The white horse.

[Pethesedzao]

Pethesedzao, no understanding of scripture comes from personal interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation.

There is no mention of a man of sin or 7 year period in Revelation 6, thus you are providing your own personal interpretation.

So I'll ask again, what scripture SPECIFICALLY calls the rider on the white horse the antichrist, or man of sin?

In the middle of the 7 year period he will begin to massacre the Jews...

 

[claninja]

The Book of Revelation like Daniel is not strictly in chronological order.

I agree the book of revelation is not in chronological order.

When you compare all relevant scriptures you will see that there is a 7 year period called the Tribulation of which the last 3.5 years is the Great Tribulation which Jesus talks about in Matthew's gospel...

I disagree. There is not one scripture in the entire Bible that states there will be a 7 year tribulation.

The Antichrist comes as a man of peace first of all

please provide scripture that states the rider on the white horse is the antichrist, otherwise, we can assume this is just your personal interpretation.

In the middle of the 7 year period he will begin to massacre the Jews...

Where does scripture say the rider on the white horse does this?

 

[ViaCrucis]

The reason why in Rev 19:11 is clear about who is riding a white horse is to place contrast between the two white horses and not to show that they are the same.

I think the white horse is rather incidental to the vision of Christ's return; it is one among many symbolic elements described. The white horse is a symbol of victory and conquest, this is true not just in the Apocalypse, but outside of it as well. White horses are the horses of heroism, bravery, power. Bellerophon rode the winged horse Pegasus, Odin the eight-legged Sleipnir, the Celts (and Romans) worshiped the horse goddess Epona.

White horse (mythology) - Wikipedia

Alternatively the white horse may not be white at all, but sickly-pale, leading to the older interpretation that the horse and its rider represent pestilence, disease. The conquest of pestilence leading to war, famine, and death perhaps.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[straykat]

I think the white horse is rather incidental to the vision of Christ's return; it is one among many symbolic elements described. The white horse is a symbol of victory and conquest, this is true not just in the Apocalypse, but outside of it as well. White horses are the horses of heroism, bravery, power. Bellerophon rode the winged horse Pegasus, Odin the eight-legged Sleipnir, the Celts (and Romans) worshiped the horse goddess Epona.

White horse (mythology) - Wikipedia

Alternatively the white horse may not be white at all, but sickly-pale, leading to the older interpretation that the horse and its rider represent pestilence, disease. The conquest of pestilence leading to war, famine, and death perhaps.

-CryptoLutheran

In Messianic and/or Revelation imagery, Christ doesn't have a bow though. He conquers with the sword of his mouth and a rod of iron. This other rider is pretty sneaky, if I might say so.

 

[Pethesedzao]

In Messianic and/or Revelation imagery, Christ doesn't have a bow though. He conquers with the sword of his mouth and a rod of iron. This other rider is pretty sneaky, if I might say so.

Revelation 6 white horse is the Antichrist

 

[Norbert L]

I think the white horse is rather incidental to the vision of Christ's return; it is one among many symbolic elements described. The white horse is a symbol of victory and conquest, this is true not just in the Apocalypse, but outside of it as well. White horses are the horses of heroism, bravery, power. Bellerophon rode the winged horse Pegasus, Odin the eight-legged Sleipnir, the Celts (and Romans) worshiped the horse goddess Epona.

White horse (mythology) - Wikipedia

Alternatively the white horse may not be white at all, but sickly-pale, leading to the older interpretation that the horse and its rider represent pestilence, disease. The conquest of pestilence leading to war, famine, and death perhaps.

-CryptoLutheran

I would think in as much as the Abrahamic faiths are intertwined now, so too have the religions that are no longer predominate and out of date, during their time they were also intertwined in some way when they mingled with the theology of the Bible. Historical countries don't exist in a vacuum all by themselves.

Because I'm using observable conditions in 2000 years worth of history, basically to me that horse seems more symbolic to the conditions before Christ's return rather than Christ Himself.

There are other erroneous doctrines in the rcog

I agree and so would many other churches that are related to the Armstrong crowd in regards to the rcog. I believe it's the price everyone pays to live in countries that allow religious freedom. You can't make one illegal because somewhere down the road your church also is going to be the next one on board a train towards a camp.

 

[sparow]

One popular slogan Armstrong referred to was often quoted by the crowd is you have to let the Bible interpret the Bible. If a person assumes that is the case 100% of the time, then by the reasoning you've presented, you are correct and what was taught about the four horsemen in that church is in error. Someone else also mentioned Revelation 19:11, a verse that undeniably refers to Jesus as sitting on a white horse in the same book. I'm not sure why people thought that letting the Bible interpret the Bible was a fool proof method of coming up with interpretations.

However I believe what ViaCrusis concludes is closer to what can be implied about what the horses represent. They are symbols used to describe the condition of civilization on the earth.

Since the beginnings of the NT era Christianity as a whole has had its' controversies. Jude 1:12 Acts of the Apostles 20:30 2 Corinthians 11:4 So just like we see what is mostly a common state of war, famine and death, Christianity has also had an influence on this world. I think that fourth horse is a symbol of what is going on within churches across the globe, the good and the bad. The reason why in Rev 19:11 is clear about who is riding a white horse is to place contrast between the two white horses and not to show that they are the same.

One shouldn't discard stuff just because a false prophet uses it; false prophets use every verse in the Bible; would you discard the Bible? The reason I wouldn't call Armstrong a false prophet is I wouldn't know where to stop; I'd end up calling all religions false.

Armstrong is not the only one to say the Bible interprets itself; the Bible does interpret itself in many ways. In the case of the four horses Armstrong does not use the Bible to interpret them; if he did he would have used Zechariah 1:8-11.

Zechariah 1:8-11 (NKJV)
8 I saw by night, and behold, a man riding on a red horse, and it stood among the myrtle trees in the hollow; and behind him were horses: red, sorrel, and white.
9 Then I said, "My lord, what are these?" So the angel who talked with me said to me, "I will show you what they are."
10 And the man who stood among the myrtle trees answered and said, "These are the ones whom the LORD has sent to walk to and fro throughout the earth."
11 So they answered the Angel of the LORD, who stood among the myrtle trees, and said, "We have walked to and fro throughout the earth, and behold, all the earth is resting quietly."

While Rev. mentions Satan it is not about Satan directly; Rev is a transcript of that great and terrible day of the Lord also call the Lord's day, not that great and terrible day of Satan.

 

[Norbert L]

One shouldn't discard stuff just because a false prophet uses it; false prophets use every verse in the Bible; would you discard the Bible? The reason I wouldn't call Armstrong a false prophet is I wouldn't know where to stop; I'd end up calling all religions false.

Armstrong is not the only one to say the Bible interprets itself; the Bible does interpret itself in many ways. In the case of the four horses Armstrong does not use the Bible to interpret them; if he did he would have used Zechariah 1:8-11.



While Rev. mentions Satan it is not about Satan directly; Rev is a transcript of that great and terrible day of the Lord also call the Lord's day, not that great and terrible day of Satan.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that using the Bible to interpret itself isn't useful, but also using it alone isn't necessarily entirely conclusive either. So it's not a 100% fool proof method, it can be misused as well.

As an example in verse 10, "And the man who stood among the myrtle trees answered and said, "These are the ones whom the LORD has sent to walk to and fro throughout the earth." This verse says that God sends these horses and we can see in 2 Chronicles 18:21 God is likewise capable of sending a lying spirit to kill Ahab. Therefore it must be that the white horse is also destructive in nature towards the earth.

What are your thoughts about this example?

 

[sparow]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that using the Bible to interpret itself isn't useful, but also using it alone isn't necessarily entirely conclusive either. So it's not a 100% fool proof method, it can be misused as well.

As an example in verse 10, "And the man who stood among the myrtle trees answered and said, "These are the ones whom the LORD has sent to walk to and fro throughout the earth." This verse says that God sends these horses and we can see in 2 Chronicles 18:21 God is likewise capable of sending a lying spirit to kill Ahab. Therefore it must be that the white horse is also destructive in nature towards the earth.

What are your thoughts about this example?

I don't follow your reasoning that therefore the white must be destructive.

I do not see the white horse of Rev 6:2 being destructive except to sin; this white horse is the covenant being presented; the other three horses to how the covenant is received; the white horse in Rev 19:11, who is Christ is totally destructive and leaves the earth desolate (this is the finale of that great and terrible day of the Lord).

 

[Norbert L]

I don't follow your reasoning that therefore the white must be destructive.

I do not see the white horse of Rev 6:2 being destructive except to sin; this white horse is the covenant being presented; the other three horses to how the covenant is received; the white horse in Rev 19:11, who is Christ is totally destructive and leaves the earth desolate (this is the finale of that great and terrible day of the Lord).

That's the original point being made. Which is when the Bible interprets itself it depends on the person picking what two sets of scripture are put together to reach a conclusion. Depending on which sets an idea can either be accepted or rejected because it either makes sense to the reader or it doesn't.

Understanding the Bible is more nuanced then just letting the Bible interpret itself by solely relying on just one passage of scripture in a single place and by not linking in numerous other relative scriptures in other places. Here's another example:

There was no new covenant around that lead to the execution of Ahab. There was no new covenant around when Zechariah was written. That old covenant allowed Ahab to become king of Israel 1 Samuel 8:6-10. Can we let the Bible interpret itself here too and claim that the white horse of Rev 6 is actually the first covenant?

Obviously a number of interesting things are popping up when relying on the idea the Bible interprets the Bible.

 

[sparow]

That's the original point being made. Which is when the Bible interprets itself it depends on the person picking what two sets of scripture are put together to reach a conclusion. Depending on which sets an idea can either be accepted or rejected because it either makes sense to the reader or it doesn't.

Understanding the Bible is more nuanced then just letting the Bible interpret itself by solely relying on just one passage of scripture in a single place and by not linking in numerous other relative scriptures in other places. Here's another example:

There was no new covenant around that lead to the execution of Ahab. There was no new covenant around when Zechariah was written. That old covenant allowed Ahab to become king of Israel 1 Samuel 8:6-10. Can we let the Bible interpret itself here too and claim that the white horse of Rev 6 is actually the first covenant?

Obviously a number of interesting things are popping up when relying on the idea the Bible interprets the Bible.

As I ponder the difference between you and me and how can I explain it, I feel inadequate. Are you familiar with multiple universes; maybe pages would be better; you and I are on different pages and there are more than two pages; the set of pages is infinite and there are infinite sets of infinite sets.

Nuance may describe variations on a page but not the difference between pages. Consider the infinite set of pages where futurism is central; the seventieth week from Daniel's prophesy is thrown down to the time of the end and given to Satan who confirms a covenant; now consider and contrast the infinite set of pages where Historism is central; I believe Historism is defined as not futurism and not preterism; and is where Christ is the seventieth week, the seventieth week is His ministry (half completed, having been cut off in the middle of the week); His presence begins the confirming of the old covenant; His ministry which includes the new covenant (with the lost sheep of Israel) continues the covenant confirmation; initiating the establishment of the Kingdom of God and the symbolic new Jerusalem with Himself as the corner stone, the twelve apostles as the foundation stones, and everyone else who enter in a masonry component of the city continues the covenant confirmation; the fulfilling of the prophesies concerning Him in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms continues the covenant confirmation; when he returns the confirmation will be completed.

Now, contrasting futurism with Historism, is the difference a nuance or is the difference the difference between life and death. Another one; is the difference between abrogating the Law and not abrogating the Law a nuance or is the difference the difference between life and death?

It is God who makes man see or makes him blind, it is God who gives understanding; there is understanding that does not come from God; Atheists have understanding but not of Godly things.

 

[Norbert L]

As I ponder the difference between you and me and how can I explain it, I feel inadequate. Are you familiar with multiple universes; maybe pages would be better; you and I are on different pages and there are more than two pages; the set of pages is infinite and there are infinite sets of infinite sets.

Nuance may describe variations on a page but not the difference between pages. Consider the infinite set of pages where futurism is central; the seventieth week from Daniel's prophesy is thrown down to the time of the end and given to Satan who confirms a covenant; now consider and contrast the infinite set of pages where Historism is central; I believe Historism is defined as not futurism and not preterism; and is where Christ is the seventieth week, the seventieth week is His ministry (half completed, having been cut off in the middle of the week); His presence begins the confirming of the old covenant; His ministry which includes the new covenant (with the lost sheep of Israel) continues the covenant confirmation; initiating the establishment of the Kingdom of God and the symbolic new Jerusalem with Himself as the corner stone, the twelve apostles as the foundation stones, and everyone else who enter in a masonry component of the city continues the covenant confirmation; the fulfilling of the prophesies concerning Him in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms continues the covenant confirmation; when he returns the confirmation will be completed.

Now, contrasting futurism with Historism, is the difference a nuance or is the difference the difference between life and death. Another one; is the difference between abrogating the Law and not abrogating the Law a nuance or is the difference the difference between life and death?

It is God who makes man see or makes him blind, it is God who gives understanding; there is understanding that does not come from God; Atheists have understanding but not of Godly things.

Perhaps I wasn't clear about nuance, that it involves subtle differences in meaning. For instance numerous bible translations word Genesis 3:1,5 KJV 2000 as, "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, has God said, you shall not eat of every tree of the garden?, For God does know that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

It's like has he said that the white horse is the new covenant? He knows that Zechariah is from the old covenant, why would this suggest that it has something to do with the new covenant?

 

[sparow]

Perhaps I wasn't clear about nuance, that it involves subtle differences in meaning. For instance numerous bible translations word Genesis 3:1,5 KJV 2000 as, "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, has God said, you shall not eat of every tree of the garden?, For God does know that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

It's like has he said that the white horse is the new covenant? He knows that Zechariah is from the old covenant, why would this suggest that it has something to do with the new covenant?

From usage, white symbolises purity, contrast with red and scarlet which is sin, bow means covenant , exclusively God's covenant. God's covenant is God's covenant, it is neither new or old. New and old refer to particular applications of the covenant. The covenant made with Moses was renewed every time the covenant was broken (Nationally), every time a remnant came out the covenant was renewed with that remnant and because Moses was dead he was no longer the administer of the covenant. Before Christ the last time the covenant was renewed is given in Daniel:

Daniel 9:24 (NKJV)
24 "Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.

The Law of God also called the covenant is implied.

New can be used to describe the covenant with Christ as the administrator and advocate, many of the original manuscripts do not use the word new, they have saying, "this is the blood of the covenant." New seems to be an option of the scribes and editors.

The new covenant under Christ is the fulfillment of the old covenant, the fruition of the old, the confirming of the old covenant, but the covenant still exist and the law remains unchanged and the covenant continues being confirmed.