The Sweet and bitter little book of Revelation 10

[Naomi25]

Just throwing this out there, but I believe Peter is simply talking about how time is different in heaven, then here on earth. I don't think it's supposed to be a mandate on prophetic time periods.

It could well be, but it also might not be. Here's the thing: numbers are used all the time in scripture symbolically. Dispensationalists really don't like it when we say stuff like that, but it's true, and even their theologians recognise it. And even they use the same principles when it suits. But for some reason, when it comes to the prophetic books, they feel the need to discard all previous notion of this, which seems like shooting yourself in the foot, since the prophetic books use numbers that way the most.
Consider: why do you suppose the number 7 is used so often in Revelation? Why is it used so much in scripture in general? 7 day week, 7 times around the wall of Jericho, Elisha sent Naaman to wash 7 times. In Revelation there are 7 Churches, 7 'spirits', 7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 bowls, 7 thunders and 7 plagues.
Either God really likes the number, or he's using it to communite something else as well as what the actual action is as well. Yes, the wall of Jericho came down, but it came down after 7! They trusted in God's plan and obeyed and it was fulfilled, completed! Yes, seals, trumpet and bowl judgements will fall upon the earth, but we can know when the 7th falls, God's purpose will be completed!
Symbolism is not some nasty liberal beast that needs to be run from (not entirely anyway, although I fully admit there are those who go waaay to far!). Numbers and symbolism can be important and drive home essential truths. And the thing is, Dispensationalists get this too! Think about this: we know that God is one, and yet 3, right? Father, Son and Spirit. In Revelation we see Satan making a mockery with his own unholy 'trinity': the dragon, the antichrist and the false prophet. The 3 we see here points us to a bigger truth: Satan is the great pretender, the faker. He will always attempt to mock and do his own 'version' of what God does. That's also why we see the antichrist suffer from a fatal wound and 'come back to life'...just like Christ did.

If that was the only definition given for the word "day" you would be right, however, it's not so we must be open to more than one consideration.

Fair enough: here are the rest:

Strong's Number: 2250 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
hJmevra from (with (5610) implied) of a derivative of hemai (to sit, akin to the base of (1476)) meaning tame, i.e. gentle
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Hemera 2:943,309
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
hay-mer'-ah Noun Feminine
Definition

1. the day, used of the natural day, or the interval between sunrise and sunset, as distinguished from and contrasted with the night
   1. in the daytime
   2. metaph., "the day" is regarded as the time for abstaining from indulgence, vice, crime, because acts of the sort are perpetrated at night and in darkness
2. of the civil day, or the space of twenty four hours (thus including the night)
   1. Eastern usage of this term differs from our western usage. Any part of a day is counted as a whole day, hence the expression "three days and three nights" does not mean literally three whole days, but at least one whole day plus part of two other days.
3. of the last day of this present age, the day Christ will return from heaven, raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and perfect his kingdom
4. used of time in general, i.e. the days of his life.

This is from CoreIssues own website...the one he links to for his references. And honestly...I'm still seeing the most up-front understanding of "day" as...well, "day". Now...don't get me wrong...as you can see above, I'm open to time being different in scripture. My point here all along has been that when Dispensationalists draw a line in the sand and tell people like me that scripture has to be interpreted literally, or else you're running wild, being a liberal, inviting trouble...and that's probably the best of what I've heard...then they can't just go skipping over that line whenever they choose and decide that "day" means 1000 years. Even if the greek usage of that word is either 2, 3 or 4 above.

 

[Trekson]

It could well be, but it also might not be. Here's the thing: numbers are used all the time in scripture symbolically. Dispensationalists really don't like it when we say stuff like that, but it's true, and even their theologians recognise it. And even they use the same principles when it suits. But for some reason, when it comes to the prophetic books, they feel the need to discard all previous notion of this, which seems like shooting yourself in the foot, since the prophetic books use numbers that way the most.
Consider: why do you suppose the number 7 is used so often in Revelation? Why is it used so much in scripture in general? 7 day week, 7 times around the wall of Jericho, Elisha sent Naaman to wash 7 times. In Revelation there are 7 Churches, 7 'spirits', 7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 bowls, 7 thunders and 7 plagues.
Either God really likes the number, or he's using it to communite something else as well as what the actual action is as well. Yes, the wall of Jericho came down, but it came down after 7! They trusted in God's plan and obeyed and it was fulfilled, completed! Yes, seals, trumpet and bowl judgements will fall upon the earth, but we can know when the 7th falls, God's purpose will be completed!
Symbolism is not some nasty liberal beast that needs to be run from (not entirely anyway, although I fully admit there are those who go waaay to far!). Numbers and symbolism can be important and drive home essential truths. And the thing is, Dispensationalists get this too! Think about this: we know that God is one, and yet 3, right? Father, Son and Spirit. In Revelation we see Satan making a mockery with his own unholy 'trinity': the dragon, the antichrist and the false prophet. The 3 we see here points us to a bigger truth: Satan is the great pretender, the faker. He will always attempt to mock and do his own 'version' of what God does. That's also why we see the antichrist suffer from a fatal wound and 'come back to life'...just like Christ did.




Fair enough: here are the rest:

Strong's Number: 2250 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
hJmevra from (with (5610) implied) of a derivative of hemai (to sit, akin to the base of (1476)) meaning tame, i.e. gentle
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Hemera 2:943,309
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
hay-mer'-ah Noun Feminine
Definition

1. the day, used of the natural day, or the interval between sunrise and sunset, as distinguished from and contrasted with the night
   1. in the daytime
   2. metaph., "the day" is regarded as the time for abstaining from indulgence, vice, crime, because acts of the sort are perpetrated at night and in darkness
2. of the civil day, or the space of twenty four hours (thus including the night)
   1. Eastern usage of this term differs from our western usage. Any part of a day is counted as a whole day, hence the expression "three days and three nights" does not mean literally three whole days, but at least one whole day plus part of two other days.
3. of the last day of this present age, the day Christ will return from heaven, raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and perfect his kingdom
4. used of time in general, i.e. the days of his life.

This is from CoreIssues own website...the one he links to for his references. And honestly...I'm still seeing the most up-front understanding of "day" as...well, "day". Now...don't get me wrong...as you can see above, I'm open to time being different in scripture. My point here all along has been that when Dispensationalists draw a line in the sand and tell people like me that scripture has to be interpreted literally, or else you're running wild, being a liberal, inviting trouble...and that's probably the best of what I've heard...then they can't just go skipping over that line whenever they choose and decide that "day" means 1000 years. Even if the greek usage of that word is either 2, 3 or 4 above.

Here are some more: Just adding more info. In my Strong's (H3117) some defs. are: age, everlasting, perpetually, season. G2250 - a period of time defined by context, age, always, forever, while, years. In most cases when it was referring to the present actual day or "today":, it would use G4594.

I also believe in the literal interpretation of Rev. When figurative language is used, most of the times it is explained within the context.

 

[CoreIssue]

If that was the only definition given for the word "day" you would be right, however, it's not so we must be open to more than one consideration.

Strong's Number: 2250 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
hJmevra from (with (5610) implied) of a derivative of hemai (to sit, akin to the base of (1476)) meaning tame, i.e. gentle
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Hemera 2:943,309
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
hay-mer'-ah Noun Feminine
Definition

1. the day, used of the natural day, or the interval between sunrise and sunset, as distinguished from and contrasted with the night
   1. in the daytime
   2. metaph., "the day" is regarded as the time for abstaining from indulgence, vice, crime, because acts of the sort are perpetrated at night and in darkness
2. of the civil day, or the space of twenty four hours (thus including the night)
   1. Eastern usage of this term differs from our western usage. Any part of a day is counted as a whole day, hence the expression "three days and three nights" does not mean literally three whole days, but at least one whole day plus part of two other days.
3. of the last day of this present age, the day Christ will return from heaven, raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and perfect his kingdom
4. used of time in general, i.e. the days of his life.

Strong's Number: 03117

Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
~wy from an unused root meaning to be hot
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Yowm TWOT - 852
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
yome Noun Masculine
Definition

1. day, time, year
   1. day (as opposed to night)
   2. day (24 hour period)
      1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
      2. as a division of time 1b
   3. a working day, a day's journey
   4. days, lifetime (pl.)
   5. time, period (general)
   6. year
   7. temporal references
      1. today
      2. yesterday
      3. tomorrow

 

[CoreIssue]

@Naomi25

Instead of you trying to cast dout with your maybes. could bes etc. post the verse you're talking about then the full word definition using
Interlinear Bible - Greek and Hebrew with Concordance

That way you are using the definition of the actual word used in the verse, not the one you dug up somewhere else that you think you can force to meet your purposes.

 

[Jay Ross]

Hello

When we consider the word "day" within the scriptures, we have to discern whether it is a day within God's timeframe of reference or a day within man's timeframe of reference.

Whether the corresponding time reference of a day with the timeframe of reference of God's is exactly 1,000 years within the time frame reference for mankind become immaterial because of the long period of time within mankind's timeframe of reference and it becomes a long period of time that is outside of our ability to comprehend.

This literal understanding of a day of the Lord as being 1,000 literal years for mankind within out timeframe of reference, is the basis for Ussher's Chronology of the Old Testament, however, from my looking at the chronology of the Bible, I have come to the conclusion that Ussher's Chronology is around 100 years short as to when Adam was created. Also there are a number of poor conclusions reached by Ussher that create errors within his chronological timeline of the Old Testament, one of them being that a prophetic year is exactly 360 years old.

By using Ussher's timeline, we are also forced to use the same logical error so that our calculations match his timeline base.

Shalom

 

[Naomi25]

Here are some more: Just adding more info. In my Strong's (H3117) some defs. are: age, everlasting, perpetually, season. G2250 - a period of time defined by context, age, always, forever, while, years. In most cases when it was referring to the present actual day or "today":, it would use G4594.

I also believe in the literal interpretation of Rev. When figurative language is used, most of the times it is explained within the context.

At times it is explained in the text itself, true. But we have to also consider two other factors about it. In the very first verse John uses the words semaino (communicate by symbols) and deichnumi (show) and all throughout the book he uses "I saw". He is telling us clearly this is a book communicated by images and symbols. He shouldn't need to remind us every single time a new image pops up.
The other thing is that pretty much every image employed in Revelation is not a new image. Anyone familiar with the OT will recongise images, symbols and phrases straight from the OT. Often they are used just a smidge differently, but they are similar enough to lead you directly to OT passages. The point of this is; in the OT we can see how these things are used. Often, when the prophets back then used 'big' language to describe events, it was not even literal back then. Remember when 'the hills danced' or 'the trees clapped their hands'? Or, when nations fell, or political powers were swayed, it was often described as in terms of cosmic distrubance; heavens shaking, sun turning dark, that sort of thing (I'm feeling too lazy to look up direct references!). But my point is, we can actually go back and look at how the OT used these images. Often when Revelation doesn't tell us directly what the images mean, it's because we can already discover elsewhere what they mean...and it's not through 'literal' interpretation. It's through biblical study.

 

[CoreIssue]

At times it is explained in the text itself, true. But we have to also consider two other factors about it. In the very first verse John uses the words semaino (communicate by symbols) and deichnumi (show) and all throughout the book he uses "I saw". He is telling us clearly this is a book communicated by images and symbols. He shouldn't need to remind us every single time a new image pops up.
The other thing is that pretty much every image employed in Revelation is not a new image. Anyone familiar with the OT will recongise images, symbols and phrases straight from the OT. Often they are used just a smidge differently, but they are similar enough to lead you directly to OT passages. The point of this is; in the OT we can see how these things are used. Often, when the prophets back then used 'big' language to describe events, it was not even literal back then. Remember when 'the hills danced' or 'the trees clapped their hands'? Or, when nations fell, or political powers were swayed, it was often described as in terms of cosmic distrubance; heavens shaking, sun turning dark, that sort of thing (I'm feeling too lazy to look up direct references!). But my point is, we can actually go back and look at how the OT used these images. Often when Revelation doesn't tell us directly what the images mean, it's because we can already discover elsewhere what they mean...and it's not through 'literal' interpretation. It's through biblical study.

When we reading the Bible want a symbol literally means later the symbol is used again it has the same literal meaning.

So yes, that makes it literal interpretation.

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25

Instead of you trying to cast dout with your maybes. could bes etc. post the verse you're talking about then the full word definition using
Interlinear Bible - Greek and Hebrew with Concordance

That way you are using the definition of the actual word used in the verse, not the one you dug up somewhere else that you think you can force to meet your purposes.

Wait. I'm sorry. I have to put my sarcasm hat on for this, because it just beggars belief. First, I have been asking you for DAYS, on various threads, for verses to prove your side. You've dodged thus far. Hmm.
Next, you say that the "day of the Lord" is over 1000 years (#30).
Which, I rather naturally pointed out was interesting, as you, a 'literalist' criticised me for doing the same thing (#31).
You then "provided" the strongs number for 'day'. Apparently. Although YOU didn't give the verse you were referring to (#33).
When I looked up the strongs number for "day of the Lord", I got a completely different number (#38).
I DID provide the verses I got mine from when replying to you (#42).
You still complained. So...I went to YOUR site and looked up my verses again. What do you know? I got the same Strongs number as before with the same description: "day" means "day" basically...shock horror!
You demurred. And we went round the table a bit, you still not providing ANY verses to prove your point. You then said it was NOT hypocritcal for you to say a 'day' was over 1000 years, but for me to say 1000 years was more than that..in fact, you said that what you did was fine "as long as you don't try and take something that lasts 1000 years and make it 24 hours"...not that I had (#51).
You then said that NO ONE had said that '24 hours' was 1000 years (#54), and tried to say that "day" didn't mean 24 hours (#57).
That might be all well and good if you could prove, biblically, that the MAJORITY of biblical usages for that word meant more than 24 hours, but in post #58, and #61 I again looked at the site YOU link to in regards to finding out these things, and we see that the majority of uses is for, shock horror, day.

So, Now that we're caught up on the whole circus of you chasing your own excuses around, let me remind you. YOU did not provide verses for YOUR original post, so don't accuse me of such nonense when you yourself do not. Especially when I HAVE provided the verses I got mine from.

Also, just let me comment on this:

1. days, lifetime (pl.)
2. time, period (general)
3. year
4. temporal references
   1. today
   2. yesterday
   3. tomorrow

You highlight this if this is your incredible "proof" that "day" ought to be seen as 1000 years of time. The problem with this is twofold: the word being used, and intent. The word "day" does not change. They are still using the word "day", are they not? So, what do they mean by that word? Well, that's what your highlighted meaning above tell us. They don't change the fundamental meaning of the word "day". If that was the case, they would have used another word entirely, or tossed out the language as a whole as it had stopped meaning a thing. But words can have different contexts. So, how do we use the word "day" in reference to number 1? "All the 'days' of my life." It's not talking about a single 24 hour period. But it's still talking about 24 hour periods..those being 'days'. It's just talking about ALL of them...all the 24 hour periods joined together that make up my life. How about number 2? "These are bad 'days'". Again, are they talking about 1000 years here? No, they're still talking about 24 hour periods, but just that they are grouped together to form a general time period that is categorised negatively. The focus is more on the description of the days, rather than the days themselves. But 'day' still, fundamentally means 'day'. If they had meant "these are bad years", they would have said that.
I doubt I need to go on, you get my drift. But my point is clear. If you are a literal bible interpretator, your hermeneutic backs you into a corner. A corner that grammar, in this case, does not get you out of.

 

[Naomi25]

When we reading the Bible want a symbol literally means later the symbol is used again it has the same literal meaning.

So yes, that makes it literal interpretation.

But you don't do it, do you? Let me give an example. In Rev 1:12 we see Jesus walking amoung 7 lampstands. In Verse 20 we're told the lampstands are the 7 churches. Simple, right? Literal.
But then in Rev 11 we are introduced to the 2 witnesses. Dispensationalists say these have to be two literal folks. But what does scripture say? Verse 4 says that they are: "The two olive trees and lampstands".
Wait...lampstands? Where have we seen that image before? Right...lampstands. They are the churches? Why only 2? Well, only two churches weren't besetted by sin, Smyrna and Philadelphia.
Complicated? No, not really. Unbiblical? No...in fact, we used the bible to interpret it's own images. You would think that would be the literal interpretation, but no. Apparently it's more "literal" to imagine that Moses and Elijah are going to be sent back to earth as super warriors to take on the Antichrist.

 

[Trekson]

At times it is explained in the text itself, true. But we have to also consider two other factors about it. In the very first verse John uses the words semaino (communicate by symbols) and deichnumi (show) and all throughout the book he uses "I saw". He is telling us clearly this is a book communicated by images and symbols. He shouldn't need to remind us every single time a new image pops up.
The other thing is that pretty much every image employed in Revelation is not a new image. Anyone familiar with the OT will recongise images, symbols and phrases straight from the OT. Often they are used just a smidge differently, but they are similar enough to lead you directly to OT passages. The point of this is; in the OT we can see how these things are used. Often, when the prophets back then used 'big' language to describe events, it was not even literal back then. Remember when 'the hills danced' or 'the trees clapped their hands'? Or, when nations fell, or political powers were swayed, it was often described as in terms of cosmic distrubance; heavens shaking, sun turning dark, that sort of thing (I'm feeling too lazy to look up direct references!). But my point is, we can actually go back and look at how the OT used these images. Often when Revelation doesn't tell us directly what the images mean, it's because we can already discover elsewhere what they mean...and it's not through 'literal' interpretation. It's through biblical study.

The definition of “symbolism” is “the practice of representing things by means of symbols or of attributing symbolic meanings or significance to objects, events or relationships.”

In my opinion, those who interpret scripture, especially prophetic scriptures emphasizing symbolism are off track. There is no denying that scripture uses symbolism or symbolic language occasionally but usually it defines it within the context. Ex. Rev.17:3 - “So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.”

Symbolism explained: Rev. 17:9 - “…The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.”
Rev. 17:12 - “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings…”
Rev. 17:18 - “And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

The problem with over emphasizing symbolism is that the possibilities become endless. Trying to find real truth depending on symbolism is like chasing unicorns and leprechauns. You might get lucky but I wouldn’t bet my life on it, which some of these people do.
To me there is only one logical way to discern the bible. I like this “Golden Rule of Interpreting Bible Prophecy” - “When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise.”
(I found this on the internet several years ago and do not know who to give credit to. It is not original to me)

Symbolism also makes up its own rules like: a word once used symbolically must always be considered in its symbolic sense when used again. SDA’s do this with their “year for a day principle” which isn’t a “principle” at all. Usually, if such a symbolic time line is given, the scriptures say so within the context, and should only be considered within that context, not applied to every other prophetic timeline given.

Mostly, it’s no big deal but problems arise when one feels symbolism lends itself to generalities or vagueness. We must ask ourselves, what is the precedent that God gave us when we look back upon fulfilled prophecy? I would say the vast majority of fulfilled prophecy has been pretty specific and mostly literal once the symbolic language is understood. To use symbolism to define, let’s say the Revelation, as a prophecy of general good times and bad times continuously repeating themselves is at best careless and at worst foolish, considering the record we have to follow. God isn’t vague and He hasn’t used the symbolic languages to try and cloak the end-times in some veiled mystery He left us to decipher. The bible tells us that His sheep know His voice and the Holy Spirit is the one that brings all things to our understanding.

 

[Naomi25]

The definition of “symbolism” is “the practice of representing things by means of symbols or of attributing symbolic meanings or significance to objects, events or relationships.”

In my opinion, those who interpret scripture, especially prophetic scriptures emphasizing symbolism are off track. There is no denying that scripture uses symbolism or symbolic language occasionally but usually it defines it within the context. Ex. Rev.17:3 - “So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.”

Symbolism explained: Rev. 17:9 - “…The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.”
Rev. 17:12 - “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings…”
Rev. 17:18 - “And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

The problem with over emphasizing symbolism is that the possibilities become endless. Trying to find real truth depending on symbolism is like chasing unicorns and leprechauns. You might get lucky but I wouldn’t bet my life on it, which some of these people do.
To me there is only one logical way to discern the bible. I like this “Golden Rule of Interpreting Bible Prophecy” - “When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise.”
(I found this on the internet several years ago and do not know who to give credit to. It is not original to me)

Symbolism also makes up its own rules like: a word once used symbolically must always be considered in its symbolic sense when used again. SDA’s do this with their “year for a day principle” which isn’t a “principle” at all. Usually, if such a symbolic time line is given, the scriptures say so within the context, and should only be considered within that context, not applied to every other prophetic timeline given.

Mostly, it’s no big deal but problems arise when one feels symbolism lends itself to generalities or vagueness. We must ask ourselves, what is the precedent that God gave us when we look back upon fulfilled prophecy? I would say the vast majority of fulfilled prophecy has been pretty specific and mostly literal once the symbolic language is understood. To use symbolism to define, let’s say the Revelation, as a prophecy of general good times and bad times continuously repeating themselves is at best careless and at worst foolish, considering the record we have to follow. God isn’t vague and He hasn’t used the symbolic languages to try and cloak the end-times in some veiled mystery He left us to decipher. The bible tells us that His sheep know His voice and the Holy Spirit is the one that brings all things to our understanding.

Okay, well, let me just hone in one particular image. When Revelation says "I saw a Lamb, standing as though it had been slain", we automatically know it is talking about Jesus. But how? It doesn't say Jesus, or Christ, or even the Son of Man. In fact, the only precursor is The Lion of the tribe of Judah and The root David, which, yes, gives us overwhelming evidence of who John is talking about, but they are images and references in themselves.
But, Lamb? Slain lamb? It doesn't give any info about that image, but it is such a strong one, that no one who knows their bible will miss it! John the Baptist cries out when he sees Jesus "behold the lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!"
So, we know Jesus is the lamb. But why lamb? What does the symbol mean? Again and again throughout the OT we see the lamb being slain in place of people for their sin. And we see prophecies predicting that a Messiah will go quietly, "as a lamb to the slaughter" for his people.
So, when we come to Revelation and we see a slain lamb, we know that this lamb, this Christ HAS been sacrificed for us, it is a done deed. But, in the same passage we are told he has triumphed and we can see clearly that he is yet alive! The symbolism is powerful, just in this simple image! This is why symbolism is important. It doesn't take away from the truth of a text...Jesus is still Jesus, but it gives us more of this truth packed into it. It uses images to tap into the truths of the entire bible! You can spend endless amounts of time going through Revelation and linking the images back to parts of the bible and delving into the richness. This is not happenstance on John, or Christ's behalf.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

So, when we come to Revelation and we see a slain lamb, we know that this lamb, this Christ HAS been sacrificed for us, it is a done deed. But, in the same passage we are told he has triumphed and we can see clearly that he is yet alive! The symbolism is powerful, just in this simple image!

Revelation 1:17-18
[17] And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: [18] I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

It is powerful!

 

[Naomi25]

Revelation 1:17-18
[17] And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: [18] I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

It is powerful!

And super reassuring! If you were the persecuted Church that John was writing to, would this not give you such a sense of serenity, knowing that Christ has truly conquered and reigns over everything? It certainly helps now, especially those brothers and sisters who are currently suffering and dying for their faith.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

And super reassuring! If you were the persecuted Church that John was writing to, would this not give you such a sense of serenity, knowing that Christ has truly conquered and reigns over everything? It certainly helps now, especially those brothers and sisters who are currently suffering and dying for their faith.

Yes. His love is not like anything I’ve ever known. Still do not understand why He made it this way “brothers and sisters currently suffering and dying for their faith.” but I trust Him. I had to go back to read those verse just prior to His saying to fear not, He has the keys of hell and of death. Revelation 1:13-15 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. [14] His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; [15] And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

All of Him is relatable and comforting in
“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”(Hebrews 4:15) ...especially shown in “And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace;”

Daniel 3:23-25
[23] And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. [24] Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. [25] He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.


Still don’t understand...but I trust Him.

 

[Trekson]

Okay, well, let me just hone in one particular image. When Revelation says "I saw a Lamb, standing as though it had been slain", we automatically know it is talking about Jesus. But how? It doesn't say Jesus, or Christ, or even the Son of Man. In fact, the only precursor is The Lion of the tribe of Judah and The root David, which, yes, gives us overwhelming evidence of who John is talking about, but they are images and references in themselves.
But, Lamb? Slain lamb? It doesn't give any info about that image, but it is such a strong one, that no one who knows their bible will miss it! John the Baptist cries out when he sees Jesus "behold the lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!"
So, we know Jesus is the lamb. But why lamb? What does the symbol mean? Again and again throughout the OT we see the lamb being slain in place of people for their sin. And we see prophecies predicting that a Messiah will go quietly, "as a lamb to the slaughter" for his people.
So, when we come to Revelation and we see a slain lamb, we know that this lamb, this Christ HAS been sacrificed for us, it is a done deed. But, in the same passage we are told he has triumphed and we can see clearly that he is yet alive! The symbolism is powerful, just in this simple image! This is why symbolism is important. It doesn't take away from the truth of a text...Jesus is still Jesus, but it gives us more of this truth packed into it. It uses images to tap into the truths of the entire bible! You can spend endless amounts of time going through Revelation and linking the images back to parts of the bible and delving into the richness. This is not happenstance on John, or Christ's behalf.

Well, you're right, kinda sorta. In the way you describe our knowledge of who the lamb is and what he represents the rest of Rev. can be understood that way knowing when to separate the two. For example, we know who and what the dragon of Rev. 13 represents because much of Revelations are OT prophecies being added to or further explained like the signs of the 6th seal are from Joel, which only reinforces the literal interpretation. We also can understand that an earthquake is real and that water turning to blood is real, God's done it before and he'll do it again (it really doesn't matter if that simply describing a color that means a very dark red). What these are NOT are colorful phrases borrowed from the OT to offer a broad range of possibilities to something that we are unaware of because we refuse to accept their reality.

 

[Naomi25]

Yes. His love is not like anything I’ve ever known. Still do not understand why He made it this way “brothers and sisters currently suffering and dying for their faith.” but I trust Him. I had to go back to read those verse just prior to His saying to fear not, He has the keys of hell and of death. Revelation 1:13-15 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. [14] His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; [15] And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

All of Him is relatable and comforting in
“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”(Hebrews 4:15) ...especially shown in “And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace;”

Daniel 3:23-25
[23] And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. [24] Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. [25] He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.


Still don’t understand...but I trust Him.

I think...this:

Future Glory
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. -Romans 8:18

I think that what is coming after this life is so far beyond what we are capable of imagining, that it will make the sufferings of this life look like a stubbed toe. That's not to dismiss what people are going through, it's only to magnify what is coming.
And in light of what is coming, in light of this single life time we have to 'prepare' ourselves for it, our God does what he will to bring us ever closer to him, in trust, in faith and in love. And while it's not easy, nothing leads us to those things like suffering. As Pauls says elsewhere in Romans:

Peace with God Through Faith
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. -Romans 5:1–5

So...in a very real way, our brothers and sisters who are suffering and dying in Countries who are persecuted for their faith, have an advantage over us, those of us who live in Countries where we are free to do as we will, free from poverty. While we are being distracted by material things, the work day, school day, sports, social commitments....they owe every last thing they have on Christ alone. The trust and devotion that must bring! You can hear it when you listen to these people talking! I can't say I'd want to swap places with them, but the sort of passion they have, the sort of faith! These people are well and truly ready for the glory that will be revealed to them in the next life. For them, death is but another triumph over evil, because they did not renounce their faith, and are then with Jesus, the author and perfector of their faith!

 

[Naomi25]

Well, you're right, kinda sorta. In the way you describe our knowledge of who the lamb is and what he represents the rest of Rev. can be understood that way knowing when to separate the two. For example, we know who and what the dragon of Rev. 13 represents because much of Revelations are OT prophecies being added to or further explained like the signs of the 6th seal are from Joel, which only reinforces the literal interpretation. We also can understand that an earthquake is real and that water turning to blood is real, God's done it before and he'll do it again (it really doesn't matter if that simply describing a color that means a very dark red). What these are NOT are colorful phrases borrowed from the OT to offer a broad range of possibilities to something that we are unaware of because we refuse to accept their reality.

Here's the thing: I think there's often a bit of a misconception about those of us who take Revelation 'symbolically'. Because, sure, while we see that it is chock full of symbols, and that those symbols are used to create meaningful ideas that point to the OT or other parts of scripture to 'paint the full picture', we don't actually see that as 'spiritualizing' away all the really important parts. Like I said, Jesus is still Jesus, rather than a representation of him, Satan is still Satan. But, in defense of our side: Jesus will be Jesus...not an actual lamb, and Satan will be Satan, not an actual Dragon.
We don't deny that actual, literal, things are taking place in Revelation. As you say, earthquakes are fairly obvious, and all throughout scripture when 'earthquake' is employed, it has meant 'earthquake'.
The whole idea behind our hermeneutic is this: most of what John sees happens either in heaven, or in the 'spirit realm'...in other words, with Satan, angels and demons. This stuff has GOT to be hard to describe, there's really no earthly terms for what he's seeing....just the angels around the throne of God give us a clue of that. But just because he's using images to describe these things, does not mean, at all, that these are not true, important things that are happening, or that what goes on there doesn't effect what happens on earth. Paul tells us that our battle is not against other people but against the spirit realm. This stuff is real, it is around us, and it effects us. John gives us a look, as best he can, with the words and images he can, at that realm. And he uses images he is familiar with (OT) to describe it. It's our job to delve into scriptures the people of that time would have already been familiar with, to learn this images and references.

 

[Trekson]

This stuff has GOT to be hard to describe, there's really no earthly terms for what he's seeing....just the angels around the throne of God give us a clue of that. But just because he's using images to describe these things, does not mean, at all, that these are not true, important things that are happening, or that what goes on there doesn't effect what happens on earth.

I can agree with this although I don't think the lack of understanding on John's part happens as frequently as you seem to imply. Let's take Rev. 9:7-10 - "And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. 8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. 9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. 10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

I know many might not agree but what I see here is John's attempt to describe something in his own words that he couldn't possibly understand. Helicopters, flown by women with the helicopter's nose painted like they sometimes are, with rear firing "stinger" missiles.

 

[Naomi25]

I can agree with this although I don't think the lack of understanding on John's part happens as frequently as you seem to imply. Let's take Rev. 9:7-10 - "And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. 8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. 9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. 10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

I know many might not agree but what I see here is John's attempt to describe something in his own words that he couldn't possibly understand. Helicopters, flown by women with the helicopter's nose painted like they sometimes are, with rear firing "stinger" missiles.

But can't you see? You've just blasted straight through your literal hermeneutic? If you were being true to how you insist we must interpret Revelation, then these beings must indeed be demons that appear just like they are described! Turning them into helicopters is making the description John gives symbolic!! You've just put yourself into the very category you claim is wrong!

 

[Trekson]

But can't you see? You've just blasted straight through your literal hermeneutic? If you were being true to how you insist we must interpret Revelation, then these beings must indeed be demons that appear just like they are described! Turning them into helicopters is making the description John gives symbolic!! You've just put yourself into the very category you claim is wrong!

All literalists agree that symbolism is used and usually can be interpreted in a literal sense. Is John using symbolism or is he simply describing the way the things he is seeing look? A description shouldn't be classified as symbolism. In the passage in question John uses the phrases, "were like", "were as it were", comparative, "hair as women", "as it were", "like unto". These are all descriptive phrases, not symbolic ones. Imagine how would you, if you were from John's era, describe the look and sound of a helicopter in flight with the front glass shield showing the cockpit being piloted by a long-haired person with a weapon shooting out of the rear section using only the closest things you had knowledge of to describe them?