Why is there such a wide diversity of views concerning the Book of Revelation in the NT/NC of the Bible?
This has always confounded me. Thanks for any input and thoughts on this. God bless
edit to add: ACCCKKKK! The word "do" in the title should be "so" LOL.....Could a mod or admin change it for me? Thanks
You know, when there is a matter people people are very objective about but have a diversity of opinion, the conversations are very different then when there is a matter with a diversity of opinion and a lack of objectivity. For instance, with arguments on Macs versus PCs.
Or politics.
Versus, say, on matters such as how to fix a car, good places to live, good travel destinations, and so on.
On the diversity itself, which is the subject of your post: when I look for the meaning, say, of some of Daniel's prophecies such as the statue, I am not going to find much diversity there. The evidence is strong. The prophecy has so come true, that skeptical scholars have to date the book much later just so they don't have a crisis of unbelief.
(Not that there are not prophecies within Daniel or aspects of prophecies that are not so clear.)
What we have with Revelation, however, apart from the end parts and the exhortations to faith is a really, really complex and obscure puzzle. Most prophecies and much content in Scripture is really enigmatic. We know from the prophets and Moses God did this intentionally.
So, unlike figuring out "if the head is Babylon, what is next in the statue of Daniel" where we can simply go to consensus opinion and the history books... it is really very unclear.
And God said it would be unclear through Jesus.
There are still, groups people get into over the ages. One problem is that people start to take their own interpretations as divine inspiration. That is fine, as all right biblical interpretation ultimately comes by inspiration, but what I mean though is that it might be of evidence which is not able to be argued reasonably as say, a court case, or how to fix a broken toilet.
That is people end up with flat statements and believe them or expect others to just because they said so. Or because their church said so. Or because some authorities said so.
Problem with that is there are now and have been many great Christians, clearly saved, who have had very divergent viewpoints. And further, from Scripture, I do not believe we see this as the model for prophetic interpretation. Jesus had concrete, though intangible proofs for his ministry. The statue of Daniel and other plainly observable prophecies in Scripture make sense when one finally gets to the right answer.
With modern thought, I think this ties in with the concept of the seven seals being the book of revelation, which I do not think is necessarily true at all. It may be. It may not be. I have no solid proof either way. That further leads to the idea that if one simply believes a flat statement without strong evidence that this flat statement might imply some manner of greater divine approval on them then others have on them. (I might add that the reformists and many believed that event happened long ago. Many Protestants today do not see it that way. Or they think there is only "futurism" or "preterism", though there is not. I am "none of the above", and tend to far more rule out preterism then futurism, but do lean towards historicism, which is what I largely learned from reading the reformers and the old saints.)
But, is viewpoints on such matters saving faith? What about loving one's enemies and neighbors, turning the other cheek, watching how we judge and condemn in our hearts, believing in the death and resurrection and ascension to Heaven of Jesus and living in that to find our own salvation, even resurrection from death and sin?
Finally, there are issues such as "the big issue" on why God hides matters ('it is God's glory to hide a matter'), and on intentional disinformation from the wicked powers of the air.
