Revelation: Literal vs. Figurative

[interpreter]

Parousia (παρουσί&#945
Strong's G3952

1) presence
2) the coming, arrival, advent

a) the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God​

I think the key here is 'every eye shall see Him'.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Actually, the original Greek says every eye will see "it." Every eye saw the sign of the Son of Man in the clouds. And if it was too cloudy, they soon saw it on Roman armor and coins, and in Church art. (It was an unusual alignment of the planets that formed a cross or X. Today's computer-aided generation can see it too with a PC and any star-tracking software. Just set the date to October 28, 312 AD. It is known as the turning point of history because ever since that day Christian nations have been the dominant force on the earth.

 

[dysert]

in my opinion, to basically make the book of Revelation out to be a book of unsolvable riddles/enigmas that no-one will ever be able to figure out even after the events have transpired.
yep

I know your leaning is to symbolize everything, and that does indeed make it an unsolvable puzzle. But if you go by the rule of literal first, it becomes a fairly easy to understand book. And after all, what would be the point in John writing something that no one could understand? Or if the reader could make it say whatever they wanted it to say? No, John wrote to convey specific messages, and they were intended to be understood. That's why it must be literal first.

 

[Achilles6129]

I know your leaning is to symbolize everything, and that does indeed make it an unsolvable puzzle. But if you go by the rule of literal first, it becomes a fairly easy to understand book. And after all, what would be the point in John writing something that no one could understand? Or if the reader could make it say whatever they wanted it to say? No, John wrote to convey specific messages, and they were intended to be understood. That's why it must be literal first.

I agree, but also for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Where's the fun in that? I guess you don't like crossword puzzles and brain teasers either.

What's the point of it? A book of deliberately obscure puzzles and riddles that no one can ever understand. No doubt a big hit back in the day, two thousand years ago.

 

[Metal Minister]

What's the point of it? A book of deliberately obscure puzzles and riddles that no one can ever understand. No doubt a big hit back in the day, two thousand years ago.

Who ever said no one can understand it? And perhaps you missed Revelations 1-3?

1The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw--that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

Obviously it was meant literally. Are there certain things that are symbols? Sure, but that's part of speech. We use symbolism in our speech all the time.

 

[ptomwebster]

What's the point of it? A book of deliberately obscure puzzles and riddles that no one can ever understand. No doubt a big hit back in the day, two thousand years ago.

Revelation is not hard to understand if you study it using structure.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Who ever said no one can understand it? And perhaps you missed Revelations 1-3?

The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.

Soon, as in 2000 years ago. I risk being excluded to the unorthodox forum, but i just don't buy any of it anymore. I am fairy sure now that the writer of Revelation was a believer in Jesus, not the same as orthodox religion that we now have, and understand as the divine Christ, part of the Trinity. Which God gave to Jesus? Isn't Jesus God? Jesus always called God his Father. There was an early belief that Jesus was the Messiah, but was not God.. I think the writer of Rev. was in that camp, for sure.

 

[dysert]

Soon, as in 2000 years ago. I risk being excluded to the unorthodox forum, but i just don't buy any of it anymore. I am fairy sure now that the writer of Revelation was a believer in Jesus, not the same as orthodox religion that we now have, and understand as the divine Christ, part of the Trinity. Which God gave to Jesus? Isn't Jesus God? Jesus always called God his Father. There was an early belief that Jesus was the Messiah, but was not God.. I think the writer of Rev. was in that camp, for sure.

Jesus certainly does come across as being God. Rev. 1:8 --> "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

 

[PureDose]

This one is mainly just for fun but there are a couple of serious questions open for discussion. My issue here is how and what should be taken literally and what should be understood as metaphors of some kind. The book is the Revelation, here is an abbreviated outline:

Metaphor is what we use to speak, our words are not the substance, but are symbols of the substance.

Getting too literal is a sign of being hard hearted. This was shown when the disciples argued among themselves about what Jesus meant by "the bread of the Pharisees".

They thought he meant literally their bread, the bread that you literally bake and eat.

When all of these crazy theories go about, they have a stink of being overly literalistic.


As for what you stated, the timeline, though I see some things off in your timeline, I do believe that is "literal". The Book is presented as though there are markers in time.

There are the vials, the trumpets, the woes, the breaking of the seals, and so on. The impression given is that these are sequential markers, and one event happens after another.

This does give room for some preludes in between, but in general, what is stated is in an order.