When Will Christ Return?

[eclipsenow]

Bible2:

I'm done trying to discuss the genre of Revelation with you as you've repeatedly refused to answer the points here.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7473593-90/#post62706837

You also showed yourself to be a copy and paste shill in this post, where you coped and pasted your infamously silly "It has been shown that Revelation is almost entirely literal because it is unsealed.." paragraph, which makes no sense of the genre and misapplies the 'unsealed' description to mean 'literal' (which it doesn't), and for for the many reasons I've outlined in our year of conversation and the summary of which is here.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7473593-92/#post62719062

Sorry Bible2 but there's absolutely no point discussing what Revelation says and means with you any more.

GENRE IS SYMBOLISM
We do no agree on the basic genre, the basic 'rules of engagement' with this book, so I don't know why you insist on blurting out the obsessively detailed rubbish 'timetables' you indulge in so much? I'm not going to read them ever again! We cannot agree on what the literary rules are when reading this book, so why would I waste my time even bothering to read your endless ranting about Android Images of the Antichrist or whatever other rubbish you spam all over this forum?

YOUR DETAILS ARE BORING AND MEANINGLESS
I'm not going to debate your precious, sidetracking *details* when you cannot cite one scholar that agrees that Revelation should be read literally. If you cannot find credible reasons to read it literally, why would I take anything you say seriously? Just as I would not get into a car with a driver who did not have the correct prescription glasses on, I cannot engage anything you say about Revelation because you've got the wrong 'prescription' glasses on. You think it's literal. You think the fact that is is 'unsealed' tells us what genre of writing it is, and the fact that it promises the return of Jesus tells us what kind of writing it is. That's deluded. These 2 facts have no impact whatsoever on how to engage this book.

YOU HAVE NO BACKING IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD OF GODLY, BIBLICAL SCHOLARS
You cannot even provide a list of bible scholars who have stated that they agree Revelation is *literal*. It's not!

Here are the scholars I have mentioned previously who all teach Revelation is symbolic apocalyptic writing, *not* literal.

Dr Paul Barnett
Dr Leon Morris
John Richardson
Dr Greg Clarke and Dr John Dickson (Authors of 666 and all that)
Archbishop of Sydney Dr Peter Jensen
Dean of Sydney Anglican Cathedral Dr Philip Jensen
Countless staff and faculty at Moore College
Dr Kim Riddlebarger
And many, many more.

Give up Bible2, because I'm not actually reading you any more.

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 941:

I'm done trying to discuss the genre of Revelation with you as you've repeatedly refused to answer the points here.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7473.../#post62706837

That was post 892 of this thread, the points of which were addressed in the latter half of post 915.

Regarding "the genre of Revelation", Revelation itself can be almost entirely literal because, as scripture, it's not bound by any man-made ideas regarding any made-made categories for writings in general. Revelation, like other scripture, was written by the inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16), meaning that it was not written by the will of man, but written by a holy man as he was moved by the Holy Spirit to write it (compare 2 Peter 1:21), so that the words of Revelation are what the Holy Spirit himself spoke (compare Acts 1:16, Acts 28:25b). And nothing about these words requires that Revelation can't be almost entirely literal.

eclipsenow said in post 941:

. . . your infamously silly "It has been shown that Revelation is almost entirely literal because it is unsealed.." paragraph, which makes no sense of the genre and misapplies the 'unsealed' description to mean 'literal' (which it doesn't), and for for the many reasons I've outlined in our year of conversation and the summary of which is here.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7473.../#post62719062

That was post 919, which was addressed in post 924.

Also, can you give an example of where you have actually addressed each point in the "Revelation is almost entirely literal" paragraph, and proven from the scriptures themselves that each point is in error, instead of simply dismissing the whole thing as "silly", or something like that?

Regarding "misapplies the 'unsealed' description to mean 'literal'", are you saying that "unsealed" means "symbolic"? If so, how? For wouldn't it make more sense for something unsealed to consist almost entirely of literal statements, rather than mysterious symbols?

eclipsenow said in post 941:

. . . I don't know why you insist on blurting out the obsessively detailed rubbish 'timetables' you indulge in so much?

Regarding "detailed", Revelation chapters 6 to 22 themselves contain a huge number of details.

Regarding "rubbish 'timetables'", how has the following timetable been shown to be rubbish?

The future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 will begin with the events of the second through sixth seals, occurring in the order shown in Revelation 6:3-14. After the events of the sixth seal, Revelation 7 will occur. Then the seventh seal will be unsealed and out of it will come the tribulation's seven trumpets (Revelation 8:1-6). Then the events of the first six trumpets in Revelation 8:7 to Revelation 9:21 will occur in the order shown there. Then Revelation 10 will occur. Then the literal 3.5 years of the Antichrist's worldwide reign will occur, which time period is shown from four different angles in Revelation chapters 11 to 14 (Revelation 11:2b-3, Revelation 12:6,14, Revelation 13:5,7, Revelation 14:9-13).

Then the seventh trumpet will sound, announcing the legal end of the Antichrist's reign (Revelation 11:15). Out of the seventh trumpet's heavenly temple opening will come the seven plagues of the seven vials (Revelation 11:19, Revelation 15:5 to 16:1), the tribulation's final stage. Then the events of the seven vials will occur in the order shown in Revelation 16. Jesus will return right after the seventh vial (Revelation 16:17,19, Revelation 19:2-21), and he will marry the church at that time (Revelation 19:7). Then he will defeat the unsaved world (Revelation 19:11 to 20:3), and he will reign on the earth with the bodily resurrected church for a thousand years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29). Then the events of Revelation 20:7 to Revelation 22:5 will occur in the order shown there.

eclipsenow said in post 941:

. . . why would I waste my time even bothering to read your endless ranting about Android Images of the Antichrist or whatever other rubbish . . .

How has the idea of a single android image of the Antichrist been shown to be rubbish? For the original Greek word (eikon, G1504) translated as the "image" of the beast (Revelation 13:15) means something made in the likeness of something else, such as the image of a man engraved on a coin (Luke 20:24). So an android made in the likeness of the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) could be referred to in the Greek as being an "eikon" of the Antichrist.

eclipsenow said in post 941:

. . . you cannot cite one scholar that agrees that Revelation should be read literally.

How have you shown that even one scholar has proven, based on the scriptures themselves (compare Isaiah 8:20b) and not on any man-made ideas (compare 1 Corinthians 1:20), that Revelation should not be read almost entirely literally?

eclipsenow said in post 941:

If you cannot find credible reasons to read it literally, why would I take anything you say seriously?

How have the reasons given for reading it almost entirely literally been proven to be not credible?

eclipsenow said in post 941:

You think . . the fact that it promises the return of Jesus tells us what kind of writing it is.

It has not been said that Revelation is almost entirely literal simply because it promises the return of Jesus.

eclipsenow said in post 941:

Here are the scholars I have mentioned previously who all teach Revelation is symbolic apocalyptic writing, *not* literal.

Regarding the scholars you're referring to, you will need to provide in this thread quotes (or paraphrases in your own words) of their specific arguments based on the scriptures themselves (compare Isaiah 8:20b), and not on any man-made ideas (compare 1 Corinthians 1:20).

 

[Maon]

Bible 2 wrote "For wouldn't it make more sense for something unsealed to consist almost entirely of literal statements, rather than mysterious symbols?"

*******

Certainly true; unsealed content is readily understood.

 

[Achilles6129]

Bible 2 wrote "For wouldn't it make more sense for something unsealed to consist almost entirely of literal statements, rather than mysterious symbols?"

*******

Certainly true; unsealed content is readily understood.

I plan on starting a thread sometime in the future (maybe later this week or this weekend) discussing whether the plagues in the book of Revelation are symbolic or literal. It is certainly an interesting discussion and I believe that each side can present evidence to prove their case.

 

[eclipsenow]

That was post 892 of this thread, the points of which were addressed in the latter half of post 915.

Regarding "the genre of Revelation", Revelation itself can be almost entirely literal because, as scripture, it's not bound by any man-made ideas regarding any made-made categories for writings in general. Revelation, like other scripture, was written by the inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16), meaning that it was not written by the will of man, but written by a holy man as he was moved by the Holy Spirit to write it (compare 2 Peter 1:21), so that the words of Revelation are what the Holy Spirit himself spoke (compare Acts 1:16, Acts 28:25b). And nothing about these words requires that Revelation can't be almost entirely literal.

See how you side-track us with irrelevant verses? Nothing, but nothing, in the verses you've cited tell us what genre it is. Of course I believe in the God-breathed inspiration of scripture. But scripture contains poetry, history, historical narrative, biographical narrative, songs, psalms, and apocalyptic symbolism. Ever notice that these are also all inspired and all in the bible? Just because Revelation was written by John and inspired tells us nothing about whether we are to read it as poetry, history, biography, or symbolically.

That was post 919, which was addressed in post 924.

Also, can you give an example of where you have actually addressed each point in the "Revelation is almost entirely literal" paragraph, and proven from the scriptures themselves that each point is in error, instead of simply dismissing the whole thing as "silly", or something like that?

Here's one where I show that 'after this' doesn't actually mean 'insert 2000 years here'!
http://www.christianforums.com/t7473593-85/#post62647032

In response, you just dodge the issue and make Revelation say whatever you want it to say.

Regarding "misapplies the 'unsealed' description to mean 'literal'", are you saying that "unsealed" means "symbolic"? If so, how? For wouldn't it make more sense for something unsealed to consist almost entirely of literal statements, rather than mysterious symbols?

You really don't comprehend genre, do you? You claim 'unsealed' means literal, but it simply means that the mysteries have been revealed. It does not say how. Mysteries can be revealed in boring, literal writing, creating poetic prose, historical narrative, biography, or symbolism. Communication can happen in all of these writing genres as the bible is made up of all of these different genres. 'Unsealed' just means explained: it doesn't tell us whether it was explained by radio, television, or digital one's and zero's travelling down the internet onto your computer screen!

Regarding "detailed", Revelation chapters 6 to 22 themselves contain a huge number of details.

No, they contain symbols exactly the same as Jesus having 7 eyes and 7 horns. The beast has horns. Riders on horses and strange beasts do stuff. Colours, numbers, beasts, it's all Jewish symbolism, and I dare you to find a scholar that tells us it is all literal!

Regarding "rubbish 'timetables'", how has the following timetable been shown to be rubbish?

They're rubbish because they're based on your incorrect assumption that the book is literal.

The future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 will begin with the events of the second through sixth seals, occurring in the order shown in Revelation 6:3-14.

I've told you repeatedly that I'm not interested in your incorrect, rubbish, repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated DETAILS UNTIL WE ESTABLISH WHAT GENRE IT IS!

How have you shown that even one scholar has proven, based on the scriptures themselves (compare Isaiah 8:20b) and not on any man-made ideas (compare 1 Corinthians 1:20), that Revelation should not be read almost entirely literally?

Because I keep asking you to show me one scholar that does, and you keep avoiding the question by asking another irrelevant question. Don't you!?

How have the reasons given for reading it almost entirely literally been proven to be not credible?

Too many times to bother reciting. Try honestly answering the questions in this post, for starters.

It has not been said that Revelation is almost entirely literal simply because it promises the return of Jesus.

Oh yes it has been said, and you have said it, about a million times now. Anyone reading this thread can see that you're being a bit dishonest here.

Regarding the scholars you're referring to, you will need to provide in this thread quotes (or paraphrases in your own words) of their specific arguments based on the scriptures themselves (compare Isaiah 8:20b), and not on any man-made ideas (compare 1 Corinthians 1:20).

No I don't: I'm quite happy to post their names as supporting the well known apocalyptic symbolism of Revelation because I know that these authors do support that. I actually personally know some of these authors! What YOU need to do is actually quote some bible scholars who teach Revelation is LITERAL! What is this, the 7th time I've asked you now?

 

[Achilles6129]

Because I keep asking you to show me one scholar that does, and you keep avoiding the question by asking another irrelevant question. Don't you!?

Hello Eclipse,

I might be starting a thread soon to discuss this very subject. In the meantime, I do own some commentaries by biblical scholars who do believe that Revelation is literal. By saying that, I mean that they think the plagues in Revelation are literal (or mostly so). Two examples would be Robert Thomas and Grant Osborne (both are accomplished scholars).

 

[eclipsenow]

Hello Eclipse,

I might be starting a thread soon to discuss this very subject. In the meantime, I do own some commentaries by biblical scholars who do believe that Revelation is literal. By saying that, I mean that they think the plagues in Revelation are literal (or mostly so). Two examples would be Robert Thomas and Grant Osborne (both are accomplished scholars).

That may be so, but do they believe the writing style is literal?

 

[Achilles6129]

That may be so, but do they believe the writing style is literal?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. They basically take the book of Revelation as a mixed metaphor, which is the same that I do. Some parts are symbolic and some parts are literal. It requires careful consideration to figure out which parts are which.

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 945:

Nothing, but nothing, in the verses you've cited tell us what genre it is.

As scripture, Revelation is not bound by any man-made ideas regarding any made-made categories for writings in general. For example, parts of Revelation 5:6 are literal (God's throne in heaven, the four beasts, the twenty-four elders, Jesus having been slain, the seven Spirits of God, the earth) and parts of Revelation 5:6 are symbolic (Jesus being a lamb, his having seven horns, his having seven eyes).

eclipsenow said in post 945:

Here's one where I show that 'after this' doesn't actually mean 'insert 2000 years here'!
http://www.christianforums.com/t7473.../#post62647032

That was post 845, which was addressed in post 847.

Regarding "'after this' doesn't actually mean 'insert 2000 years here'!", we must not insert the words "two thousand years" before, for example, the word "hereafter" in the actual text of Revelation 4:1b, for we must not add any words to the actual text of Revelation (Revelation 22:18). But in order to interpret Revelation correctly, just as there is a requirement to insert some two thousand years between the time that Revelation was written and the fulfillment of Jesus' future second coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3, so there is a requirement to insert some two thousand years between the time that Revelation was written and the fulfillment of the preceding, never-fulfilled tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18.

eclipsenow said in post 945:

In response, you just dodge the issue and make Revelation say whatever you want it to say.

No issue has been dodged, nor has it been shown that Revelation has necessarily been misinterpreted.

eclipsenow said in post 945:

You claim 'unsealed' means literal, but it simply means that the mysteries have been revealed.

How can mysteries have been revealed if they consist entirely of unexplained symbols?

eclipsenow said in post 945:

No, they contain symbols exactly the same as Jesus having 7 eyes and 7 horns.

Not all the details in Revelation are symbols. In fact, most are literal.

eclipsenow said in post 945:

I dare you to find a scholar that tells us it is all literal!

It has not been said that Revelation is all literal. What has been said is that Revelation is almost entirely literal, for it is unsealed (Revelation 22:10), meaning that it should not be difficult for saved people of any time to understand it if they simply read it as it is written: chronologically and almost-entirely literally. The few parts of it that are symbolic are almost always explained afterward (for example, Revelation 1:20, Revelation 17:9-12). And Revelation's few symbols not explained afterward (for example, Revelation 13:2) are usually explained elsewhere in the Bible (for example, Daniel 7:4-7,17). Just as Jesus' second coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3 will be fulfilled almost entirely literally, so the events of the preceding tribulation in Revelation chapters 6 to 18 will be fulfilled almost entirely literally. Also, the millennium in Revelation 20 will be literal, and will begin after Jesus' second coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Zechariah 14:3-21), when he will reign on the earth with the bodily resurrected church for a thousand years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 66:3-4, Psalms 72:8-11). After that, the events of Revelation 20:7 to 22:5 will occur literally.

eclipsenow said in post 945:

I dare you to find a scholar that tells us it is all literal!

Why do you make that dare, when you yourself refuse to show how even one scholar has proven, based on the scriptures themselves (compare Isaiah 8:20b) and not on any man-made ideas (compare 1 Corinthians 1:20), that Revelation should not be read almost entirely literally?

eclipsenow said in post 945:

They're rubbish because they're based on your incorrect assumption that the book is literal.

How has the idea of Revelation being almost entirely literal been proven to be an incorrect assumption?

eclipsenow said in post 945:

Too many times to bother reciting.

Can you quote one time, as an example?

eclipsenow said in post 945:

Try honestly answering the questions in this post, for starters.

How has any dishonesty been shown?

eclipsenow said in post 945:

Oh yes it has been said, and you have said it, about a million times now.

While it has been said that Revelation is almost entirely literal, it has not been said that this is the case simply because Revelation promises the return of Jesus. If you feel otherwise, you will need to quote the statement you are referring to.

eclipsenow said in post 945:

Anyone reading this thread can see that you're being a bit dishonest here.

Again, how has any dishonesty been shown?

eclipsenow said in post 945:

I'm quite happy to post their names as supporting the well known apocalyptic symbolism of Revelation because I know that these authors do support that.

Then why not provide in this thread quotes (or paraphrases in your own words) of their specific arguments based on the scriptures themselves (compare Isaiah 8:20b), and not on any man-made ideas (compare 1 Corinthians 1:20), so other people can see if they agree with their arguments?

 

[eclipsenow]

As scripture, Revelation is not bound by any man-made ideas regarding any made-made categories for writings in general.

Can you support this idea biblically? It's like saying "God doesn't have to speak intelligibly, so flewder flamsy pamsy!" It's supporting God being unintelligible. For there are rules to using languages, and if you break those rules you don't become super-intelligible or 'above' language, you just become meaningless.

For example, parts of Revelation 5:6 are literal (God's throne in heaven, the four beasts, the twenty-four elders, Jesus having been slain, the seven Spirits of God, the earth) and parts of Revelation 5:6 are symbolic (Jesus being a lamb, his having seven horns, his having seven eyes).

Except that you do not seem to have any rational rule for determining when to see Revelation as 'literal' and when to see it as symbolic. You haven't got a sensible system for doing this.

Regarding "'after this' doesn't actually mean 'insert 2000 years here'!", we must not insert the words "two thousand years" before, for example, the word "hereafter" in the actual text of Revelation 4:1b, for we must not add any words to the actual text of Revelation (Revelation 22:18). But in order to interpret Revelation correctly, just as there is a requirement to insert some two thousand years between the time that Revelation was written and the fulfillment of Jesus' future second coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3, so there is a requirement to insert some two thousand years between the time that Revelation was written and the fulfillment of the preceding, never-fulfilled tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18.

Why not just insert it at chapter 4? Why not in the 'after this' of Chapter 4? (Oh, that's right, you just pretend that after this somehow belongs to an earlier chapter but if we can insert 2000 years to 'after this' sometime in the book, you haven't got a single rational reason to insist why it's not chapter 4 or for that matter Rev 19 "After these things I heard a roar in heaven." You just insert it when you want to, so that you get the maximum for your futurist stories and fantasies).

How can mysteries have been revealed if they consist entirely of unexplained symbols?

They are explained theologically in other parts of the bible. Read the commentaries I keep recommending.

Not all the details in Revelation are symbols. In fact, most are literal.

Repeated assertions that are wrong do not make you look more right.

What has been said is that Revelation is almost entirely literal, for it is unsealed (Revelation 22:10), meaning that it should not be difficult for saved people of any time to understand it if they simply read it as it is written: chronologically and almost-entirely literally.

First century Jews who were well acquainted with apocalyptic literature would have laughed in your face for suggesting it was chronological and literal.

Dr John Dickson is both a theologian and has a Doctorate in History. His writing might help you understand the different literary genre's in the bible. He writes:

*******


‘Apocalyptic’ offers a good parallel for the present discussion. In the book of Revelation, the closing text of the Bible, the writer narrates cosmic visions replete with symbols and codes involving numbers, colours and even animals (the famous ‘666’ or ‘mark of the Beast’ comes from the book of Revelation).
A literalistic interpretation of, say, Revelation 19—to take just one example—would have us believe that Jesus will return to earth one day with eyes of fire, riding a white horse, wearing a blood-stained robe upon his back and multiple crowns upon his head.6 Some modern Christians may sincerely expect things to pan out this way, but such a concretization of the images would never have entered the minds of ancient believers.
Scholars long ago pointed out that large sections of the book of Revelation correspond to the ancient literary device known as ‘apocalyptic’, in which numbers, colours, animals and so on, were employed with specific referents. The writer of Revelation would never have predicted that audiences one day might approach his work literalistically.
A similar situation pertains to the first book of the Bible. Genesis 1 is not written in apocalyptic, of course, but it is composed in a style quite unlike the ‘historical narrative’ of, say, the Gospels in their accounts of Jesus’ resurrection. There is no getting around the fact that the Gospels writers were claiming to write history at that point—whether or not readers end up accepting what is reported. Genesis 1, on the other hand, is not written in the style we normally associate with historical report. It is difficult even to describe the passage as prose. The original Hebrew of this passage is marked by intricate structure, rhythm, parallelism, chiasmus, repetition and the lavish use of number symbolism. These features are not observed together in those parts of the Bible we recognize as historical prose.
This observation must be given some weight. While on literary grounds one cannot say that the world was not created in six days, one can safely conclude that the concerns of Genesis 1 lie elsewhere than providing a cosmic chronology. The genre of our text suggests that the author intended to convey his meaning through subtle and sophisticated means, not through the surface plot of the narrative (i.e. creation in six days).
Number symbolism in Genesis 1

A full account of all of the literary devices in Genesis would be inappropriate in this journal—and would certainly exceed the word limit— and they are well described in numerous technical studies and commentaries.7 I will, however, draw attention to the number symbolism present in our passage. This provides a compelling example of the unusual nature of the text and of the way the author seeks to convey his message through means other than the surface-level plot.
It is well known that in Hebrew thought the number seven symbolises ‘wholeness’ as a characteristic of God’s perfection. A well-known example is the seven-candle lamp stand,8 or Menorah, which has long been a symbol of the Jewish faith and is the emblem of the modern State of Israel.
In Genesis 1, multiples of seven appear in extraordinary ways. For ancient readers, who were accustomed to taking notice of such things, these multiples of seven conveyed a powerful message. Seven was the divine number, the number of goodness and perfection. Its omnipresence in the opening chapter of the Bible makes an unmistakable point about the origin and nature of the universe itself. Consider the following:

• The first sentence of Genesis 1 consists of seven Hebrew words. Instantly, the ancient reader’s attention is focused.
• The second sentence contains exactly fourteen words. A pattern is developing.
• The word ‘earth’—one half of the created sphere—appears in the chapter 21 times.9
• The word ‘heaven’—the other half of the created sphere—also appears 21 times.
• ‘God’, the lead actor, is mentioned exactly 35 times.
• The refrain ‘and it was so’, which concludes each creative act, occurs exactly seven times.
• The summary statement ‘God saw that it was good’ also occurs seven times.
• It hardly needs to be pointed out that the whole account is structured around seven scenes or seven days of the week.

The artistry of the chapter is stunning and, to ancient readers, unmistakable. It casts the creation as a work of art, sharing in the perfection of God and deriving from him. My point is obvious: short of including a prescript for the benefit of modern readers the original author could hardly have made it clearer that his message is being conveyed through literary rather than prosaic means. What we find in Genesis 1 is not exactly poetry of the type we find in the biblical book of Psalms but nor is it recognizable as simple prose. It is a rhythmic, symbolically- charged inventory of divine commands.
Literary style and the question of ‘truth’

None of this should trouble modern Christians, as if truths expressed by literary device were somehow less true than those expressed in simple prose. We have already raised the examples of parable and apocalyptic. Outside of the Bible, we also recognize the capacity of images to convey truth. When Romeo says, ‘What light through yonder window breaks? It is the East, and Juliet is the sun!’ we all understand what is being said. The statement is no less real than if Romeo had said, ‘Juliet is at the window and she is pretty’. Only someone unacquainted with the English literary tradition would quibble over the ontological discrepancies between a woman and the sun.
Did God create ‘light’ on Day 1 of creation? He might have. But this is not the point of Genesis 1:3. The highly ‘literary’ presentation style of our passage makes it unlikely, in my opinion, that the author intended for us to link his surface plot of a seven-day week with a sequence of physical events in time. Again, the example of the book of Revelation comes to mind. It is universally agreed amongst scholars that the number of Jews present in Revelation’s picture of the heavenly kingdom (144,000) is symbolic not actual. Being a multiple of 12 (the number of the tribes of Israel) the 144,000 figure conveys the idea of a complete number of Israelites. This is recognized even in popular circles, though I note that Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret the number literalistically.

The Genesis of Everything, Part 2: The Genre of Genesis 1 | The BioLogos Forum


Lastly, when are you going to show us a biblical / historical scholar of the calibre of Dr John Dickson that insists this book is to be read literally?

 

[dfw69]

Christ will come after these events happen first

1 false man of sin comes
2 false messiah comes
3 wars and rumors of wars
4 false messianic age
5 a temple built
6 10 kingdoms come
7 Babylon rebuilt
8 persecution of saints


1 true man of sin comes
2 aod and great trib
3 wrath of god
4 2 witnesses
5 temple destroyed
6 trumpets and bowl judgements
7 Armageddon

The return of Jesus

 

[eclipsenow]

Christ will come after these events happen first

1 false man of sin comes
2 false messiah comes
3 wars and rumors of wars
4 false messianic age
5 a temple built
6 10 kingdoms come
7 Babylon rebuilt
8 persecution of saints


1 true man of sin comes
2 aod and great trib
3 wrath of god
4 2 witnesses
5 temple destroyed
6 trumpets and bowl judgements
7 Armageddon

The return of Jesus

Incorrect, because Revelation is not a timetable but a symbolic sermon. But nice try.

 

[BlackSepulcher]

Tribulation is presumably after the Apocalypse, though the Bible is designed in that you can never know. This was done on purpose, you see- you're not supposed to know.

 

[eclipsenow]

Tribulation is presumably after the Apocalypse, though the Bible is designed in that you can never know. This was done on purpose, you see- you're not supposed to know.

Incorrect. John says his audience already shared in the tribulation with him, and that was 2000 years ago!

Here's my reading of Revelation 1, which is informed by Dr Paul Barnett, a godly Bishop of Northern Sydney for many years while also teaching Ancient History at Macquarie University.

Revelation 1 shows us that this book was written by John to HIS generation with a *generic* message about suffering that would apply to all generations.

1. THE LANGUAGE IS URGENT AND NEAR!

Revelation 1:1
"1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place."

SOON!

Revelation 1:3
"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."

NEAR!

John expected the stuff in Revelation to begin during his lifetime! The persecution, the suffering, the tribulations, the safety of martyrs in heaven, the spiritual reign of Christ, it all started 2000 years ago.

2. JOHN SPECIFICALLY SAYS HE *ALREADY* SHARES IN THEIR *TRIBULATION*

Rev 1:9 "I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." (NASB)

John shares their tribulation which had *already* started! It started 2000 years ago, and continues to this day. We see it in history and around the world *any* time a 'beast' government starts to kill God's people.

The Roman persecution against Christians would have been especially troubling to Jewish Christians who expected the Messiah to save Israel from her enemies. What was the point of belonging to this 'new' Israel of the church if it didn't guarantee any national or personal security? How were Christians to understand the eventual fall of the temple? John answers these questions. Revelation is primarily a theological sermon that covered where the true temple now lives, true security exists, and how our true home is being prepared.

It was written TO them and was ABOUT their trials and temptations. But it also applies generally to all Christians in all ages as we all suffer for our Lord. Just as 1 Corinthians was written specifically to the Corinthian church but is also God's word to all generations, so Revelation was written to specific Christians but the themes and message are timeless. (Well, for all Christians living in these Last Days which started in Acts 2!)

3. IT'S A GOSPEL SERMON THAT APPLIES TO ALL AGES, EVEN IF WRITTEN IN APOCALYPTIC LANGUAGE!

Revelation 1:2
"who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ."
The testimony of Jesus Christ is another way of speaking of the basic gospel message of the Apostles.

We know it is apocalyptic (a genre of writing common to Jews between 200BC to 200AD) because of the biblical symbols used in the book. In Revelation 1 Jesus is introduced in a similar style to the Son of Man before the Ancient of Days in Daniel. But then there's a New Testament twist. John mixes and matches his imagery to suit the theology of his sermon. "...and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword." The Sword is the Sword of the Spirit, the word of God. Jesus, the WORD, is about to speak to John!

John has specifically said this book is about the testimony of Jesus Christ and now adds a biblical symbol of the power of that testimony. The Sword of the Spirit is about to speak, so pay attention! Listen up! The Lord is speaking, and (as John has already said) it is a testimony about himself. That's the gospel. Hear and obey! "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near."

Which is kind of hard to do if it is not even directed TO you or ABOUT you. But because this was the gospel being preached, it *IS* to us and about us, and all Christians until the Lord returns.

THE SCROLL IN REVELATION 5 IS ABOUT THE GOSPEL AS WELL!
John weeps that no one can open Daniel's scroll, as it contains the answer to the great mystery of how God was going to redeem his people. But Jesus can open it. Why? Because he "has overcome". And...

"“ Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation."
10 “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”

Jesus is the POINT of the whole bible, the subject of the scroll, and the answer to Daniel's question. Jesus is the one who saves people from every nation and creates a brand new kingdom and priests. The GOSPEL is the mystery from ages past now revealed to the Apostles. The scroll of Revelation 5 is not another question to solve but an answer to Daniel's conundrum! It's the gospel.


4. THE GOSPEL ITSELF HAS US THINKING OF THE LORD'S RETURN IN SALVATION AND JUDGEMENT
Critics of Amillennialism often argue that because the last few chapters describe Judgement Day the whole book must be a timetable. The problem is, the description of Judgement Day itself isn't a timetable! Judgement Day is described and repeated 3 times in various chapters at the end of the book. Rather than seeing Revelation as our own personal crystal ball and trying to guess specifically who and what each symbol 'is', we are meant to remember the *theological* importance of each image. And, surprise surprise, here we see the Lord's return is integral to the gospel sermon John is preaching in the first place!

Rev 1:5
"To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,”
and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him”;
and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”
So shall it be! Amen."

In verse 5 Jesus freed us from our sins. But thoughts of Jesus suffering lead John straight to His glorious return.

He is coming back the way he went, on the clouds. This is the ancient symbol of the Cloud Rider; a victorious and mighty ruler like the Ancient of Days. The return of the Cloud Rider is the Return of the King. It means Judgement Day.

According to John, the moment we remember Jesus died for our blood should also be the moment we remember his comforting words that although he suffered (and us with him!), he WILL return. Like any good introduction, John is letting us know what this book will be all about. We see generic picture language that explains the gospel hope of Jesus return to suffering Christians. We will NOT give in to persecution and temptation. We will NOT betray God and live for worldly wealth, worldly philosophy, and worldly powers. Because, in the end, the Lord *will* Judges them all. This is our gospel hope. It's not some weak future timetable that robs the book of relevance and meaning to us.

5. THERE IS NO WAY TO INSERT 2000 YEARS AND REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THE TEXT!
Revelation 4 is often quoted to support a big leap of time into the future.
"After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven... Immediately I was in the Spirit".
Let us note that it does NOT say "Insert 2000 years here please, and then we'll move on to our timeline of future history!" That will not do. It contradicts John's command for *his* readers to hear and understand and obey the *gospel* message he is preaching, and it robs the verses above of their true meaning.

But John *does* give us a timeframe for his book. It is going to cover the Last Days. In Rev 1 he has already said "I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day" which means he is thinking of the Age of the Spirit which finds its fulfilment on the great and terrible day of the Lord. Here it is again in Rev 4. "Immediately I was in the Spirit". "After these things" is moving on from the specifics of the letters to the 7 churches to general truths across the whole Last Days. A careful study of Acts 2 and Joel will also back this up. We are in the Last Days, and have been for 2000 years. Most of the images in Revelation are theological statements about suffering in the Last Days, not 'events' that must be decoded.

6. THE FACT OF JUDGEMENT DAY IN THE LAST CHAPTERS *STILL* DOES NOT MAKE THIS A TIMETABLE!
Some argue that Judgement Day is an event, therefore the whole book is a series of events, not symbolic sermons. But there's a problem. Judgement Day is described about 3 times in vivid imagery from different angles. Revelation 17, 19, and 20 all describe different aspects of the same Judgement of our Lord! This makes it even *harder* to see Revelation as a future timeline when it seems to waltz around the same things again and again! No, it's symbolically describing important theological truths about Judgement Day. Not arbitrary timetables.

John started off telling us in Chapter 1 that he was writing about the gospel, and the gospel leads to Judgement. We should not be surprised that the book deals with the harsh realities of our lives now, but culminates in our glorious hope! How many stories have you heard describe heartache and pain that is ultimately resolved and rewarded? John is the ultimate storyteller, only the story he's telling is the gospel itself.

7. A FUTURE TIMETABLE MAKES IT COMPLETELY INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO JOHN'S GENERATION.

* Covenant Amils see it as an incredibly PRACTICAL book for all Christians in all ages. It encourages them to not give into suffering and refuse to follow the worldly short-term gains of materialism and worldly power and success and sensuality.
* Futurists make it irrelevant to all but the last generation.

* Covenant Amils see Revelation as clear symbolic sermons that interpret themselves according to other symbols in the bible, and are applicable to all Christians in all situations.
* Futurists see it as utterly dependent on today's headlines, and therefore inaccessible to everyone before this generation.

* Covenant Amils use a consistent symbolic hermeneutic.
* Futurists use an inconsistent 'literal' hermeneutic which contradicts itself so frequently the system implodes. Does Jesus have 7 horns and 7 eyes or not? Is the book literal or not? Nothing futurists have said addresses the fundamental point that their literal hermeneutic is inconsistently applied.


My Commentaries:
A great SHORT commentary on Revelation that helps unpack it quickly is also quite cheap. It's "Revelation Unwrapped" by John Richardson, and takes a mostly Reformed Amil Symbolic approach to the obvious and even more obscure Old Testament symbols used by John.

Try the Book Depository: under $6 and worldwide postage is FREE!
Revelation Unwrapped: Commentary on Revelation : Paperback : John Richardson : 9780952489429

Another great commentary that is also symbolist but also has a slightly more Historical emphasis is by Dr Paul Barnett, "Apocalypse Now and then". Paul lecturered in Ancient History at Macquarie University as well as being an ordained Bishop of North Sydney. He ran historical tours of the bible lands, and is uniquely qualified to speak of John's historical references in Revelation. Under $15.
Apocalypse Now and Then: Reading Revelation Today : Paperback : Paul Barnett : 9781875861415

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 952:

Revelation is not a timetable but a symbolic sermon.

Revelation chapters 6 to 22 are a timetable, for the reasons given in the "timetable" part of post 942. Also, regarding Revelation being "a symbolic sermon", Revelation is almost entirely literal, for the reasons given in the first "Revelation is almost entirely literal" part of post 949.

*******

eclipsenow said in post 950:

Can you support this idea biblically?

Yes. Just as Revelation is not bound by literalism, for not all of it is literal, so Revelation is not bound by symbolism, for not all of it is symbolic. For example, parts of Revelation 5:6 are literal (God's throne in heaven, the four beasts, the twenty-four elders, Jesus having been slain, the seven Spirits of God, the earth) and parts of Revelation 5:6 are symbolic (Jesus being a lamb, his having seven horns, his having seven eyes).

eclipsenow said in post 950:

Except that you do not seem to have any rational rule for determining when to see Revelation as 'literal' and when to see it as symbolic.

We know what is a symbol and what is literal by comparing each part of a verse with other verses (Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13). For example, we know that Jesus isn't literally a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes (Revelation 5:6) because other verses show that he is literally a human (Luke 24:39; 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 7:24-26, Hebrews 2:17).

eclipsenow said in post 950:

Why not just insert it at chapter 4?

What do you mean by "it"? The words "two thousand years"? If so, we must not insert the words "two thousand years" before, for example, the word "hereafter" in the actual text of Revelation 4:1b, for we must not add any words to the actual text of Revelation (Revelation 22:18). But in order to interpret Revelation correctly, just as there is a requirement to insert some two thousand years between the time that Revelation was written and the fulfillment of Jesus' future second coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3, so there is a requirement to insert some two thousand years between the time that Revelation was written and the fulfillment of the preceding, never-fulfilled tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18.

eclipsenow said in post 950:

. . . but if we can insert 2000 years to 'after this' sometime in the book, you haven't got a single rational reason to insist why it's not chapter 4 or for that matter Rev 19 "After these things I heard a roar in heaven."

The "hereafter" at the end of Revelation 4:1 is different from the "And after these things I heard" in Revelation 19:1, just as it is different from the "After this" at the start of Revelation 4:1 (and at the start of some other chapters). They are not different in the Greek, but in what they are referring to. For the "hereafter" at the end of Revelation 4:1 refers to events that must actually "be", in the sense of actually being performed, sometime in the future, that is, all the never-fulfilled events of Revelation chapters 6 to 22; whereas the "And after these things I heard" (Revelation 19:1) refers to an action already completed by John in the past, after he had seen a vision of the eternal destruction of the symbolic Babylon in Revelation 18, which has not been fulfilled yet. Similarly, "After this I looked" at the start of Revelation 4:1 refers to an action already completed by John in the past, after he had been told what to write in the seven letters in Revelation chapters 2-3.

eclipsenow said in post 950:

They are explained theologically in other parts of the bible.

Are you saying that every detail in Revelation is a symbol that is explained in other parts of the Bible? For example, how is each detail in Revelation 9:1-11 explained in other parts of the Bible?

eclipsenow said in post 950:

Read the commentaries I keep recommending.

Can you provide in this thread some quotes (or paraphrases in your own words) of their specific arguments based on the scriptures themselves (compare Isaiah 8:20b), and not on any man-made ideas (compare 1 Corinthians 1:20), that prove that every detail in Revelation is a symbol that is explained in other parts of the Bible?

eclipsenow said in post 950:

Repeated assertions that are wrong do not make you look more right.

What has been proven wrong?

eclipsenow said in post 950:

First century Jews who were well acquainted with apocalyptic literature would have laughed in your face for suggesting it was chronological
and literal.

How has it been proven that any first century believing Jew would laugh at that, instead of agreeing?

eclipsenow quoted Dickson in post 950:

A literalistic interpretation of, say, Revelation 19—to take just one example—would have us believe that Jesus will return to earth one day with eyes of fire, riding a white horse, wearing a blood-stained robe upon his back and multiple crowns upon his head.6 Some modern Christians may sincerely expect things to pan out this way, but such a concretization of the images would never have entered the minds of ancient believers.

How has it been proven that such a concretization of the images would never have entered the minds of ancient believers?

eclipsenow quoted Dickson in post 950:

Scholars long ago pointed out that large sections of the book of Revelation correspond to the ancient literary device known as ‘apocalyptic’, in which numbers, colours, animals and so on, were employed with specific referents.

Regarding "the ancient literary device known as ‘apocalyptic’", Revelation itself can be almost entirely literal because, as scripture, it's not bound by any man-made ideas regarding any made-made categories for writings in general. Revelation, like other scripture, was written by the inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16), meaning that it was not written by the will of man, but written by a holy man as he was moved by the Holy Spirit to write it (compare 2 Peter 1:21), so that the words of Revelation are what the Holy Spirit himself spoke (compare Acts 1:16, Acts 28:25b). And nothing about these words requires that Revelation can't be almost entirely literal.

Also, how has it been proven that any numbers or colors in Revelation have to be symbolic? Why can't they all be literal?

eclipsenow quoted Dickson in post 950:

The writer of Revelation would never have predicted that audiences one day might approach his work literalistically.

How has it been proven that he would never have predicted that?

eclipsenow quoted Dickson in post 950:

Genesis 1, on the other hand, is not written in the style we normally associate with historical report.

How has it been proven that anything in Genesis 1 can't be historical?

eclipsenow quoted Dickson in post 950:

The original Hebrew of this passage is marked by intricate structure, rhythm, parallelism, chiasmus, repetition and the lavish use of number symbolism.

Can you give some examples of what you mean, and show how they require that Genesis 1 can't be historical? Also, how has it been proven that any number in Genesis 1 can't be literal?

eclipsenow quoted Dickson in post 950:

While on literary grounds one cannot say that the world was not created in six days, one can safely conclude that the concerns of Genesis 1 lie elsewhere than providing a cosmic chronology.

How has it been proven that Genesis 1 is not chronological?

eclipsenow quoted Dickson in post 950:

It is well known that in Hebrew thought the number seven symbolises ‘wholeness’ as a characteristic of God’s perfection. A well-known example is the seven-candle lamp stand,8 or Menorah, which has long been a symbol of the Jewish faith and is the emblem of the modern State of Israel.

The seven-candle lamp was literal (Exodus 37:23).

eclipsenow quoted Dickson in post 950:

Seven was the divine number, the number of goodness and perfection. Its omnipresence in the opening chapter of the Bible makes an unmistakable point about the origin and nature of the universe itself.

Why can't it be literal and point to God's perfection at the same time, just as, for example, the fruitless fig tree that Jesus cursed was a literal tree which at the same time pointed to fruitless, unbelieving, Old Covenant Israel (Matthew 21:19,43)?

eclipsenow quoted Dickson in post 950:

Did God create ‘light’ on Day 1 of creation?

Genesis 1:3-5 could mean that God had some light source in space temporarily light up half the earth as bright as day, three days before he created the sun (Genesis 1:14-19).

eclipsenow quoted Dickson in post 950:

It is universally agreed amongst scholars that the number of Jews present in Revelation’s picture of the heavenly kingdom (144,000) is symbolic not actual.

How has it been proven that the number 144,000 in Revelation 7:4 and Revelation 14:1,3 can't be a literal number of people, which will consist of literally twelve groups with literally twelve thousand people in each group (Revelation 7:5-8)?

eclipsenow quoted Dickson in post 950:

Being a multiple of 12 (the number of the tribes of Israel) the 144,000 figure conveys the idea of a complete number of Israelites.

Why can't the number be both literal and convey an idea of completeness at the same time, just as, again, the fruitless fig tree that Jesus cursed was a literal tree which at the same time conveyed the fruitlessness of unbelieving, Old Covenant Israel (Matthew 21:19,43)?

eclipsenow said in post 950:

Lastly, when are you going to show us a biblical / historical scholar of the calibre of Dr John Dickson that insists this book is to be read literally?

There is no need, for sufficient reasons why Revelation should be read almost entirely literally have already been given. Also, how has Dickson or any other scholar proven, based on the scriptures themselves (compare Isaiah 8:20b) and not on any man-made ideas (compare 1 Corinthians 1:20), that Revelation should not be read almost entirely literally?

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 954:

John says his audience already shared in the tribulation with him, and that was 2000 years ago!

"The" tribulation in Revelation 1:9 (in the original Greek) is the general tribulation which the church has experienced from its beginning (Acts 14:22, John 16:33). There is also the still-unfulfilled, unprecedented tribulation (Matthew 24:21-22) of Revelation chapters 6 to 18/Matthew 24, which the church will experience in the future, preceding Jesus' second coming (Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6). Also, the various trials individual Christians undergo, including currently, can be referred to as (plural) "tribulations" (Romans 5:3, Ephesians 3:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:4).

eclipsenow said in post 954:

Revelation 1 shows us that this book was written by John to HIS generation with a *generic* message about suffering that would apply to all generations.

Revelation chapters 6 to 22 are a highly-detailed, almost entirely literal future timetable. For they contain such a huge number of details, which are so varied, so specific, so chronological, and so long, that to reduce all of them to merely a generic description of life at anytime renders them utterly useless. For what person who has ever lived needs a generic description of life? It's like throwing Revelation chapters 6 to 22 in the trash, just to be done with them.

eclipsenow said in post 954:

Revelation 1:1
"1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place."

From the viewpoint of men, part of what Revelation chapters 2-3 foretold could have begun unfolding "shortly" (Revelation 1:1,3) after John saw his Revelation vision. For the letters to the seven literal, first century AD local church congregations (Revelation chapters 2-3) in seven cities in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11b) could have foretold a first century AD persecution (Revelation 2:10, Revelation 3:10) under the Roman Emperor Domitian which happened shortly after John saw his vision around 95 AD, near the end of Domitian's reign (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3c). But even all the (to us) still-future events of the tribulation and subsequent second coming of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 will unfold "shortly" (Revelation 1:1,3) or "quickly" (Revelation 22:20) after John saw his vision. For from the viewpoint of God, even the passing of some two thousand years is like the passing of only two days (2 Peter 3:8). Christians should look at the future fulfillment of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 from the viewpoint of God, not men, for whom the passing of some two thousand years seems like a long delay for its fulfillment (2 Peter 3:9).

eclipsenow said in post 954:

Revelation is primarily a theological sermon that covered where the true temple now lives, true security exists, and how our true home is being prepared.

Regarding "the true temple", the ultimate true temple will be the Trinity itself on the new earth in the literal city of New Jerusalem, which contains no temple building (Rev. 21:22). Jesus' individual human body is already a true temple of God (Jn. 2:21), and at the time of his first coming, his body-temple coexisted with the 2nd temple building in Jerusalem, which was also indwelt by God at the same time (Mt. 23:21). And his body-temple also coexisted (and still coexists today) with the literal temple building in heaven (Rev. 11:19). There's now also the church-as-a-whole figurative temple building (Eph. 2:21), and the myriad different temples of every Christian's individual human body (1 Cor. 6:19). There will also be a 3rd, earthly, literal temple building in Jerusalem during the future tribulation (Rev. 11:1-2, Mt. 24:15, Dan. 11:31,36, 2 Thes. 2:4), and also a 4th earthly, literal temple building in Jerusalem during the future millennium (Zech. 14:20-21), which won't begin until after Jesus' 2nd coming (Rev. 19:7-20:6, Zech. 14:3-21).

eclipsenow said in post 954:

John mixes and matches his imagery to suit the theology of his sermon. "...and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword."

The sword in Revelation 1:16 and Revelation 19:15,21 can be a literal, spiritual sword, like the one in Genesis 3:24. And at the same time it can also be symbolic of the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17), just as, once again, the fruitless fig tree that Jesus cursed was a literal tree which at the same time symbolized fruitless, unbelieving, Old Covenant Israel (Matthew 21:19,43).

eclipsenow said in post 954:

Hear and obey! "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near."

"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" (Revelation 1:3).

The original Greek word ("tereo", G5083) translated as "keep" in Revelation 1:3 can be used in the sense of obeying commandments (John 14:15). But almost all of Revelation does not consist of commandments, but of prophecies of future events (Revelation 1:1,3, Revelation 22:7) which are not things to be "obeyed". For example, how would believers "obey" the prophecy regarding the weird locust-like beings (Revelation 9:3-11)? Instead, "tereo"/"keep" in Revelation 1:3 and Revelation 22:7 is used in the sense of holding onto something precious (John 12:7, John 2:10b, John 17:11,12,15, Ephesians 4:3) instead of casting it away as worthless. We are to "keep"/hold onto all of Revelation as being the precious truth, from Jesus to the church (Revelation 1:1, Revelation 22:16), just as we are to "keep"/hold onto Christian faith itself (2 Timothy 4:7b), even during the worst time for the church during the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18/Matthew 24 (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13).

eclipsenow said in post 954:

Judgement Day is described and repeated 3 times in various chapters at the end of the book.

Revelation chapters 17, 19, and 20 refer to three different, sequential times, insofar as the destruction of the symbolic Babylon in Revelation 17:16 by the ten kings of the Antichrist's empire will occur at the seventh vial, immediately before Jesus' second coming (Revelation 16:17,19, Revelation 19:2-21). Then Revelation 19:7 to 20:3 will happen at his second coming. Then Revelation 20:7-10 will happen some thousand years after his second coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:10).

Revelation 19:18-21 refers to only the temporal judgment that will occur when Jesus kills only some of the unsaved people who will still be alive at the time of his second coming, just as, for example, when God killed people in Noah's flood, that was only a temporal judgment of only the people who were alive at the time of the flood. The eternal judgment of the unsaved (of all times) will not occur until they are all resurrected together at the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15), which will not occur until some thousand years after Jesus' second coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:15).

eclipsenow said in post 954:

It's not some weak future timetable that robs the book of relevance and meaning to us.

The future fulfillment of Revelation chapters 6 to 18/Matthew 24, before Jesus returns immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:7), should be relevant to every Christian, regardless of whether or not he thinks he will still be alive to go through it, just as the past fulfillment of, for example, Genesis chapters 1 to 11, should be relevant to every Christian, regardless of him not being alive at that time to experience it. For all scripture regarding all times is relevant to all Christians in all times (2 Timothy 3:16).

Also, the future fulfillment of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 should be especially relevant to every Christian alive today. For the main reason that the Bible gives us clear warning ahead of time about everything that Christians alive at that time will have to face (Mark 13:23, Revelation chapters 6 to 18, Revelation 1:3, Revelation 22:16) before Jesus returns immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:7), is so that they can be better prepared mentally not to be blindsided (1 Peter 4:12-13) or deceived by anything that's coming (Matthew 24:4-5,23-25, Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20), and so that they can be better prepared mentally to endure the future tribulation with patience and faith to the end (Matthew 24:9-13, Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6), and not commit apostasy during the tribulation (Isaiah 8:21-22, Matthew 24:9-13, Matthew 13:21), to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12).

eclipsenow said in post 954:

In Rev 1 he has already said "I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day" which means he is thinking of the Age of the Spirit which finds its fulfilment on the great and terrible day of the Lord.

Revelation 1:10 means that John was in the Spirit on the first day of the week (what is now commonly called Sunday). For after the Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week (Mark 16:9), the early church referred to the first day of the week as the Lord's day: "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him" (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, chapter 9. Ignatius was a contemporary of John).

So Revelation 1:10 is speaking of Sunday: John was in the Spirit on a Sunday in the first century AD, when he heard behind him a great voice.

eclipsenow said in post 954:

Futurists see it as utterly dependent on today's headlines, and therefore inaccessible to everyone before this generation.

Futurism considers today's headlines regarding such things as geopolitics and technology, in order to help believers consider different ways for how exactly the never-fulfilled, yet still understandable, and almost entirely literal, highly-detailed prophecies in Revelation chapters 6 to 18 might be fulfilled in our future. For example, Christians at any time in the past could understand that Revelation 6:4-8 refers to a horrible, literal war which will start the tribulation, and which, with its aftermath of famines and epidemics, will end up killing a fourth of the world. They could understand this without having to know, for example, what nation will start the war, or what weapons will be employed in the war. All futurism does is consider these things.

For another example, Christians at any time in the past could understand that Revelation 13:14-15 refers to a literal image (Greek: "eikon", something made in the likeness) of the Antichrist, which will appear to be alive, which will speak, and which people will have to worship or be killed. Christians in the past could understand this without having to know, for example, whether the image will be two-dimensional or three-dimensional (or both), or what it will be made of, or how it will be made to speak and appear to be alive. All futurism does is consider these things.

 

[eclipsenow]

Revelation chapters 6 to 22 are a timetable, for the reasons given in the "timetable" part of post 942.

Are you EVER GOING TO PROVIDE A LIST OF BIBLE SCHOLARS WHO SAY REVELATION IS LITERAL?

ARE YOU EVER GOING TO PROVIDE A RATIONALE FOR THROWING HERMENEUTIC SKILLS IN THE RUBBISH BIN?

None of those reasons are sufficient. Why do you think they are? I've addressed this repeatedly and you simply have not answered adequately.

Also, regarding Revelation being "a symbolic sermon", Revelation is almost entirely literal, for the reasons given in the first "Revelation is almost entirely literal" part of post 949.

None of those reasons are sufficient. Why do you think they are? I've addressed this repeatedly and you simply have not answered adequately.

Yes. Just as Revelation is not bound by literalism, for not all of it is literal, so Revelation is not bound by symbolism, for not all of it is symbolic. For example, parts of Revelation 5:6 are literal (God's throne in heaven, the four beasts, the twenty-four elders, Jesus having been slain, the seven Spirits of God, the earth) and parts of Revelation 5:6 are symbolic (Jesus being a lamb, his having seven horns, his having seven eyes).

These are not biblical statements about how to read Revelation, but flow from your own presuppositions ABOUT Revelation. I read each of these events as symbolic, even the scene of God's throne in heaven. Why do you think it is literal? Nothing in the passage shows it to be literal. Sorry, but you're out of your league. Dr John Dickson makes far more sense than anything you say.

We know what is a symbol and what is literal by comparing each part of a verse with other verses (Isaiah 28:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:13). For example, we know that Jesus isn't literally a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes (Revelation 5:6) because other verses show that he is literally a human (Luke 24:39; 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 7:24-26, Hebrews 2:17).

But when we read bible scholars who know a lot more than us, we can see how they show every part of Revelation to be symbolic sermons, even the parts you seem to misguidedly think are literal.

What do you mean by "it"? The words "two thousand years"? If so, we must not insert the words "two thousand years" before, for example, the word "hereafter" in the actual text of Revelation 4:1b, for we must not add any words to the actual text of Revelation (Revelation 22:18).

I get that you are pretending not to actually add words to Revelation, and are full of righteous indignation. But then you do anyway. EG:

But in order to interpret Revelation correctly, just as there is a requirement to insert some two thousand years between the time that Revelation was written and the fulfillment of Jesus' future second coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3, so there is a requirement to insert some two thousand years between the time that Revelation was written and the fulfillment of the preceding, never-fulfilled tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18.

This silly, self-contradicting requirement only exists in your imagination. See, you created the problem of this requirement by your incorrect literalistic approach to Revelation. This is how it goes:
Step 1: assume it's a timetable of the future because then Revelation becomes exciting, it's all about US! Party on! We're SUDDENLY SPECIAL!
Step 2: But that means we need to insert it somewhere. I know... look for words that denote the passage of time... like the word 'after'.
Step 3: Come up with random reasons why it is early enough in the book to make most of the book about us. So ignore the earlier 'after this' moments, and CERTAINLY ignore the later ones in Chapter 19 (otherwise most of the book would NOT be about us!)

The "hereafter" at the end of Revelation 4:1 is different from the "And after these things I heard" in Revelation 19:1, just as it is different from the "After this" at the start of Revelation 4:1

Not really.

(and at the start of some other chapters). They are not different in the Greek, but in what they are referring to. For the "hereafter" at the end of Revelation 4:1 refers to events that must actually "be",

Not really. You just want it to be about that.

in the sense of actually being performed, sometime in the future,

Yup! There's your presupposition on display for the whole world to see, showing how you need to just go and plonk 2000 years into the passage (even though you'll react with horror at the suggestion, in reality you do anyway).

that is, all the never-fulfilled events of Revelation chapters 6 to 22; whereas the "And after these things I heard" (Revelation 19:1)

They're only never fulfilled because of your silly, unjustified presuppositions. I see them fulfilled ALL THE TIME! They are symbolic sermons generally describing the kind of life Christians will have to survive in these Last Days. I see these metaphors unfolding in the world every single day.

refers to an action already completed by John in the past, after he had seen a vision of the eternal destruction of the symbolic Babylon in Revelation 18, which has not been fulfilled yet. Similarly, "After this I looked" at the start of Revelation 4:1 refers to an action already completed by John in the past, after he had been told what to write in the seven letters in Revelation chapters 2-3.

Are you saying that every detail in Revelation is a symbol that is explained in other parts of the Bible?

Yes.

For example, how is each detail in Revelation 9:1-11 explained in other parts of the Bible?

Around $20 and you'll know all you need to. Free post around the world!

Try the Book Depository: under $6 and worldwide postage is FREE!
Revelation Unwrapped: Commentary on Revelation : Paperback : John Richardson : 9780952489429

Another great commentary that is also symbolist but also has a slightly more Historical emphasis is by Dr Paul Barnett, "Apocalypse Now and then". Paul lecturered in Ancient History at Macquarie University as well as being an ordained Bishop of North Sydney. He ran historical tours of the bible lands, and is uniquely qualified to speak of John's historical references in Revelation. Under $15.
Apocalypse Now and Then: Reading Revelation Today : Paperback : Paul Barnett : 9781875861415

Can you provide in this thread some quotes (or paraphrases in your own words) of their specific arguments based on the scriptures themselves (compare Isaiah 8:20b), and not on any man-made ideas (compare 1 Corinthians 1:20), that prove that every detail in Revelation is a symbol that is explained in other parts of the Bible?

You do realise that until you can justify, from the bible, why you read Revelation literally, then your ideas on how to read it are man-made? They're YOUR ideas, not God's. You've got to justify them! And so far you've just stammered nonsense instead of actually showing where the bible says how to read Revelation.

I'm taking the position that the bible itself does not tell us, but that the skills of hermeneutics we get from the bible tell us.

What has been proven wrong?

Repeated assertions that are wrong do not make you look more right, and repeatedly asking what has been proven wrong does not make you look more right.

How has it been proven that any first century believing Jew would laugh at that, instead of agreeing?

Did you even read Dr John Dickson? He's a personal friend of mine.

How has it been proven that such a concretization of the images would never have entered the minds of ancient believers?

Because, unlike you, he has a Phd in Ancient History and a theology degree and knows what he's talking about. The rest of his article shows it to any rational person. But, sadly, you'll just do with it what you will.

Regarding "the ancient literary device known as ‘apocalyptic’", Revelation itself can be almost entirely literal because, as scripture, it's not bound by any man-made ideas regarding any made-made categories for writings in general. Revelation, like other scripture, was written by the inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16), meaning that it was not written by the will of man, but written by a holy man as he was moved by the Holy Spirit to write it (compare 2 Peter 1:21), so that the words of Revelation are what the Holy Spirit himself spoke (compare Acts 1:16, Acts 28:25b). And nothing about these words requires that Revelation can't be almost entirely literal.

See how you side-track us with irrelevant verses? Nothing, but nothing, in the verses you've cited tell us what genre it is. Of course I believe in the God-breathed inspiration of scripture. But scripture contains poetry, history, historical narrative, biographical narrative, songs, psalms, and apocalyptic symbolism. Ever notice that these are also all inspired and all in the bible? Just because Revelation was written by John and inspired tells us nothing about whether we are to read it as poetry, history, biography, or symbolically. Let me break it down into smaller sentences for you. Nothing you've said makes sense. Inspiration does not tell us genre. Unless you are going to deny Song of Solomon's is a love ballad, unless you are going to deny that Genesis has metaphorical literature in its early parts, unless you are going to deny that the gospels are biographies, unless you are going to deny that the Psalms have songs and poems, unless you are going to deny much of the literature in the bible is inspired because it is most certainly NOT LITERAL, you simply don't get to claim that inspired = literal! Get it?

Also, how has it been proven that any numbers or colors in Revelation have to be symbolic? Why can't they all be literal?

Because you don't know how to recognise symbols as they appear in the rest of the bible.

How has it been proven that he would never have predicted that?

Because you just ask meaningless silly questions every time you don't like something someone smarter, more educated, and more professional than you says.

How has it been proven that anything in Genesis 1 can't be historical?

Because you just ask meaningless silly questions every time you don't like something someone smarter, more educated, and more professional than you says.

Can you give some examples of what you mean, and show how they require that Genesis 1 can't be historical? Also, how has it been proven that any number in Genesis 1 can't be literal?

Are your powers of comprehension really so poor that you do not know that I did not actually write this? Dr John Dickson did.

How has it been proven that Genesis 1 is not chronological?

Because you just ask meaningless silly questions every time you don't like something someone smarter, more educated, and more professional than you says.

The seven-candle lamp was literal (Exodus 37:23).

Works of art can also have metaphors that refer to other things, like the perfection of God's number 7, which this candle refers to. Otherwise, why 7 candles? You don't know. You just read the FACT of the 7 candles without understanding the biblical meaning.

Why can't it be literal and point to God's perfection at the same time, just as, for example, the fruitless fig tree that Jesus cursed was a literal tree which at the same time pointed to fruitless, unbelieving, Old Covenant Israel (Matthew 21:19,43)?

Because the entire structure of the writing tells us it isn't. It's about recognising genre, as skill with which you seem to be less than skilled in.

Genesis 1:3-5 could mean that God had some light source in space temporarily light up half the earth as bright as day, three days before he created the sun (Genesis 1:14-19).

The text doesn't say that, so you're just making stuff up to make a literal reading of it make sense.

How has it been proven that the number 144,000 in Revelation 7:4 and Revelation 14:1,3 can't be a literal number of people, which will consist of literally twelve groups with literally twelve thousand people in each group (Revelation 7:5-8)?

You don't know how to recognise genre.

Why can't the number be both literal and convey an idea of completeness at the same time, just as, again, the fruitless fig tree that Jesus cursed was a literal tree which at the same time conveyed the fruitlessness of unbelieving, Old Covenant Israel (Matthew 21:19,43)?

Because it's symbolic, not literal, are we getting this yet?

There is no need, for sufficient reasons why Revelation should be read almost entirely literally have already been given. Also, how has Dickson or any other scholar proven, based on the scriptures themselves (compare Isaiah 8:20b) and not on any man-made ideas (compare 1 Corinthians 1:20), that Revelation should not be read almost entirely literally?

Dickson proved it, you just didn't like it and stubbornly stuck to your 'everything is literal' mantra which defies everything we learn from hermeneutics. You'd fail bible college.

 

[dfw69]

Incorrect, because Revelation is not a timetable but a symbolic sermon. But nice try.

So the preterist say.... You know ... This preterist doctrine plays right into the hands for a false messiah and false messianic age... IMO

Yet Jesus warns beware of false Christ and false prophets who wish to rule from Israel ...

The false messianic age to come will be like the movie the matrix ...... Sounds funny I know... But it will be a world that had been pulled over our eyes... But it's a lie... Because the real Zion is underneath the earth... Lol... Just kidding... But seriously...the warning of Jesus is not to be deceived when one says the messiah has come and the messianic age is here..... For the end is not yet

 

[Biblewriter]

Are you EVER GOING TO PROVIDE A LIST OF BIBLE SCHOLARS WHO SAY REVELATION IS LITERAL?

This is an improper argument. Who said such-and-such or when they said it has zero bearing on the truth of scripture. But for starters, I will list the following:

Papias circa, 110-140
Justin, circa 170
Irenaeus, circa 186-188
Hyppolytus, circa 202-211
Tertullian, circa 208
Commodianus, circa 250
Caius, circa early third century
Lactantius, circa 303-311
Apollinarius, circa late fourth century
Epiphanius, circa late fourth to early fifth centuries

In view of all these, is it any winder that in the fifth century, Jerome wrote, "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... Then after they have been slain, the seven other kings will bow their necks to the victor." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

A literal interpretation of Bible prophecy was the standard doctrine of the early church, not given up until about the same time as they gave up the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

 

[Bible2]

eclipsenow said in post 957:

Are you EVER GOING TO PROVIDE A LIST OF BIBLE SCHOLARS WHO SAY REVELATION IS LITERAL?

No, for there is no need. For sufficient reasons why Revelation should be read almost entirely literally have already been given. Also, can you specifically indicate how you feel that even one scholar has proven, based on the scriptures themselves (compare Isaiah 8:20b) and not on any man-made ideas (compare 1 Corinthians 1:20), that Revelation should not be read almost entirely literally?

eclipsenow said in post 957:

ARE YOU EVER GOING TO PROVIDE A RATIONALE FOR THROWING HERMENEUTIC SKILLS IN THE RUBBISH BIN?

How has it been shown that any hermeneutic skill has been thrown in the rubbish bin?

eclipsenow said in post 957:

None of those reasons are sufficient.

Why not?

eclipsenow said in post 957:

Why do you think they are?

Because they are based on the scriptures themselves.

eclipsenow said in post 957:

I've addressed this repeatedly and you simply have not answered adequately.

Regarding "I've addressed this repeatedly", can you give an example of where you have actually addressed each point in the "Revelation is almost entirely literal" paragraph, and proven from the scriptures themselves that each point is in error, instead of simply dismissing the whole thing as "rubbish", or something like that?

eclipsenow said in post 957:

I've addressed this repeatedly and you simply have not answered adequately.

Regarding "you simply have not answered adequately", how has that been proven?

eclipsenow said in post 957:

I read each of these events as symbolic, even the scene of God's throne in heaven. Why do you think it is literal?

There is no scriptural reason for it not to be literal.

eclipsenow said in post 957:

But when we read bible scholars who know a lot more than us, we can see how they show every part of Revelation to be symbolic sermons, even the parts you seem to misguidedly think are literal.

How have they shown, for example, that God's throne in heaven is not literal?

eclipsenow said in post 957:

I get that you are pretending not to actually add words to Revelation, and are full of righteous indignation. But then you do anyway.

No. For no words have been added to the text of Revelation.

eclipsenow said in post 957:

This silly, self-contradicting requirement only exists in your imagination.

How has it been proven to be silly or self-contradictory?

eclipsenow said in post 957:

Step 1: assume it's a timetable of the future because then Revelation becomes exciting, it's all about US!

Regarding "assume it's a timetable", that is not an assumption, but is based on what the verses themselves show (See the "timetable" part of post 942).

eclipsenow said in post 957:

Step 1: assume it's a timetable of the future because then Revelation becomes exciting, it's all about US!

Regarding a timetable "of the future", Revelation chapters 6 to 22 are future because they are about "things which must be hereafter" (Revelation 4:1b). And just as Jesus' second coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3 has never been fulfilled, for nowhere in history books do we find its fulfillment, so the highly-detailed events of the preceding tribulation in Revelation chapters 6 to 18 have never been fulfilled, for nowhere in history books do we find their fulfillment.

eclipsenow said in post 957:

Step 1: assume it's a timetable of the future because then Revelation becomes exciting, it's all about US!

Regarding "it's all about US!", not necessarily. For any of us could die at any time (Lk. 12:20, Jas. 4:14).

But if we don't die sometime during, say, the next seven years, the tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18/Matthew 24 could come to be about us. For Matthew 24:34 could mean that the temporal generation which would see the 1948 AD re-establishment of Israel, which could be symbolized by the rebudding of the fig tree (Mt. 24:32-34, Hos. 9:10, Joel 1:6-7, Lk. 13:6-9, Mt. 21:19,43), won't pass, that is, won't die off completely, until the future tribulation and second coming of Matthew 24/Revelation chapters 6 to 19 are fulfilled. A temporal generation may not pass until seventy or eighty years (Ps. 90:10), or a hundred and twenty years (Gen. 6:3).

This doesn't require that the second coming will occur right before, like one year, before that generation will pass: that is, sixty-nine, or seventy-nine, or a hundred and nineteen years after 1948: in 2017, 2027, or 2067. And if the tribulation which will immediately precede the second coming and rapture (Mt. 24:29-31, 2 Thes. 2:1-8, Rev. 19:7-20:6) will last seven years (Dan. 9:27), the tribulation's first year didn't have to be in 2011, and won't have to be in 2021, or 2061, but could be in a future year (for example, 2020) earlier than 2021.

eclipsenow said in post 957:

Nothing, but nothing, in the verses you've cited tell us what genre it is.

Revelation is not of any particular genre. For example, parts of Revelation 5:6 are literal (God's throne in heaven, the four beasts, the twenty-four elders, Jesus having been slain, the seven Spirits of God, the earth) and parts of Revelation 5:6 are symbolic (Jesus being a lamb, his having seven horns, his having seven eyes).

eclipsenow said in post 957:

. . . you simply don't get to claim that inspired = literal!

It hasn't been said that inspired = literal, but that inspired = not bound by any man-made ideas regarding any made-made categories for writings in general.

eclipsenow said in post 957:

Because you don't know how to recognise symbols as they appear in the rest of the bible.

Can you give an example?

eclipsenow said in post 957:

Because you just ask meaningless silly questions every time you don't like something someone smarter, more educated, and more professional than you says.

How has any question been shown to be meaningless or silly?

eclipsenow said in post 957:

Are your powers of comprehension really so poor that you do not know that I did not actually write this?

No. That's why all the quotes from Dickson in post 950 were prefaced in post 955 by: "eclipsenow quoted Dickson in post 950:". But you seem to accept everything he says as indisputable truth. So if he is unwilling, or just doesn't have the time, to answer for himself, perhaps you, who seem to be of the exact same view as he is, could answer the questions that have been asked regarding his claims.

eclipsenow said in post 957:

Works of art can also have metaphors that refer to other things, like the perfection of God's number 7, which this candle refers to.

That's right.

Just as works of art are literal objects, so the menorah was literal (Exodus 37:23). And its literal "seven lamps" (Exodus 37:23) were patterned after the third heaven's (Hebrews 8:5, Hebrews 9:23-24) literal "seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God" (Revelation 4:5b).