apenman said:
Well, then I would say that there is the "text" of that scripture, and the "text" of the rest of scripture, and I see it as all being used together. Again, from a perspective outside of time, all things were accomplished.
First, I look at each book as a seperate work. They were not written to be one volume, they were chosen over thousands of years by different people who spoke different languages and came from different cultures and had different agendas. Jesus never referred to the New Testament as "scripture." Neither did any of the Apostles. It had not been compiled until years after they were long gone. The books that we do have are in edited and redacted forms. Paul's letter to the Romans is made up of three documents, and we can see the three greetings and three benedictions in the midst of it. The Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) share sources. Mark has Aramaic sources, Matthew and Luke borrow from Mark, and also borrow from another source which has not survived in written form today, that scholars have nicknamed
Quelle or "Q." The Gospel of John is made up of at least three sources: the Signs Gospel, Dialogues Source, and Fourth Gospel Author's material, all of which have strikingly different agendas and each portray Jesus in different light. Revelation appears to have quirks in it that lead back to an Aramaic source, one being the atrocious Greek it's written in, even for Koine, as well as some translational errors that would make one quirk and eyebrow. Additionaly, there was dispute as to which books make up the Bible. There were dozens of canons since the dawn of Christianity, and dozens still survive to this day. Overall, looking at how the books were chosen is an exercise in "chicken vs. egg:" Do these sects base their beliefs off their canon, or their canon off their beliefs? Most likely it was a matter of basing their original cannon off of their beliefs (like the Council of Nicea), then over a normative period of time, letting beliefs grow around the cannon.
In conclusion: The Bible is a complicated volume
Second, what is your method of harmonizing these texts?
In places, Jesus plainly states that he has come not to nullify the Torah, but to teach it, and that others who don't teach it will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.
In other places, it's claimed that Jesus nullified the Torah as a dying savior figure, as a metaphorical and yet not metaphorical lamb who was sacrificed from the beginning of the world.
Let's just take a look at what this passage you brough up says. This one verse in Revelation, a book that is not only an apocalypse, but also describes events that have already taken place (such as the reign of Nero, the beast whose name adds up to 666, 612 in Latin manuscripts, the succession of the kings, and many other parts), says, in Greek:
και προσκυνησουσιν αυτω παντες οι κατοικουντες επι της γης ων ου γεγραπται το ονομα εν τω βιβλιω της ζωης του αρνιου του εσφαγμενου απο καταβολης κοσμου
kai proskunêsousin autô pantes hoi katoikountes epi tês gês on hou gegraptai to onoma en tô bibliô tês zôês tou arniou tou esfagmenou apo katabolês kosmou
The NIV here, in translation, plays upon English grammar. This phrase is also rendered as:
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (NASB)
Or with two commas:
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast -- all whose names have not been written in the book of life, belonging to the Lamb that was slain, from the creation of the world.
The NIV,
itself, footnotes this:
Revelation 13:8 Or written from the creation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain (NIV footnote)
In my opinion, reading over the Greek, I'd stick with how the NASB reads it. The NIV's rendering puts its translation in ambiguous English grammar, much like how it renders "Jesus is the end of the Law" where the word for "end" in Greek means "GOAL." "End" -is- a valid translation, but it is intentionally ambiguous (and in my opinion, dishonest).
Is there anywhere in this text or another text that states this without ambiguity?
No, it is not just a metaphor, and if it is taken that way then important meaning is lost. Yes, then certainly can be a book of life, a beast, and Christ is the lamb of God. The issue here is that God sees Christ as being slain from the beginning of the world, in the sense that his sacrifice is applicable from beginning to end.
So is it or is it not metaphor?
Don't get me wrong. I believe that metaphors are very important teaching tools, as sometimes the only way to get a point across is by speaking in a situation that someone can understand and ponder on. The issue here, as I see it, is a matter of not taking the metaphor too far.
Is there a literal slain lamb with seven horns and seven eyes? Or does the slain lamb -represent- Jesus in the author of Revelation's theology, and the seven horns and eyes -represent- the angels the author says were sent to the seven churches? Is there a literal book of life, and are we literally judged by our
works written in it? (20:11+)
Peace!
-Steve-o
