very useful when ministering to uneducated people or people who don't typically communicate through writing, such as some tribes.

So both methods are important. When it comes to personal study, its really a matter of preference. When it comes to evangelizing, it helps to know the target audience and how they prefer to communicate. Have a good day Jaxxi!

 

[DennisTate]

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?

If........ time is not limited to being one straight line.... but instead branches and branches like the limbs of a tree as multiple versions of Ezekiel chapter 37 are spun off....... .then in one time line....... events in the Book of Revelation could be fulfilled literally...... then in another time line..... they could be delayed and delayed and delayed...... and then fulfilled perhaps metaphorically.

This may be one of the reasons why so many prophecies are written in figurative language......... God knew that He was going to initiate multiple Ezekiel 37 events....... so this was necessary so that mercy and grace can be extended at a greater level any time God wishes to do so.

Many of the major prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel state very emphatically that if........ .people repent........ a negative prophecy can be delayed and delayed some more..... and perhaps even prevented from occurring altogether.