Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 6  Next >

Revelation

Posted: 6/24/2014 12:14 AM

Revelation 



Starting a thread here to discuss the last book in the Bible, as a spinoff of the long discussion on Iraq.

Just putting up the banner tonight; here is the opening salvo, courtesy of Glenstorm (response tomorrow):

"There are a couple of things in there I might quibble with, namely the "two things you HAVE to understand in order for Revelation to make any sense" thing.  I disagree with that.  I mean, in 1:3, God promises that the one who reads aloud the words or Revelation will be blessed.  I don't think it's necessary at all to have those understandings as prerequisites.  And that's not just because I don't think so, it's because that's what God says.

Okay, though, regardless of that, Brigade, I don't really disagree with what you've written here.  But how do you understand "meta tauta," or "the things which shall take place after this"?  Do you understand that to mean chronologically after the seven churches?  Because that would explain A LOT concerning the chasm between your understanding of Revelation and mine.  Meta tauta (after these things) does not place the events within the visions in chapters 4 and 5 and following after the events narrated in chapters 1 through 3. It indicates rather only that a new vision is coming after the vision given in chapters 1 through 3. This is the order in which John saw the visions but not necessarily the historical order of their occurrence as events. The phrase is also used in this way in subsequent sections of the book (7:1, 9; 15:5; 18:1; 19:1)."
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/24/2014 12:55 AM

Re: Revelation 


It's a literary style John used to layer these events, designed to always keep the reader with the idea something big is about to occur. Also as I recall, chapter 12 or so went back to chronologically before earlier chapters. 4-6 (or so). Vision within a vision, seven layers and all that.

Okay - have at it.
Reply | Quote
  • indyv
  • Head Coach
  • 15166 posts this site

Posted: 6/24/2014 7:53 AM

Re: Revelation 


Revelation, like most of the Bible and the Koran is just political machinations of those who would have power over others...

question for you......if there came to our present day public a person who said God was speaking to him through visions, would you believe him......

the problem with Revelation is that it is written by man.....a man with pride; which is of course the great evil

imo
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 10:23 AM

Re: Revelation 


This should be interesting.

The word Revelation is the English translation of the Greek word Apocalypse which means the revealing or to reveal but today many expecailly the media use the word Apocalypse as some terrible event that's going to happen.

Many think it is the Revelation of John but Christ is the Revelator not John he was only a scribe who wrote down what he saw in the vision. 

Summarizing: In chapter 5 God is holding a book (scroll) sealed with seven seals in his right hand that no man is worthy to open but only the lamb that has shed his blood is worthy to open it or break the seals. So Christ does the revealing of whats behind the seven seals not John. 

The reason of varying interpretations John was writing of future things he saw but did not recognize or know what they were so he used symbols or things which he knew that closely resembled what he saw.

Also the bible interprets itself in Matthew 24 when asked for signs of the end of the world the signs that Jesus gives are the explanation for the four horsemen in Revelation. The book of Daniel is a good place to reference Revelation from Daniel interpreting Nebuchadnezzers dream to his own visions about end time events. 

You can also notice the sybolism of the fourth beast of Daniel 7 and of the beast of Revelation 13.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 10:37 AM

Re: Revelation 


This is one of the areas of the Bible I haven't studied much at all. It's written in apocalyptic literature, which is important for interpretation. As of now, I slightly lean towards amillennialism, but without much weight towards it.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 10:46 AM

Re: Revelation 


Holy moly. 

Okay.  I have said (and still think) that the 'ignore' thing is silly.  But I suggest that we all ~ well, those of us who are serious about this discussion, anyway ~ put Indy on 'ignore' for the duration of this thread.  As for me, it's done.


indyv wrote: Revelation, like most of the Bible and the Koran is just political machinations of those who would have power over others...

question for you......if there came to our present day public a person who said God was speaking to him through visions, would you believe him......

the problem with Revelation is that it is written by man.....a man with pride; which is of course the great evil

imo
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 11:01 AM

Re: Revelation 



burksballer20 wrote: This is one of the areas of the Bible I haven't studied much at all. It's written in apocalyptic literature, which is important for interpretation. As of now, I slightly lean towards amillennialism, but without much weight towards it.


Well.  Good.  Maybe I can add weight to it.  Wait.  No, maybe God will add a little weight to it, by His Spirit.  wink  Not to presume upon God, but, well, you know what I mean.

The term 'amillennialism' is a bit of a misnomer, though.  the 'a' prefix seems to denote that there is not a millennium, which is not the case.  It's just the nature of it that is at issue, not whether it exists or not, even for people who would call themselves amillennialists.  'NUNC-millennialism' ~ the prefix 'nunc' denoting the NOW-ness of the millennium ~ is a more correctly descriptive term.  Brigade and I have discussed that at length.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/24/2014 11:03 AM

Re: Revelation 



Glenstorm wrote:
burksballer20 wrote: This is one of the areas of the Bible I haven't studied much at all. It's written in apocalyptic literature, which is important for interpretation. As of now, I slightly lean towards amillennialism, but without much weight towards it.


Well.  Good.  Maybe I can add weight to it.  Wait.  No, maybe God will add a little weight to it, by His Spirit.  wink  Not to presume upon God, but, well, you know what I mean.

The term 'amillennialism' is a bit of a misnomer, though.  the 'a' prefix seems to denote that there is not a millennium, which is not the case.  It's just the nature of it that is at issue, not whether it exists or not, even for people who would call themselves amillennialists.  'NUNC-millennialism' ~ the prefix 'nunc' denoting the NOW-ness of the millennium ~ is a more correctly descriptive term.  Brigade and I have discussed that at length.
Semantics. Move on….
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 11:07 AM

Re: Revelation 



StallionVol wrote:
Glenstorm wrote:
burksballer20 wrote: This is one of the areas of the Bible I haven't studied much at all. It's written in apocalyptic literature, which is important for interpretation. As of now, I slightly lean towards amillennialism, but without much weight towards it.


Well.  Good.  Maybe I can add weight to it.  Wait.  No, maybe God will add a little weight to it, by His Spirit.  wink  Not to presume upon God, but, well, you know what I mean.

The term 'amillennialism' is a bit of a misnomer, though.  the 'a' prefix seems to denote that there is not a millennium, which is not the case.  It's just the nature of it that is at issue, not whether it exists or not, even for people who would call themselves amillennialists.  'NUNC-millennialism' ~ the prefix 'nunc' denoting the NOW-ness of the millennium ~ is a more correctly descriptive term.  Brigade and I have discussed that at length.
Semantics. Move on….


Nope.  It's quite an important distinction.  And a necessary one to make.  For some.  But apparently not you.  But sure, I'll move on.

You know, if you can't keep from sniping, maybe you should move on.  I mean,  I'm not mad or anything, but really, man.  Maybe you should.  That's your call, of course; you can do what you want.  noidea  As if you needed permission  from me or something... tongue

Last edited 6/24/2014 11:11 AM by Glenstorm

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/24/2014 11:12 AM

Re: Revelation 


a-millennialists  (say that 5 times fast) are stating only that Christ is presently reigning - as in not pre or post. So we all know the term means, regardless of whether it was used correctly or incorrectly at it's origin which is a distracting and unnecessary debate. 

I'm the ref here and that is my final judgement. Move along. 

biggrin

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 11:44 AM

Re: Revelation 



StallionVol wrote:

a-millennialists  (say that 5 times fast) are stating only that Christ is presently reigning - as in not pre or post. So we all know the term means, regardless of whether it was used correctly or incorrectly at it's origin which is a distracting and unnecessary debate. 

No, it just means YOU understand.  Which is good.  Why would you presume that on other people?  And it's not "debate;" it's a clarification.  And a relatively minor one at that.  If somebody wanted to make it a debate, that that would be his prerogative.  But I don't think anybody has problem enough with it to transform that clarification into a debate.

I'm the ref here and that is my final judgement. Move along. 

biggrin

I reject your ref-dom.  biggrin  All in good humor, but really. 

You are welcome to make judgments, even final ones.  But keep them to yourself.  tongue

But I will move along.  Of my own volition, of course. 

See, the people who are serious about this thread have no need for moderation, so you can take off that hat.   cool

Okay.  Can we stop this, please?

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 11:56 AM

Re: Revelation 



volbrigade wrote:
Starting a thread here to discuss the last book in the Bible, as a spinoff of the long discussion on Iraq.

Just putting up the banner tonight; here is the opening salvo, courtesy of Glenstorm (response tomorrow):

"There are a couple of things in there I might quibble with, namely the "two things you HAVE to understand in order for Revelation to make any sense" thing.  I disagree with that.  I mean, in 1:3, God promises that the one who reads aloud the words or Revelation will be blessed.  I don't think it's necessary at all to have those understandings as prerequisites.  And that's not just because I don't think so, it's because that's what God says.

Okay, though, regardless of that, Brigade, I don't really disagree with what you've written here.  But how do you understand "meta tauta," or "the things which shall take place after this"?  Do you understand that to mean chronologically after the seven churches?  Because that would explain A LOT concerning the chasm between your understanding of Revelation and mine.  Meta tauta (after these things) does not place the events within the visions in chapters 4 and 5 and following after the events narrated in chapters 1 through 3. It indicates rather only that a new vision is coming after the vision given in chapters 1 through 3. This is the order in which John saw the visions but not necessarily the historical order of their occurrence as events. The phrase is also used in this way in subsequent sections of the book (7:1, 9; 15:5; 18:1; 19:1)."

"Summarizing: In chapter 5 God is holding a book (scroll) sealed with seven seals in his right hand that no man is worthy to open but only the lamb that has shed his blood is worthy to open it or break the seals. So Christ does the revealing of whats behind the seven seals not John."

Well stated, GYM.

This may be a short thread, from my standpoint.  That is, having reviewed chapters 4 & 5, and seeing that the narrative follows from 6:1 onward to describe the events that lead up to Our Lord's return -- then yes, I understand that narrative to follow after the letters to the seven churches.  With the following caveat, in understanding the Seven Letters:

that the letters represent layers of meaning.  They are actual directives to seven extant churches at that time; they also intentionally, deliberately, and by design address issues within the Church (the Body of Christ) that will affect it going forward; each denomination, and even each congregation being one or the other "type" of the seven churches; or having simultaneous elements of them.  Each type has its exhortation, its commendation, and/or its warning or criticism.  Smyrna and Philadelphia, for example, have no warning;  Laodicea has no commendation.

This element of exhortation, warning or criticism, and commendation also applies to each individual believer -- to "he who has an ear." 

The letters also express the history of the Church, pre-written.  If they were in any other order, that would not be the case.

Ephesus -- The Apostolic Church
Smyrna -- The Persecuted Church
Pergamos -- The "married" (to the world) Church
Thyatira -- The Medieval Church
Sardis -- The Denominational Church
Philadelphia -- the Raptured Church
Laodicea -- the Apostate Church

Note to Stally:

Congratulations on being aware of the heptadic signatures in the symbols and structures of the text, which indeed do refer to Our Lord (seven lampstands, seals, stars, etc.).  This heptadic structure occurs throughout Scripture (which is, again, tied together by its Author).  For instance the "70 Weeks of Years" (7 x 10; 10 symbolizing "completeness") referred to by Daniel; an understanding of which is essential to understanding the message in Revelation.

Here is a fun, and amazing, read on heptadic structure, if you can handle it (note:  I say that only because of its source, not as an aspersion.  My ground rules for this thread -- which apply only to myself (though I encourage everyone to consider following them) are to lay aside my tendency toward sarcasm and irony; no bashing of others views, or mode of expression, or anything of a personal nature; and a commitment to understanding and responding to what other posters write, and to understanding their views as fully as possible, without projecting what I THINK they believe, or are saying, or denigrating their sources):

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/24/2014 12:50 PM

Re: Revelation 



volbrigade wrote:
Note to Stally:

Congratulations on being aware of the heptadic signatures in the symbols and structures of the text, which indeed do refer to Our Lord (seven lampstands, seals, stars, etc.).  This heptadic structure occurs throughout Scripture (which is, again, tied together by its Author).  For instance the "70 Weeks of Years" (7 x 10; 10 symbolizing "completeness") referred to by Daniel; an understanding of which is essential to understanding the message in Revelation.

Here is a fun, and amazing, read on heptadic structure, if you can handle it (note:  I say that only because of its source, not as an aspersion.  My ground rules for this thread -- which apply only to myself (though I encourage everyone to consider following them) are to lay aside my tendency toward sarcasm and irony; no bashing of others views, or mode of expression, or anything of a personal nature; and a commitment to understanding and responding to what other posters write, and to understanding their views as fully as possible, without projecting what I THINK they believe, or are saying, or denigrating their sources):

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

I'll commit to doing the same. 

When it comes to things like this, based on codes and numbers, one thing I've learned in life is that it's often easy to manipulate stats, as most of us agree. In searching for a code, such as this, one can delve into millions of numbers and cherry pick out the ones he wants to find patterns. 

So in this case, Missler is using the work of Ivan Panin. A quick wikipedia review explains him as a Russian immigrant to the US, who more or less devoted his life to finding these codes in biblical texts, and died in 1942. 

Here in the wikipedia listing is a blurb about what his critics state:

Now this is hardly a refutation of his work, but it leads to the avenue in which I'd investigate his findings. It's an interesting topic - but there is a lot of room for doubt, and certainly nothing that I'd take as truth, as it were, without looking at it from lots of angles. 

Critics of his work doubt the value of some of his findings and dismiss more evident numerical patterns as random chance. Panin's claims, that the existence of such statistical anomalies is proof of divine inspiration, are still sharply debated by skeptics of his work today. Panin used the edition of Westcott and Hort of the New Testament, as the basis for his work, but made selective use of alternative readings that those authors suggested. He even published his own version of the Greek text, claiming to have reconstructed the lost original version by his techniques; critics see this as circular reasoning, and state that it only shows that he was capable of producing patterns himself.[1] Another criticism is that the same kind of numeric patterns can be found in any text.[2]

Proponents of his work include well-known authors such as Chuck Missler.[3]

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 1:02 PM

Re: Revelation 



volbrigade wrote:

This may be a short thread, from my standpoint.  That is, having reviewed chapters 4 & 5, and seeing that the narrative follows from 6:1 onward to describe the events that lead up to Our Lord's return -- then yes, I understand that narrative to follow after the letters to the seven churches.  With the following caveat, in understanding the Seven Letters:

that the letters represent layers of meaning.  They are actual directives to seven extant churches at that time; they also intentionally, deliberately, and by design address issues within the Church (the Body of Christ) that will affect it going forward; each denomination, and even each congregation being one or the other "type" of the seven churches; or having simultaneous elements of them.  Each type has its exhortation, its commendation, and/or its warning or criticism.  Smyrna and Philadelphia, for example, have no warning;  Laodicea has no commendation.

This element of exhortation, warning or criticism, and commendation also applies to each individual believer -- to "he who has an ear." 

The letters also express the history of the Church, pre-written.  If they were in any other order, that would not be the case.

Ephesus -- The Apostolic Church
Smyrna -- The Persecuted Church
Pergamos -- The "married" (to the world) Church
Thyatira -- The Medieval Church
Sardis -- The Denominational Church
Philadelphia -- the Raptured Church
Laodicea -- the Apostate Church

Note to Stally:

Congratulations on being aware of the heptadic signatures in the symbols and structures of the text, which indeed do refer to Our Lord (seven lampstands, seals, stars, etc.).  This heptadic structure occurs throughout Scripture (which is, again, tied together by its Author).  For instance the "70 Weeks of Years" (7 x 10; 10 symbolizing "completeness") referred to by Daniel; an understanding of which is essential to understanding the message in Revelation.

Here is a fun, and amazing, read on heptadic structure, if you can handle it (note:  I say that only because of its source, not as an aspersion.  My ground rules for this thread -- which apply only to myself (though I encourage everyone to consider following them) are to lay aside my tendency toward sarcasm and irony; no bashing of others views, or mode of expression, or anything of a personal nature; and a commitment to understanding and responding to what other posters write, and to understanding their views as fully as possible, without projecting what I THINK they believe, or are saying, or denigrating their sources):

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark


Okay, I'm at least pretty good with all of that, except that I might say two things.  One of which I'm not sure you would disagree with, and the other it's obvious that you do, but I don't think it's a show-stopper

1.  This is the one I think you might agree with, although maybe not: The letters to the seven churches are to those churches specifically, in their immediate contexts, I agree.  But rather than being mutually exclusive ~ which may not be what you are saying, but that's how I read it ~ as in, the church at Pergamum was the only one of the seven guilty of being married to the world, or that the church at Laodicea was the only one of the seven guilty of lukewarmness is incorrect.  Those were their primary problems, their besetting sins, but all seven were guilty to some greater or lesser extent than the rest.  And so it is today.  All churches, no matter how Spirit-led and/or Gospel-preaching, are filled with sinners, and as such are guilty of all those things, at least from time to time to a greater or lesser degree.  Maybe you would agree with that to some extent; I don't know. 

But, ~ and I know you would obviously disagree with this ~ I wouldn't separate the seven churches into such chronologically exclusive distinctions as you do.  I think that's an over-reading of the text, and an ignoring of the all-inclusiveness across all segments (and across all times) of it..

2.  This one, you obviously disagree with, but I don't think it's a big deal:  I think you and Chuck Missler ~ although I know he means well, and I'm not disparaging you or him in any way ~ are overdoing the heptadic structure of Scripture.  I mean, I TOTALLY AGREE that the number 7 is used in very important ways throughout Scripture, namely to denote completeness, or even complete completeness (70x7) as it were.  But I think it can be overdone, and I think you're doing it.  Now, I'm not, like, condemning you for it, or anything like that.  I mean, it's fine; do with it what you want.  I just think you're overdoing it.  But it's not really worth debating, I don't think.

Last edited 6/24/2014 1:06 PM by Glenstorm

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 1:06 PM

Re: Revelation 



StallionVol wrote:

When it comes to things like this, based on codes and numbers, one thing I've learned in life is that it's often easy to manipulate stats, as most of us agree. In searching for a code, such as this, one can delve into millions of numbers and cherry pick out the ones he wants to find patterns. 

Agreed.  Yes.  Much agreed.

So in this case, Missler is using the work of Ivan Panin... Now this is hardly a refutation of his work...

Agreed again.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 1:15 PM

Re: Revelation 



StallionVol wrote:
volbrigade wrote:

Note to Stally:

Congratulations on being aware of the heptadic signatures in the symbols and structures of the text, which indeed do refer to Our Lord (seven lampstands, seals, stars, etc.).  This heptadic structure occurs throughout Scripture (which is, again, tied together by its Author).  For instance the "70 Weeks of Years" (7 x 10; 10 symbolizing "completeness") referred to by Daniel; an understanding of which is essential to understanding the message in Revelation.

Here is a fun, and amazing, read on heptadic structure, if you can handle it (note:  I say that only because of its source, not as an aspersion.  My ground rules for this thread -- which apply only to myself (though I encourage everyone to consider following them) are to lay aside my tendency toward sarcasm and irony; no bashing of others views, or mode of expression, or anything of a personal nature; and a commitment to understanding and responding to what other posters write, and to understanding their views as fully as possible, without projecting what I THINK they believe, or are saying, or denigrating their sources):

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark







I'll commit to doing the same. 

When it comes to things like this, based on codes and numbers, one thing I've learned in life is that it's often easy to manipulate stats, as most of us agree. In searching for a code, such as this, one can delve into millions of numbers and cherry pick out the ones he wants to find patterns. 

So in this case, Missler is using the work of Ivan Panin. A quick wikipedia review explains him as a Russian immigrant to the US, who more or less devoted his life to finding these codes in biblical texts, and died in 1942. 

Here in the wikipedia listing is a blurb about what his critics state:

Now this is hardly a refutation of his work, but it leads to the avenue in which I'd investigate his findings. It's an interesting topic - but there is a lot of room for doubt, and certainly nothing that I'd take as truth, as it were, without looking at it from lots of angles. 

Critics of his work doubt the value of some of his findings and dismiss more evident numerical patterns as random chance. Panin's claims, that the existence of such statistical anomalies is proof of divine inspiration, are still sharply debated by skeptics of his work today. Panin used the edition of Westcott and Hort of the New Testament, as the basis for his work, but made selective use of alternative readings that those authors suggested. He even published his own version of the Greek text, claiming to have reconstructed the lost original version by his techniques; critics see this as circular reasoning, and state that it only shows that he was capable of producing patterns himself.[1] Another criticism is that the same kind of numeric patterns can be found in any text.[2]

Proponents of his work include well-known authors such as Chuck Missler.[3]


Duly noted.

I agree -- things like this must be viewed with skepticism, and great care as far as their legitimacy, or their value if they ARE legit.  Scripture stands on its own; but it stands against attacks on every side.  As the linked article points out -- WHICH scripture?  The Alexandrian Codices, or Textus Receptus?

Personally, it is my belief that God has armored His Word against all of these attacks; many of which the hard-working lay Christian is blessedly unaware (unless they stumble across "66/40" on the radio wink ).  That is, I believe  you can read the Living Bible paraphrase (not translation) and get the primary meaning of The Message (the name of another paraphrase that can be helpful.  But with those, too, you have to be careful... serious Christians will, I think, seek the most legitimate translation of the original texts.  But even there, you get into scholastic battles over the original texts).

After all -- to MOST people, the addition or exclusion of the last 12 verses of Mark are not a critical issue.  The information contained therein is included in other Gospels; the longstanding tradition of footnoting them in most versions is reasonable, to me.  It is interesting, and I think exhibits the edition's bias, as to whether the 12 verses are included in the main text, with an annotation; or are excluded, but annotated ("some manuscripts include...).

Also, I have seen rebuttals of the "Coding" of Scripture, such as ELS (Equadistant Letter Sequences), that demonstrate the same sort of things in "War and Peace", or "Catcher in the Rye" or what have you.

Bottom line:  our faith is not built on such things.

Whether they are confirming of that faith or not, is up to you.  You gotta admit -- it's pretty intriguing.  And bear in mind -- whoever wrote the Wiki entry on Panin does not exist in a vacuum; they have their own beliefs and agenda; someone else could easily come along and point out discrepancies in their account (i can assure you, it won't be me... wink  ).

So, I think these "microcodes" that have been revealed by centuries of diligent scholarship are very confirming of the authenticity of the text, and the "fingerprints" of its author.  They are probably not as important, however, as the more accessible "macrocodes" (e.g., the connection between Numbers 21:4-9, and John 3:15,16) that are rife within the entirety of the "package"; which are probably not as important as the value and meaning of the plain text, itself, which can be distilled down to "Jesus loves me, this I know:  for the Bible tells me so."  cool
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 2:10 PM

Re: Revelation 


Okay who believes we are in the end times as in Revelation and who or what do you interpret the woman to be that rides the scarlet beast in Revelation 17?

AND there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great ***** that sitteth upon many waters:

2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I SAW A WOMAN SIT upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 2:19 PM

Re: Revelation 



volbrigade wrote:
They are probably not as important, however, as the more accessible "macrocodes" (e.g., the connection between Numbers 21:4-9, and John 3:15,16) that are rife within the entirety of the "package"; which are probably not as important as the value and meaning of the plain text, itself, which can be distilled down to "Jesus loves me, this I know:  for the Bible tells me so."  cool


Yeah, I mean, this is the thing.  The continuity of Scripture is undeniable.  I think we agree on that.  I mean, hey, you cite Number 21 and John 3 referring to the bronze serpent, and I would even expand that by saying the overarching command there is to look up, as in lifting your eyes in faith to heaven and the kingdom of God and Jesus, rather than looking down and being consumed with those things:

Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, in Gen. 13:14, Gen. 18:2, Gen. 22:13.  Balaam lifted up his eyes in Numbers 24:3.  Joshua lifted up his eyes and looked in Joshua 5:13.  David sung about lifting up his eyes several times in the Psalms.  Isaiah.  And so on and so on, to "Seek ye first the kingdom of God..." to John 3, to Hebrews 12:1-2... 

I mean, I'm glossing it over and skipping a lot of other references and citations that could be made, but you get the idea.  Do a word search on grumbling sometime.  That one's fun, too.

So yeah, the continuity of Scripture is really, really far-reaching.  It's fun to pick out things and see them repeating over and over.  Sure.  And that's enough.  No "codes" needed.  cool  God has said what needed to be said.  Nothing more, and nothing less.  Like one of my favorite hymns says, "What more can He say than to you He has said, to you who for refuge to Jesus have fled." (How Firm a Foundation)

So we can move on from this, right?

Last edited 6/24/2014 2:26 PM by Glenstorm

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/24/2014 2:24 PM

Re: Revelation 



TNGYM wrote: Okay who believes we are in the end times as in Revelation and who or what do you interpret the woman to be that rides the scarlet beast in Revelation 17?

AND there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great ***** that sitteth upon many waters:

2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I SAW A WOMAN SIT upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.



Think you're getting too far out in front of the conversation, Gymmie.  We'll get there; be patient.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/24/2014 2:50 PM

Re: Revelation 


Okay, so back to Revelation. How does it compare, other than throwing in some 7 headed this or that - simple stuff that is an easy mimic of the Old Testament such as Daniel - in regards to Matthew? 

Note that this John mimicked old Jewish text rather than the more recent Gospels. 

Last edited 6/24/2014 3:06 PM by StallionVol

Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 6  Next >