The Book of Revelation cannot be one hundred percent literal.

Bouan Philippe said:

The futurist interpretation is mostly a literal interpretation of Revelation, but not every single word could, or should be taken literally.

Obviously, the Lamb is a person who is not a real Lamb as such. Revelation 5:6

The beast is also a person, but not a real beast at all. Revelation 13:1

The "sword" is symbolically used to represent the weapons of modern warfare, but is not an ancient weapon at all. Revelation 6:8

However, it is simply dishonest for anyone to claim that every single word in Revelation must be either literal or symbolic.

Most of Revelation is literal, but not every single word can be literal; it is neither one or the other, but Revelation is both literal and symbolic.

However, it is simply dishonest to pretend that the entire text should be interpreted in "black and white" terms.

Please discuss.

Click to expand...

Of course not all is literal. I think though God will hold us accountable more than we think for what we should know is self evident...that is which should be taken as symbolic and what should be taken literally.

Bouan Philippe said:

The futurist interpretation is mostly a literal interpretation of Revelation, but not every single word could, or should be taken literally.

Obviously, the Lamb is a person who is not a real Lamb as such. Revelation 5:6

The beast is also a person, but not a real beast at all. Revelation 13:1

The "sword" is symbolically used to represent the weapons of modern warfare, but is not an ancient weapon at all. Revelation 6:8

However, it is simply dishonest for anyone to claim that every single word in Revelation must be either literal or symbolic.

Most of Revelation is literal, but not every single word can be literal; it is neither one or the other, but Revelation is both literal and symbolic.

However, it is simply dishonest to pretend that the entire text should be interpreted in "black and white" terms.

Please discuss.


PS. The orthodox theology has maintained that whenever possible, Revelation (and the rest of the Bible) should be interpreted in literal terms, unless such an interpretation is impossible.

Consequently, no chapter in the Bible can be one hundred percent literal or symbolic, but there is no reason to assume that this presents an exegetical problem.

Click to expand...

it seems you like to hold to hyper-literalism when it aligns with your beliefs

As a whole I prefer to take scripture as literal as possible. If there is not a simple literal translation go looking for types. The important concept behind types is that there are usually several examples in the whole of scripture. If you have to create a single non-literal interpretation you are on dangerous ground.

Stone-n-Steel said:

As a whole I prefer to take scripture as literal as possible. If there is not a simple literal translation go looking for types. The important concept behind types is that there are usually several examples in the whole of scripture. If you have to create a single non-literal interpretation you are on dangerous ground.

Click to expand...

precisley you must also distinguish what should be held as literal or not is why so many scholars read church fathers writings because they evaluate some questionable verses us as christians should hold from private interpretations and evaluate the verses through the Spirit always

The “literal” meaning of any passage is simply whatever meaning the author intended.

What we don’t have the personal purview to do, is to arbitrarily apply literal or symbolic meaning to passages based on our previously held bias.

Thankfully, the Bible interprets itself.

If a phrase is used, over and over, in symbolic fashion in the old testament, we have no scriptural instruction to suddenly apply polar opposite, hyper literal meaning to that same language when we find it in the New Testament, which is Futurism’s MO.

In fact, futurism wholly depends on radically divorcing NT apocalyptic language from its OT precedented usage, but, when pressed, futurists can not cite one scintilla of scriptural instruction to do so.

It is done solely to prop up the futurist bias.

parousia70 said:

The “literal” meaning of any passage is simply whatever meaning the author intended.

What we don’t have the personal purview to do, is to arbitrarily apply literal or symbolic meaning to passages based on our previously held bias.

Thankfully, the Bible interprets itself.

If a phrase is used, over and over, in symbolic fashion in the old testament, we have no scriptural instruction to suddenly apply polar opposite, hyper literal meaning to that same language when we find it in the New Testament, which is Futurism’s MO.

In fact, futurism wholly depends on radically divorcing NT apocalyptic language from its OT precedented usage, but, when pressed, futurists can not cite one scintilla of scriptural instruction to do so.

It is done solely to prop up the futurist bias.

Click to expand...

I am a fence sitter on alot of things in eschatology, I'm never quite convinced of anything UNTIL I am absolutely convinced (as far as pieces go) but as it relates to anything in the future (futurism is what? all things in Revelation pertain to the future without ever having to springboard off anything written or linked in the old?) I don't know I'm bad at figuring out what people believe.

For an example of what I mean, after John writes to the churches it says

Rev 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

If the law and the prophets prophesied until John (the baptist) and after this John writes to the church he is told to prophesy again, how wouldnt this be something new? Or am I misunderstanding?

I can be pretty dense in anything eschatology but how would you regard that?

parousia70 said:

The “literal” meaning of any passage is simply whatever meaning the author intended.

Click to expand...

Kinda like the original word meaning of pascha: Passover, changed (through the magic of transliteration) to Easter.

Not sure that's what the author intended. Perhaps the translators were 'futurists'.

Revelation is the most misinterpreted and misunderstood book in the Bible as i have said numerous times.

Believe in what Jesus said.

Revelation 1
1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.

Lost4words said:

Revelation is the most misinterpreted and misunderstood book in the Bible as i have said numerous times.

Believe in what Jesus said.

Revelation 1
1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.

Click to expand...

But have all the events described taken place?

Lost4words said:

Revelation is the most misinterpreted and misunderstood book in the Bible as i have said numerous times.

Believe in what Jesus said.

Revelation 1
1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.

Click to expand...

I had posted this part before, and He starts off here

Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne

He writes to the seven, but then it says (after that)

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.


Rev 10:8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.

And so he takes the book open in the hand of the angel and consumes it and he is told he must prophesy again

Rev 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

So is what soon will take place (in the first) of the same that is after where he must prophesy again, see what I am asking?

Or for example,

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Then here

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

Or again

Rev 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

Shortly come to pass, which must be hereafter, and thou must prophecy again

dóxatotheó said:

precisley you must also distinguish what should be held as literal or not is why so many scholars read church fathers writings because they evaluate some questionable verses us as christians should hold from private interpretations and evaluate the verses through the Spirit always

Click to expand...

Something happened between:
Acts 19:10 And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.
2Tim. 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Since most of the church fathers have different opinions on doctrine I tend to think it is because they all turned away from Paul to follow their own interpretation instead of what was given by Paul for us.

2BeholdHisGlory said:

I had posted this part before, and He starts off here

Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne

He writes to the seven, but then it says (after that)

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.


Rev 10:8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.

And so he takes the book open in the hand of the angel and consumes it and he is told he must prophesy again

Rev 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

So is what soon will take place (in the first) of the same that is after where he must prophesy again, see what I am asking?

Click to expand...

Look to the beginning of the book:

Rev 1:19 “Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.

The writer is told to write the things which he has seen, i.e., things that had already happened. Then the things which are, meaning what was happening at the time. And then the things which were to come. So some of the things he wrote had already happened. But the book doesn't follow a single line of events in chronological order. It speaks a bit, then goes back and repeats itself, each time with a little more detail.

Read Revelation 12:1-6. A woman giving birth, a dragon attempting to kill the child, and a place the woman hides for three and a half years. It is the retelling of the birth of Christ, Herod's attempt to kill him, and the holy family's flight to Egypt.

There is very little in the book that is to occur in the future.

OldWiseGuy said:

But have all the events described taken place?

Click to expand...

From John's perspective the Lord was going to come back soon (Acts 1:6). You don't see any mention in the writing of John talking about Jew and Gentile being offered salvation together in one body. Then you have:

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

The Revelation account is a future time.

OldWiseGuy said:

Kinda like the original word meaning of pascha: Passover, changed (through the magic of transliteration) to Easter.

Not sure that's what the author intended. Perhaps the translators were 'futurists'.

Click to expand...

Not entirely certain what you're referring to with this. My guess is that it's that the King James Version at one point renders the Greek word pascha as "Easter" (Acts 12:4) which is largely regarded as a mistranslation. Greek actually used the same word--pascha--to refer to Passover and Easter, hence the error. Greek actually to this day uses pascha to refer to both, though from some research it seems in modern usage, Pascha by itself is assumed to refer to Easter, and to refer to Passover you add the Greek word for "Jewish" onto it.

Though I'm not sure what this has to do with the subject of literal interpretation.

Another example

Daniel says he understood by "the books" this.

Daniel 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

And then of that which followed after as given him through Gabriel, Daniel says

Daniel 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

So even there (above what Jeremiah the prophet spoke and Gabriel shared) he himself heard and did not understand what is written down, noted as closed up and sealed till a specific time.

Dan 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Which should be somewhat of an important marker

Whereas Daniel says, I heard but understood not ( these things being sealed) Jesus points out the importance of what was spoken by Daniel (even though he might not have understood) He says, "let whoso readeth, let him understand")

Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

Just posting this too because I do see this, where right here in Rev 1:3 it adresses he that readeth the words of this prophecy likewise (and the time) being at hand (and to the churches)

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

As well as here towards the end of the prophesy of the book here

Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book:for the time is at hand.

I needed to separate the three posts just to point out what I am talking about a little better maybe.

HTacianas said:

Look to the beginning of the book:

Rev 1:19 “Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.

The writer is told to write the things which he has seen, i.e., things that had already happened. Then the things which are, meaning what was happening at the time. And then the things which were to come. So some of the things he wrote had already happened. But the book doesn't follow a single line of events in chronological order. It speaks a bit, then goes back and repeats itself, each time with a little more detail.

Read Revelation 12:1-6. A woman giving birth, a dragon attempting to kill the child, and a place the woman hides for three and a half years. It is the retelling of the birth of Christ, Herod's attempt to kill him, and the holy family's flight to Egypt.

There is very little in the book that is to occur in the future.

Click to expand...

Yes absolutely, all three which you have seen and which are and will take place after I agree I have studies that are in pieces and I am not good with anything in eschatology but also havent read anything that convinces me anyone else can show it to convince me. Sometimes you need more then a "Meh, its fulfilled" type thing if you know what I am saying.

Stone-n-Steel said:

Something happened between:
Acts 19:10 And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.
2Tim. 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Since most of the church fathers have different opinions on doctrine I tend to think it is because they all turned away from Paul to follow their own interpretation instead of what was given by Paul for us.

Click to expand...

Paul refers to "being chained like a criminal" in 2 Timothy 1:9, indicating he was imprisoned at the time of writing, and 2 Timothy 3:6-8 shows he believes he will soon die, indicating an impending execution.

With this context, I feel a far more plausible interpretation than them turning away from his teachings is that they didn't really do much to help him. Which is not really unreasonable on their part, given that it appears Paul was imprisoned in Rome. However, the Province of Asia--modern-day Turkey--is quite a ways away from there, and it is questionable how much aid they could offer other than visiting him, meaning any kind of help would be limited at best. The fact that Paul doesn't say much to particularly criticize them (as he repeatedly has done when people turn away from what he believes to be sound doctrine) would seem to further support this interpretation.

Bouan Philippe said:

The futurist interpretation is mostly a literal interpretation of Revelation, but not every single word could, or should be taken literally.

Obviously, the Lamb is a person who is not a real Lamb as such. Revelation 5:6

The beast is also a person, but not a real beast at all. Revelation 13:1

The "sword" is symbolically used to represent the weapons of modern warfare, but is not an ancient weapon at all. Revelation 6:8

However, it is simply dishonest for anyone to claim that every single word in Revelation must be either literal or symbolic.

Most of Revelation is literal, but not every single word can be literal; it is neither one or the other, but Revelation is both literal and symbolic.

However, it is simply dishonest to pretend that the entire text should be interpreted in "black and white" terms.

Please discuss.


PS. The orthodox theology has maintained that whenever possible, Revelation (and the rest of the Bible) should be interpreted in literal terms, unless such an interpretation is impossible.

Consequently, no chapter in the Bible can be one hundred percent literal or symbolic, but there is no reason to assume that this presents an exegetical problem.

Click to expand...

All prophetic symbolism in the Bible has a literal manifestation that either has come to pass or will come to pass sometime in the future. Every word in scripture has a literal meaning, God is not the author of confusion.

Anything less is simply human error which exists in an abundance, unfortunately.