Anyone else have a unique eschatology?

[Matt5]

Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

How does one do what is recorded in verse 18 without it involving interpreting anything?


Why would interpretation be needed?

If you were John, and you saw the mark of the beast, then why wouldn't you just write down the mark of the beast? In other words, the mark "XEc" that is found in the Bible is the actual mark of the beast. This just happens to look at lot like 600, 60 and 6 in Greek numbers.

Where do we see XEc in real life? Allah's name in Arabic with two swords, but rotated 90 degrees clockwise.

 

[dwb001]

What does the word "interpret" mean to you?

Present in understandable language. But that often means changing the language and oft the intent of the passage.

 

[dwb001]

If you were John, and you saw the mark of the beast, then why wouldn't you just write down the mark of the beast? In other words, the mark "XEc" that is found in the Bible is the actual mark of the beast. This just happens to look at lot like 600, 60 and 6 in Greek numbers.

Where do we see XEc in real life? Allah's name in Arabic with two swords, but rotated 90 degrees clockwise.

If I were John I would write what I was told to write.
I don't know what John saw other that what he wrote.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why would interpretation be needed?

May I make a quick comment about this?

 

[dwb001]

May I make a quick comment about this?

why not?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

why not?

I just wanted to say that we might be talking past each other on some level when we each refer to "interpretation." Several of us here might not even be using the same denotation when we talk about this cognitive process when hearing or reading. So, you could be right in one sense that you don't interpret when you read because you mean something different by that term than what some others mean. Others may referring instead to the idea that we all have different capacities to understand what we hear or read, and this can change in a different media context.

No one here is really asking each other, "Hey Bro! What do you mean when you refer to interpretation...?"

There might be some confusion between us, but you're right from your perspective.

 

[DavidPT]

Why would interpretation be needed?

It seems to me that a keyword in Revelation 1:3 is 'hear'. That is the following Greek word.

akouo
ak-oo'-o
a primary verb; to hear (in various senses):--give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), (shall) hear(-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.

'Understand' appears to fit the meaning in verse 3, IMO anyway. As to pertaining to the book of Revelation, I do not see it being reasonable that one can just simply understand what is written in this book without it involving interpreting anything.

Take the following, for example.

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.


How could anyone possibly know that the Lamb meant here is meaning Jesus, unless they have interpreted it to mean Him? IOW, unless one has already interpreted that the Lamb meant here is meaning Jesus, that could mean the Lamb could be meaning anyone or anything they want the Lamb to mean. Apparently, you don't seem to fully grasp what all interpreting something involves. And to suggest that Revelation 1:3 simply means the book of Revelation requires no interpreting of anything, this is not reasonable.

Maybe in your mind it is reasonable, yet, how can you possibly think that only what you have decided in your mind, this is the only way things have to be involving the book of Revelation, and not the way a billion professed Christians, for example, in opposition to that, think in their mind that this is the way things have to be involving the book of Revelation, that it has to be interpreted(meaning interpreted correctly of course) in order for one to actually hear(understand) the prophecies written in this book?

 

[dwb001]

I just wanted to say that we might be talking past each other on some level when we each refer to "interpretation." Several of us here might not even be using the same denotation when we talk about this cognitive process when hearing or reading. So, you could be right in one sense that you don't interpret when you read because you mean something different by that term than what some others mean. Others may referring instead to the idea that we all have different capacities to understand what we hear or read, and this can change in a different media context.

No one here is really asking each other, "Hey Bro! What do you mean when you refer to interpretation...?"

I was just asked that.

There might be some confusion between us, but you're right from your perspective.

And that is why people get angry at my comments.
I just say what I think... but no one asks followup questions.
Ask questions and I will answer.
Most people don't like the answers I give but I always try to give an answer no matter how much people don't like it.

 

[dwb001]

It seems to me that a keyword in Revelation 1:3 is 'hear'. That is the following Greek word.

akouo
ak-oo'-o
a primary verb; to hear (in various senses):--give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), (shall) hear(-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.

'Understand' appears to fit the meaning in verse 3, IMO anyway. As to pertaining to the book of Revelation, I do not see it being reasonable that one can just simply understand what is written in this book without it involving interpreting anything.

I would be cautious of using a lower level meaning.

Take the following, for example.

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.


How could anyone possibly know that the Lamb meant here is meaning Jesus, unless they have interpreted it to mean Him?

Because that is what His name is. Don't need to interpret that.

IOW, unless one has already interpreted that the Lamb meant here is meaning Jesus, that could mean the Lamb could be meaning anyone or anything they want the Lamb to mean. Apparently, you don't seem to fully grasp what all interpreting something involves. And to suggest that Revelation 1:3 simply means the book of Revelation requires no interpreting of anything, this is not reasonable.

There is a difference between interpretation and just being able to understand language.

Maybe in your mind it is reasonable, yet, how can you possibly think that only what you have decided in your mind, this is the only way things have to be involving the book of Revelation, and not the way a billion professed Christians, for example, in opposition to that, think in their mind that this is the way things have to be involving the book of Revelation, that it has to be interpreted?

How many of the Christians that interpret the book of Revelation get it right in your opinion?
I go by the instructions included in the book and not add or remove from the book.
Rev 1:3 and 22:18-19.
Also is not there a passage in the Bible that says in the latter days God's spirit will be poured out and people will get visions and dreams... so as we get closer to the times of revelation God will reveal Revelation in new ways. Just my little spin on it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was just asked that.

Oh. Well, I must have missed that particular post above.

And that is why people get angry at my comments.
I just say what I think... but no one asks followup questions.
Ask questions and I will answer.
Most people don't like the answers I give but I always try to give an answer no matter how much people don't like it.

That's true. Many here don't follow up because they come onto CF with their interpretive guns cocked and loaded ...

But I hear you.

 

[DavidPT]

How many of the Christians that interpret the book of Revelation get it right in your opinion?

That is obviously problematic, I get it. Yet, that is the reason there are these debates on this board, and that there is such a thing as debunking one's interpretation, assuming one's interpretation appears to be in opposition to what is written in the text and other passages elsewhere possibly related to this. Except, unfortunately, even after an interpretation has been successfully debunked, no one ever wants to admit anything has been debunked.

It might be like debating with someone who doesn't think Jesus is God, for example. You then undeniably debunking that, yet, this person insisting nothing has been debunked whatsoever. IOW, just because, in their mind they insist nothing has been debunked, this hardly proves nothing has been debunked. It just means they place what they believe over what the Bible actually teaches. Meaning in cases where something has been clearly debunked but no one wanting to admit it.

 

[dwb001]

That is obviously problematic, I get it. Yet, that is the reason there are these debates on this board, and that there is such a thing as debunking one's interpretation, assuming one's interpretation appears to be in opposition to what is written in the text and other passages elswehere posibly related to this. Except, unfortunately, even after an interpretation has been successfully debunked, no one ever wants to admit anything has been debunked.

It might be like debating with someone who doesn't think Jesus is God, for example. You then undeniably debunking that, yet, this person insisting nothing has been debunked whatsoever. IOW, just because, in their mind they insist nothing has been debunked, this hardly proves nothing has been debunked. It just means they place what they believe over what the Bible actually teaches. Meaning in cases where something has been clearly debunked but no one wanting to admit it.

That is why I added the part in the OP about having an open mind... or willing to change perspective or whatever I said.
If you are stuck in your way of thinking... thanks for reading but you are not the person i was trying to interact with.
I might be wrong in my understanding of Revelation... I don't think I am but I might be...
So why not get a group of people that have views about Revelation but are ready and open to debating with the ability to change their minds on some aspects.

I would love to see who here is really flexible in their eschatology and who is too stiff necked to see where the book differs from their understanding.

If you make an absolute statement I will fight you on it... even if I agree with you... to test to see if you really understand what you profess.
If you state an opinion I will discuss it with you.

A declaration gets challenged and an opinion gets a gentler response... at least I will try.

 

[Mr E]

There is a difference between interpretation and just being able to understand language

This is true. An interpreter has to have a command of the language of at least two parties. He had to understand the one speaking of course, but he also has to be able to convey those things said in a language and manner the hearer can understand. Some call this translating but it’s slightly different and rather than word for word, it’s thought for thought.

It does no good to understand the language when words are so often used to convey meaning through concepts and not in a literal sense— such as is often the case in the book of Revelation.

I can say- Mettez de la laine sur vos yeux and tell you that the words mean “pull the wool over your eyes” which is a translation, but it takes an interpreter to understand and convey to you what it actually means in context.

 

[dwb001]

This is true. An interpreter has to have a command of the language of at least two parties. He had to understand the one speaking of course, but he also has to be able to convey those things said in a language and manner the hearer can understand. Some call this translating but it’s slightly different and rather than word for word, it’s thought for thought.

It does no good to understand the language when words are so often used to convey meaning through concepts and not in a literal sense— such as is often the case in the book of Revelation.

I can say- Mettez de la laine sur vos yeux and tell you that the words mean “pull the wool over your eyes” which is a translation, but it takes an interpreter to understand and convey to you what it actually means in context.

And that is where I see the problems come in... translation is not a problem... interpretation is open to too much user error.

 

[Mr E]

And that is where I see the problems come in... translation is not a problem... interpretation is open to too much user error.

Perhaps that's because too many interpreters don't know what they are talking about. They understand the words well enough, but miss the boat entirely when it comes to the meaning of those words.

John himself had to rely on an angel to act as his interpreter because he didn't understand the things he saw and heard.

 

[dwb001]

Perhaps that's because too many interpreters don't know what they are talking about. They understand the words well enough, but miss the boat entirely when it comes to the meaning of those words.

John himself had to rely on an angel to act as his interpreter because he didn't understand the things he saw and heard.

I would caution going any further.
The meaning of the words is plain as is and not really needing interpretations.

 

[Mr E]

I would caution going any further.
The meaning of the words is plain as is and not really needing interpretations.

You must be suggesting that when John saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints-- he understood it to be a kind of alcoholic blood?

He was astounded and the angel had to interpret for him. Rev 17:7

But the angel said to me, “Why are you astounded? I will interpret for you the mystery of the woman and of the beast with the seven heads and ten horns that carries her.

 

[dwb001]

You must be suggesting that when John saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints-- he understood it to be a kind of alcoholic blood?

He was astounded and the angel had to interpret for him. Rev 17:7

But the angel said to me, “Why are you astounded? I will interpret for you the mystery of the woman and of the beast with the seven heads and ten horns that carries her.

So it is interpreted already... no need to interpret it any further.

 

[Mr E]

So it is interpreted already... no need to interpret it any further.

You might be beyond help.

 

[dwb001]

You might be beyond help.

Why say that?
I have not heard anything from you that invalidates anything I have said.
And all you like to do is laugh... lots of stuff in the Bible about scoffers and mockers and not listening to them.
So maybe keep your jocularity to yourself.