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

[Ripheus27]

But what if the opacity and convolution of the Book of Revelation is meant to prompt us to a deeper opinion than ones about which country matches which monster in the book? We are told that if we have wisdom, we will decode the number of the Beast, for instance. However, all the wisdom of the Christian ages has led us to no definitive translation of the number. We in fact don't even know exactly whether it's 616 or 666.

Now even God the Son, at least as a man, "doesn't know the day or hour" of the end of all ending. Only the Father knows this, and maybe then the entire Trinity through the Father but only in Itself (and not as reflected and indwelling in the Incarnate Son). The Fall, original sin, or whatever, it had to have somehow corrupted humankind's free will or something. In a world with no true free will, it will be possible to predestine things, and thus in the Fallen world did God give us prophecies as maps of time in this realm. But once Christ redeemed the world, free will was purified again, and the irreconciliation between divine foreknowledge and mortal volition implies that God would not have for the redeemed Earth a predestined pattern of history entire, so He would have no prophecies for this time period, either.

Then the real meaning of the Book of Revelation is this: because it would have to refer to specific events to be true, but because there is no rational way to uniquely connect any particular event in the book with almost anything in the world, the book is the revelation of the uselessness of prophecy in God's scheme for the redeemed world.

 

[A New World]

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.

My current attempt to understand eschatology involves a minimalist approach. I'm trying to avoid sifting through the many obscure and contradictory theories that have developed over the centuries.

I'm now convinced that the best approach is to focus on the intent of the original authors and how their words applied to their intended audiences. This certainly simplifies the task but that doesn't mean it's simple. The greatest challenge, in my opinion, is the passing of time and the lack of available credible and reliable information. That lends credibility to the idea that the content was intended for the first century AD audiences.

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.

I understand your point but, as you know, even when there appears to be general unity on ANY issue if you examine further you will find the opposite. Christians may appear to be somewhat united to the uniformed but we know that's absolutely not the case. This forum alone demonstrates that!

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?

That's why I believe the best approach is to begin with the basics. At least initially, we should make every attempt to take the literature at face value by applying normal rules of interpretation. Only after exhausting the application of normal interpretation should we look for another method. However, once we set this standard aside we open ourselves up to the subjectivism with which we've grown accustomed.

This is why I've gravitated toward the preterist view. It relies heavily on a literal objective interpretation. It emphasizes the use of the principles of The Analogy Of Scripture, Audience Relevance and it takes the time statements literally as they would have understood them.

 

[Colter]

It doesn't revel anything that any majority can agree on, it has been heavily redacted and corrupted by apocalyptic fruit cakes. It should be called "The Book of Anxiety Producing, Incoherent Speculation".

It was the last and most controversial book added to Rome's Bible book list. I agree with Martin Luther's original assessment "Christ isn't found in it."

 

[A New World]

It doesn't revel anything that any majority can agree on, it has been heavily redacted and corrupted by apocalyptic fruit cakes. It should be called "The Book of Anxiety Producing, Incoherent Speculation".

It was the last and most controversial book added to Rome's Bible book list. I agree with Martin Luther's original assessment "Christ isn't found in it."

We have no way of knowing how much of Scripture has been preserved. Most Christians, I believe, operate from the presupposition that God has supernaturally preserved His Word. My comments are from that perspective.

I believe one is able to at least generally understand Revelation if one keeps it in the first century context in which it's written.

John was told:
"Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near" (Rev. 1:3). "Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are [about] to take place after this" (Rev. 1:19)

 

[Colter]

We have no way of knowing how much of Scripture has been preserved. Most Christians, I believe, operate from the presupposition that God has supernaturally preserved His Word. My comments are from that perspective.

I believe one is able to at least generally understand Revelation if one keeps it in the first century context in which it's written.

John was told:
"Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near" (Rev. 1:3). "Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are [about] to take place after this" (Rev. 1:19)

The Son is "the Word", the Living Word. The Bible books chosen by the church at Rome (to the exclusion of other books once considered inspired by believers) don't actually claim to be the Word.

 

[A New World]

The Son is "the Word", the Living Word. The Bible books chosen by the church at Rome (to the exclusion of other books once considered inspired by believers) don't actually claim to be the Word.

I'm not really sure how you approach Scripture. I accept Peter's words which I believe to be inspired:

"and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:15-16)

I, along with Peter and most Christians since, equate Paul's epistles with "the REST of the Scriptures."

 

[Colter]

I'm not really sure how you approach Scripture. I accept Peter's words which I believe to be inspired:

"and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:15-16)

I, along with Peter and most Christians since, equate Paul's epistles with "the REST of the Scriptures."

I understand your point, my aproach to scripture is that they are the works of holy men, some more holy than others. For me, to the extent that Jesus' words were accurately preserved, I consider the red letters to trump all else. I am a disciple of the original gospel that Jesus preached to the Jews.

 

[A New World]

I understand your point, my aproach to scripture is that they are the works of holy men, some more holy than others. For me, to the extent that Jesus' words were accurately preserved, I consider the red letters to trump all else. I am a disciple of the original gospel that Jesus preached to the Jews.

I don't remember ever hearing of that approach. I'll look into it more. I have discovered the more I search the more information becomes available. I didn't realize that until I admitted my own shortcomings and opened my mind to an honest pursuit of truth. May God bless!

 

[interpreter]

We are now experiencing the 7 last plagues, such as skin cancer, red tides, global warming, and the Euphrates was dried up recently by Saddam Hussein, and was dry on 9/11 when the Battle of Ar Mageddon began. So we can be confident that all previous prophecies have already been fulfilled.

 

[he-man]

We are now experiencing the 7 last plagues, such as skin cancer, red tides, global warming, and the Euphrates was dried up recently by Saddam Hussein, and was dry on 9/11 when the Battle of Ar Mageddon began. So we can be confident that all previous prophecies have already been fulfilled.

Revelation 2:9 "I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.[ an altar to Zeus sat in the center] (10) Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. (11) "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death."" So who was this so called devil? Let Paul answer that for you: Act 16:37 But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out.
This 2nd century AD agora, midway between the acropolis and the harbor, was partially excavated by German and Turkish archaeologists from 1932-1941. Porticoes lined the north and west sides of the agora, and an altar to Zeus sat in the center.
Smyrna sat 35 miles north of Ephesus, built near the ruins of an ancient Greek colony destroyed in the 7th century BC. Lysimachus, one of Alexander the Great’s generals, rebuilt Smyrna as a new Hellenistic city in the 3rd century BC. The city was later established as a Roman commercial center with a port on the Aegean Sea. Scholars believe the city grew to about 100,000 by the time of the apostles Paul and John.

 

[Achilles6129]

The book of Revelation is I think by far the strangest book in the entire Bible. The mystery is why it hasn't unfolded yet. Those that think parts of it have unfolded have to admit that the return of Christ hasn't unfolded, and it's specifically mentioned that this return was to happen soon or quickly. I've come to the conclusion that the only way for the book of Revelation to be true is for the human race to be totally deceived about the nature of time. John must be writing from a vastly different perspective on time in order for the book to be real.

 

[he-man]

I've come to the conclusion that the only way for the book of Revelation to be true is for the human race to be totally deceived about the nature of time. John must be writing from a vastly different perspective on time in order for the book to be real.

??? John was not ignorant, he knew the scriptures. 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some men count slowness; but is patient toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hab 2:2 And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.
3 For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.

 

[interpreter]

The book of Revelation is I think by far the strangest book in the entire Bible. The mystery is why it hasn't unfolded yet. Those that think parts of it have unfolded have to admit that the return of Christ hasn't unfolded, and it's specifically mentioned that this return was to happen soon or quickly. I've come to the conclusion that the only way for the book of Revelation to be true is for the human race to be totally deceived about the nature of time. John must be writing from a vastly different perspective on time in order for the book to be real.

Most of it has unfolded. 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. That day is known as the turning point of history because ever since that day, Christian nations have been the dominant force on earth. And Constantine sent his messengers with a trumpet and gathered the elect of all the Church together, to Nicea. So you see, I do not admit that the return of Christ hasn't unfolded. Jesus has ruled the earth (through His followers) since 312 AD, and will to the end. Jesus now rules the earth through the US which was founded by George Washington who rode a pale horse.

 

[John777111]

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?

People would do very well not to add to nor take away from that book, including by doing so indirectly by interpretations.

The fact is that you can get insight from God on these matters, but, in general, they are secret matters. People operate as if God and Heaven does not exist. So they do not care if the matters are clearly secret. They will try and come up with their interpretations. Some do this themselves, some take up the interpretations of others. Same wrong.

People do this with secrets mankind has. They write about what they believe are secrets, for instance, mere human governments have.

Of course, they do this with Heavenly Government and heavenly secrets.

And, by and large, they do not know anything. No one told them anything. They have no access. They are poseurs, fakes. They have no experience.

With heavenly secrets, and the book of revelation, there is an implication they are trying to make by claiming to know the secrets: that they are part of heavenly government. Some do this with human governments as well.

I do believe well reasoned and evidenced theories are fine, but that is very rare to find and far inbetween.

Usually people rely on rhetoric, not evidence. They do not rely on reasoning for their conclusions and discussion with them, therefore, is impossible for anyone interested in the truth.

 

[A New World]

We are now experiencing the 7 last plagues, such as skin cancer, red tides, global warming, and the Euphrates was dried up recently by Saddam Hussein, and was dry on 9/11 when the Battle of Ar Mageddon began. So we can be confident that all previous prophecies have already been fulfilled.

The seven plagues were to be the punishment on Old Covenant Israel for breaking her covenant with God:
'...if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant,'...'If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you SEVEN times more for your sins'...'If then, you act with hostility against Me and are unwilling to obey Me, I will increase the PLAGUE on you SEVEN times according to your sins.' (Lev. 26:15,18,21)

John saw the seven plagues as coming imminently:
'The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants--things which MUST SHORTLY take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John...Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for THE TIME IS NEAR...Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angels who had SEVEN PLAGUES, which are the last, because in them the WRATH of God is FINISHED.' (Rev. 1:1,3; 15:1)

 

[A New World]

The book of Revelation is I think by far the strangest book in the entire Bible. The mystery is why it hasn't unfolded yet. Those that think parts of it have unfolded have to admit that the return of Christ hasn't unfolded, and it's specifically mentioned that this return was to happen soon or quickly. I've come to the conclusion that the only way for the book of Revelation to be true is for the human race to be totally deceived about the nature of time. John must be writing from a vastly different perspective on time in order for the book to be real.

Not all admit that the return of Christ hasn't unfolded. If His return was to be "in the glory of His Father" (Mt. 16:27), as the Father came previously (Is. 64:1-3), His coming could have been truly imminent to John in his generation.

??? John was not ignorant, he knew the scriptures. 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some men count slowness; but is patient toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hab 2:2 And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.
3 For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.

I see a few problems with this line of thinking. First, for Habakkuk and all of the Old Covenant prophets the appointed time of the end of the age WAS far off.

Second, Peter told the same audience "the end of all things is near" (1 Pet. 4:7).

Third, John was told, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near" (Rev. 22:10).

 

[A New World]

People would do very well not to add to nor take away from that book, including by doing so indirectly by interpretations.

I agree!

The fact is that you can get insight from God on these matters, but, in general, they are secret matters. People operate as if God and Heaven does not exist. So they do not care if the matters are clearly secret. They will try and come up with their interpretations. Some do this themselves, some take up the interpretations of others. Same wrong.

With heavenly secrets, and the book of revelation, there is an implication they are trying to make by claiming to know the secrets: that they are part of heavenly government. Some do this with human governments as well.

I do believe well reasoned and evidenced theories are fine, but that is very rare to find and far inbetween.

Usually people rely on rhetoric, not evidence. They do not rely on reasoning for their conclusions and discussion with them, therefore, is impossible for anyone interested in the truth.

I think one of the reasons most modern interpreters continue to misunderstand Revelation is that they try to insert themselves into the story.

If we keep it in its first century context as it was written we realize it was not secret at all to his intended audience. Then, again, we can take his words at face value: "And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near" (Rev. 22:10).

The time of His coming was near for them!

 

[John777111]

I think one of the reasons most modern interpreters continue to misunderstand Revelation is that they try to insert themselves into the story.

If we keep it in its first century context as it was written we realize it was not secret at all to his intended audience. Then, again, we can take his words at face value: "And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near" (Rev. 22:10).

The time of His coming was near for them!

That is actually one of the most popular interpretations out there. For instance, that is basically the stance and official interpretation of the Catholic Church. There are also many Protestants who believe this way.

To me, that is just another theory. I definitely do not consider it proven.

I have never run across well worked out analysis of that model written anywhere near that time period which answered all questions. In fact, Augustine, who lived in the fourth and fifth century did not have a complete doctrine worked out at that time for Revelation. And he was practically the major theologian for the Catholic Church from that time period on.

Worse, he had a problem: how to reconcile the fact that the State was becoming the Church? How to reconcile the fact that this new development meant the Church was no longer 'out of power' and 'out of authority'? Well, he started to think in terms of 'maybe Revelation has already happened'. But, he was far from completing his theory, and it was a theory born from necessity.

The truth, I believe is far more complex then that, and I scorn siding with any theory (or as it is often called "interpretation"), until all the facts may be aligned.

That there were first, second, third, fourth century Christian writings and no one was able to fill in all the gaps is a significant warning sign to anyone embracing this theory.

Embracing any theory as the "one and only answer", I would suggest, is dangerous.

For instance, from the Catholic Church perspective everything has already happened up to the end of the Thousand Years. They believe while they have been in power, so has Christ, and so has the Thousand Years been running. But, that is a gamble from my perspective. If they are incorrect, there could be dire consequences for them.

How does such dire consequences happen, that we may know it? Well, both the Old and New Testament are full of such examples where 'people believed what they want to believe, so there is no truth for them'. When confronted with a truth which did not match their expectations fitting what they believed, they disbelieved new revelations. And that, with dire consequences for them then, and eternally.

Where is a model of similar prophecy which has since been understood? There are prophecies 'here and there' through the Bible we know have been fulfilled. Many of these, however, are snippets. Some from this book, some from that book. But, with the Book of Daniel, we find a book very much like Revelation... where we know how a very substantial part of that book did come true. So, the Book of Daniel is sort of a 'rosetta stone' for us, for Biblical prophecies.

This is not to say we understand everything now about the Book of Daniel. We do not. But vast swathes of those prophecies we do understand. What happened was the coming history of the world was well documented to, at least, the time of Jesus. This included strong documentation of the coming 'world kingdoms', how they would break up and end, and even got into deep depth about the happenings in Israel during the time of Maccabees.

There is, that is, a one on one correlation with the symbolism. One on one correlations I have not seen yet with any interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

What I do, which I think is correct, is try and consider all the possible theories, but for me, they all remain just theories, until I have further information. It is like with trying to solve a murder: you must be evidence driven in your research and conclusions. Or, it is like with science, that attempts to be rigorous in how you handle evidence and theories, and testing your theories.

Yet, I am also aware, as we do have that sort of 'rosetta stone' with Daniel, that very well no one may know until those events have come to pass.

One may point out here: 'there must be some other important attribute of the true interpretation then just that it has already come to pass, otherwise why would you ever hold theories that state that some or all of the Book may have already happened'.

There is a problem, you see, and one also found in the Book of Daniel: nobody could have figured out what that Book meant until much of it had already come true. Once Babylon passed, one could then perhaps state, with some degree of certainty, that they then had the next piece of the puzzle. But that certainty would not have been anywhere near what people after the time of Maccabees would have had. The puzzles, the code, would have remained as such until all of those pieces had happened.

Like with trying to jiggle a lock, or understand a book, or decode a cipher, or fit together a jigsaw puzzle: bits and pieces are not enough for full confidence of deciphering it. You need full sequences. Only then can you put it all together.

Part of the problem besides the obvious ramifications of how 'one piece well fit does not a jigsaw puzzle solve', is that history, as reported, very often its' self is full of errors.

Back to the "everything has already come to pass", there are many problems with that theory. That is, there are many substantial unknowns. Even the Catholic Church does not begin to address the meaning of all which happened before Chapter 20 of the book. At all. No one does. No one can.

And, if you consider what I was saying about *why* they went that way, that "why" is a very bad "why" for solving difficulties such as these. They did it to explain away "why" they now found themselves in power. As how could "The Church" ever possibly be in power until - at the least - the beginning of the thousand years? They felt they had to answer it in this way. That is not evidence driven deduction, that is bias driven deduction.

This error can be put in other ways, too: it is taking one piece of the jigsaw puzzle and attempting to complete the whole picture when there is clearly not enough information.

In fact, I can even dig up quotes from Augustine from his book, City of God, pointing out how he described his own conscience problems with what he saw happening in the Church. For instance, he expressed discontent that "Pastors" were starting to be called "Priests". On the surface, that does not seem like such a dangerous move, but what it effectively did was take the priesthood away from believers, which goes strongly against numerous statements that are very clear in the New Testament.

Do not get me wrong: I am not there convicting the Catholic Church. It is a normal human tendency to try and explain away matters, and try and feel sure about matters people want, desperately, to feel sure about. I do not think because many good Christians have believed in wrong interpretations of Revelation that, "therefore", they are damned, nor nothing silly like that.

You may be wondering "why" I am not so confident in the theory that "everything happened in the first century". After all, it does seem that, at the least, the "number of the beast" is explained strongly by that theory. It also might explain why the Church did rise to power and has had power for so many centuries. (I find very little problem in the fact that the 'thousand years' has actually been more like 'two thousand' or 'one thousand and a half' years, as the words like were not intended to be so accurate.)

Well, it is as I said, "what about all the other pieces of that jigsaw puzzle"?

Where did the two witnesses prophesy, what was evidence of the fire that came from their mouths? Where was the earthquake? Who were they? What of the stars which fell from Heaven, or the Heavens rolling up like a closed book? Who or what was the creatures released from the Abyss in Revelation 11? Who was the Beast in Revelation 12 who killed the two witnesses? How did he or it kill them? Where were the four horseman of the apocalypse and their resulting plagues? When did the Christians get beheaded, and for that matter, when and how did they rise again in something so dramatically called the "first resurrection"? What about Armageddon? When did that get fulfilled, and how?

What about all the amazing events from Chapter 12 to Chapter 20?

Really, I have not found any answers that click in place, answering all of these problems in a way that we now, today, have answered so much of the Book of Daniel.

So, for me, anyway, most of Revelation is left open. I look, I study, but I end up going, "I do not know". And I believe that is a very important, but difficult attitude to take.

It is humbling, sure. I have had and do have an amazing walk with God. I have seen many mysteries and amazing things. I would love to say "I know, I know", but I simply can not.

I do not rule out the more popular interpretations, I keep them in mind. There are aspects of some of the more popular interpretations - theories - I rule out.

I even include, for my own self, many theories I do not see as very popular, like, "maybe Revelation does not happen over seven years, maybe it is a hundred years, maybe a thousand years, maybe two thousand".

It could be that all the events I have said are inconclusive do have conclusive answers. But do not think I have not studied those possibilities. I do.

Not many theories have I closed out completely, either. Maybe the thousand years is what we are in. Maybe the Armageddon scenario and the 'end of the thousand years scenario' are one and the same thing. Many parallels there. But, no, I am not sure.

 

[A New World]

That is actually one of the most popular interpretations out there. For instance, that is basically the stance and official interpretation of the Catholic Church. There are also many Protestants who believe this way.

To me, that is just another theory. I definitely do not consider it proven.

I have never run across well worked out analysis of that model written anywhere near that time period which answered all questions.

The truth, I believe is far more complex then that, and I scorn siding with any theory (or as it is often called "interpretation"), until all the facts may be aligned.

I actually agree with you. The pursuit of truth is a journey that some of us decide to comment on as we travel. I appreciate your comments here.

That there were first, second, third, fourth century Christian writings and no one was able to fill in all the gaps is a significant warning sign to anyone embracing this theory.

Which is one of the reasons I believe eschatology was directed specifically to the first century AD audiences. Later audiences had much difficulty understanding it because we are reading their mail, it was never intended for us.

The following evidence, in my opinion, is undeniable:

Most of the writers identify their audiences.
If they weren't specifically identified the context certainly included them and not necessarily anyone beyond their generation.

Their audiences were told they were living in the last days, we were not.
Though every subsequent generation has tried to insert themselves into the story, the story itself never explicitly includes them.

They were told many times that the end was imminent.
A brief example:
Peter said, "The end of all things is near" (1 Pet. 4:7)
James, "The coming of the Lord is near" (James 5:8)
John, "Things which must shortly take place" (Rev. 1:1)
Paul, "The night is almost gone, the day is near" (Rom. 13:12)

Embracing any theory as the "one and only answer", I would suggest, is dangerous.

We must keep our minds open as we pursue truth.

Where is a model of similar prophecy which has since been understood? There are prophecies 'here and there' through the Bible we know have been fulfilled. Many of these, however, are snippets. Some from this book, some from that book. But, with the Book of Daniel, we find a book very much like Revelation... where we know how a very substantial part of that book did come true. So, the Book of Daniel is sort of a 'rosetta stone' for us, for Biblical prophecies.

This is not to say we understand everything now about the Book of Daniel. We do not. But vast swathes of those prophecies we do understand. What happened was the coming history of the world was well documented to, at least, the time of Jesus. This included strong documentation of the coming 'world kingdoms', how they would break up and end, and even got into deep depth about the happenings in Israel during the time of Maccabees.

Daniel was told that his book would be sealed until the time of the end. At that time his fourth kingdom would be in power. This fourth kingdom would finish shattering the power of the holy people (Dan. 12:7). I see all of those conditions met in first century during the time of the Roman Empire.

Jesus told His disciples that they would witness the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel. This is evidence that Jesus removed the seal from Daniel's book meaning they were living in the time of the end.

There is, that is, a one on one correlation with the symbolism. One on one correlations I have not seen yet with any interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

Again, I'm not sure we are the intended audience. We know who the intended audiences were based on the evidence. Why not accept that they understood the words written to them?

What I do, which I think is correct, is try and consider all the possible theories, but for me, they all remain just theories, until I have further information. It is like with trying to solve a murder: you must be evidence driven in your research and conclusions. Or, it is like with science, that attempts to be rigorous in how you handle evidence and theories, and testing your theories.

I agree to a certain extent. Our problem is we are investigating and trying to solve an almost two thousand year old "murder." We can do our best but we may never recover all the details. That's why I focus on the less obscure details like the stated timing of the events.

There is a problem, you see, and one also found in the Book of Daniel: nobody could have figured out what that Book meant until much of it had already come true. Once Babylon passed, one could then perhaps state, with some degree of certainty, that they then had the next piece of the puzzle. But that certainty would not have been anywhere near what people after the time of Maccabees would have had. The puzzles, the code, would have remained as such until all of those pieces had happened.

Like with trying to jiggle a lock, or understand a book, or decode a cipher, or fit together a jigsaw puzzle: bits and pieces are not enough for full confidence of deciphering it. You need full sequences. Only then can you put it all together.

Part of the problem besides the obvious ramifications of how 'one piece well fit does not a jigsaw puzzle solve', is that history, as reported, very often its' self is full of errors.

This error can be put in other ways, too: it is taking one piece of the jigsaw puzzle and attempting to complete the whole picture when there is clearly not enough information.

From my perspective I see the first century AD as the time when all of the puzzle pieces began to come together. And, the picture was complete by AD 70

You may be wondering "why" I am not so confident in the theory that "everything happened in the first century". After all, it does seem that, at the least, the "number of the beast" is explained strongly by that theory. It also might explain why the Church did rise to power and has had power for so many centuries. (I find very little problem in the fact that the 'thousand years' has actually been more like 'two thousand' or 'one thousand and a half' years, as the words like were not intended to be so accurate.)

Well, it is as I said, "what about all the other pieces of that jigsaw puzzle"?

Where did the two witnesses prophesy, what was evidence of the fire that came from their mouths? Where was the earthquake? Who were they? What of the stars which fell from Heaven, or the Heavens rolling up like a closed book? Who or what was the creatures released from the Abyss in Revelation 11? Who was the Beast in Revelation 12 who killed the two witnesses? How did he or it kill them? Where were the four horseman of the apocalypse and their resulting plagues? When did the Christians get beheaded, and for that matter, when and how did they rise again in something so dramatically called the "first resurrection"? What about Armageddon? When did that get fulfilled, and how?

What about all the amazing events from Chapter 12 to Chapter 20?

Really, I have not found any answers that click in place, answering all of these problems in a way that we now, today, have answered so much of the Book of Daniel.

So, for me, anyway, most of Revelation is left open. I look, I study, but I end up going, "I do not know". And I believe that is a very important, but difficult attitude to take.

I'm not completely confident that my interpretation is the correct one. I realize the opinions of a multitude of scholars are contradictory and non-reconcilable. I believe that supports my idea that few if any modern students may arrive at the full truth of the details because we are not the intended audiences.

I even include, for my own self, many theories I do not see as very popular, like, "maybe Revelation does not happen over seven years, maybe it is a hundred years, maybe a thousand years, maybe two thousand".

It could be that all the events I have said are inconclusive do have conclusive answers. But do not think I have not studied those possibilities. I do.

Not many theories have I closed out completely, either. Maybe the thousand years is what we are in. Maybe the Armageddon scenario and the 'end of the thousand years scenario' are one and the same thing. Many parallels there. But, no, I am not sure.

Or, maybe John used very exaggerated language in Rev. 20 as he described a thousand years that he was referring to the last forty years prior to the end in AD 70.

I will continue to embrace the theory of covenant eschatology as opposed to a futurist planet eschatology until one can show that the inspired writers had another audience and time in mind than the NT evidence indicates.

 

[A New World]

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.

I'm not sure why one would believe it's a waste of time to study and discuss the meaning of Revelation (and Daniel, and Jonah, etc.)? To avoid the last book in the Bible is like never reading the ending of any book.

If one follows proper rules of interpretation and has some knowledge of Scripture I believe it's possible to understand the eschatological books of the Bible. Just because the books are more challenging is no reason to abandon them.