Revelation and Symbolism

Originally posted by Mandy
I disagree. If something is written in exaggerated symbolism, it would be difficult to understand. When a person reveals something, they are disclosing, making known something not known or made clear before.
John wrote down what he was told to. What would be the point of it being written in exaggerated symbolism?

Click to expand...

Perhaps it was shown to him in signs, and he didn't want to try to interpret them himself? I do seem to recall that his circumstances would not have favored a simple literal epistle.

Keep in mind, it was revealed to John; it wasn't John's revelation to us.

Originally posted by seebs


Perhaps it was shown to him in signs, and he didn't want to try to interpret them himself? I do seem to recall that his circumstances would not have favored a simple literal epistle.

Click to expand...

I do believe that there is symbolism used in Revelation, just not everything is symbolic, for example, the 144,000 Jews, Jesus' 1000 yr. reign, etc. I didn't mean that it is explicitly literal.

Keep in mind, it was revealed to John; it wasn't John's revelation to us.

Click to expand...

True, but it was revealed to John for believers in Christ.

Originally posted by RKF
I don't waffle on my beliefs.

Click to expand...

Well then, it was my mistake for assuming that you were telling me the truth when you claimed you believed some of Revelation's prophesies were fulfilled in the 1st century.

It's clear to me now that you were not, and you have never believed anything of the sort.

Why you would claim belief in something you knew full well you did not believe in, is still quite puzzling however.

Originally posted by Mandy


I do believe that there is symbolism used in Revelation, just not everything is symbolic, for example, the 144,000 Jews, Jesus' 1000 yr. reign, etc. I didn't mean that it is explicitly literal.

Click to expand...

Mandy,
I'm curious as to what hermeneutic you use to determine which references are "literal" and which are symbolic. The 1000 year reign for example. what makes you take that one literal? is it the 1000 part?
Do you believe '1000' is always literal in scripture?

For example,
Psalms 50:10
For every beast of the forest is Mine, And the cattle on a thousand hills.

Does this mean that the cow on the 1001st hill does not belong to God?

Peace,
P70

I never said that there were prophecies fulfilled in the 1st century. I said the letters to the 7 churches were just that, letters to the 7 churches. So drop it dude, seems like your looking for a opening to justify your preterest views, Sorry dude I don't want to be your door way.......

Originally posted by RKF
I never said that there were prophecies fulfilled in the 1st century.

Click to expand...

RKF, really, it's ok to tell the truth, but since you continue to refuse to do so, I'll post a reminder.
Here are your exact words that you willfully typed:

Originally posted by RKF
No, what I mean is some of the prophecies are fulfilled then and others are fulfilled now.

Click to expand...

Your words RKF, not mine.
Now, you can continue to choose to deny you wrote them, but it will not change the fact that you claimed that you believed some of Revelation's prophesies were fulfilled in the 1st century, then went on to claim you believe no such thing.

Now, faced with these facts, I am forced to conclude one of two things:

1)You waffled on your belief about this issue.

2)You lied to me about your belief on this issue.

If there is a 3rd option, I'd like to hear it.

YBIC,
P70

PS:
I don't need you to justify the truth of past fulfillment, for the Bible does that job quite well enough on it's own!

Ok guys let's try to keep this thread on topic.

Hi Mandy,
Did you have time to consider my previous (on topic) question ot you about the 1000 years?

Thanks,
YBIC,
P70

I don't see 1st century there? I was basically talking about the letters to the 7 churches,

Originally posted by RKF
I don't see 1st century there? I was basically talking about the letters to the 7 churches,

Click to expand...

Right. Letters that were originally written to and recieved by those Churches in the 1st century.

If you didn't mean 1st century when you said "then", what time period were you referring to?

Since you seem to be implying that your stance is that those letters were for those specific Chuirches, and I'm going to again give you the bennifit of the doubt that you are indeed telling me the truth, (against my better judgement), what do you do with these verses?:

Revelation 2:5
"Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place--unless you repent."

2:16
"Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

2:25
"But hold fast what you have till I come.

Jesus promised those specific Churches that He would return to them specifically.

Did He fail to follow through with that promise or did He keep it?

I, of course, believe He kept it.

Mandy,
I had another thought regarding the millennium.

How can you be so certain that it is a literal 1000 revolutions of the earth around the sun?

Remember, To God, one earth day is as 1000 years, and 1000 earth years is as one day.

You see, 2 Peter 3:8,9 is a two way street, therefore, one earth day could easily satisfy 1000 years of "Gods Time".

Originally posted by parousia70
Mandy,
I had another thought regarding the millennium.

How can you be so certain that it is a literal 1000 revolutions of the earth around the sun?

Remember, To God, one earth day is as 1000 years, and 1000 earth years is as one day.

You see, 2 Peter 3:8,9 is a two way street, therefore, one earth day could easily satisfy 1000 years of "Gods Time".

Click to expand...

Look at the verse in context though. I believe that Peter was pointing out that God is not slack concerning His promises. God is outside of time though, we are not. So I believe this verse shows this and is not meant to be taken that way.

Originally posted by Mandy

Look at the verse in context though. I believe that Peter was pointing out that God is not slack concerning His promises. God is outside of time though, we are not. So I believe this verse shows this and is not meant to be taken that way.

Click to expand...

Mandy, I don't believe that the comparison that Peter is making can be taken to either extreme. Yes, God is indeed outside time, in that time doesn't really matter to him...however time does matter to us, and God is communicating to us, therefore in the Bible, time does matter.

Peter is I believe saying "time is irrelevant to God", not "one thousand years = 1 day" or vice-versa.

Hey Pericles - post #1! Welcome aboard!

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Originally posted by Pericles


Peter is I believe saying "time is irrelevant to God", not "one thousand years = 1 day" or vice-versa.

Click to expand...

It is all according to His perfect timing.

Welcome to the forums Pericles.

Thanks for the welcome guys

Mandy, what is "his perfect timing" ? What do you mean when you say that?

I meant that since God is not bound by time, everything is according to His "time". He can't be accused of not acting fast enough or too fast. He does not measure things the way we do. In other words, a thousand years is no different to God than one day. The context of the passage in 2 Peter is that God is not prolonging anything, He will be faithful to keep His promises even though it may appear to us He is slacking in doing so. Also this verse can't be used to say anything different.

I agree!!

Mandy, so based on your previous statement, any time statements in the Bible mean absolutely nothing, because we really have no idea what God means (if He really means soon or a million years), therefore "biblical time" is irrelevant and useless...

The Bible is not addressed to God, but to us humans, and we DO exist in a space-time dimenstion. As evidence that God can actually tell time, here is a statement in Daniel concerning the "end of the age":

“The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.” Daniel 8:26

As comparison, here is a statement from Revelation:

Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near. Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy.” Revelation 22:10-11

Now this is amazing to me. Here is Mandy and RKF saying that time statements mean absolutely nothing, and here is Daniel, writing about 500 and so years before Christ, being told that these things will take place in a "distant future". On the other hand, John, writing 500 years later, is being told the opposite...don't seal the prophecy because the time is near...in fact, don't even worry about correcting people's behaviour, let the evil be evil and let the holy be holy...because THE TIME IS NEAR! Now, it's been more than 2,000 years since John was told this...it looks like either our religion is based on a lying God, or something is twisted in our expectation of what the future holds.

It looks to me like 500+ years makes a big difference in God's calendar...GOD CAN TELL TIME. Soon really means soon, and distant future really means distant future.