|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: creatures of revlation - 11/5/2009 6:04:53 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 503
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Retrobyter
Shalom, jjbird.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
quote:
ORIGINAL: Retrobyter
Shalom, jjbird.
But, think for a moment: Is there anything in the passage that DEMANDS that this passage be taken symbolically?
Roy
I am sorry Roy but you are asking the wrong question.
With apocalyptic literature the interpretive rules are the other way around.
You take the passages symbolically unless forced to take them literally.
That's hermeneutics 101 my friend. 
Then hermeneutics 101 needs to be corrected, my friend. The same thing still stands: How does one determine what was meant to be understood by the passage? Furthermore, whose idea is correct, since one idea is as good as another?
No, that approach to the interpretation of Scripture is SEVERELY flawed! ... AND DANGEROUS! I'll stick to the historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture which some erroneously call the "literal" interpretation. Simply put, John (or rather, Jesus, since He was telling John what to write) had A thought to communicate in the context of a passage, and it was not open to multiple interpretations!
It's not the wrong question if you have the world rightside up! Symbols are fine in the historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture IF it is clear from Scripture that it is to be interpreted symbolically, and only THEN when the symbols are clearly defined! IF these were symbols, they should be CLEARLY defined and they are NOT, IF they were indeed symbols.
I question where you have taken your "hermeneutics 101" course! The Vatican?
In the Messiah's love for a better approach,
Roy
No, I am not catholic.
So how do you determine what to take literal and what to take figuratively in Revelation?
What is your theological system of checks and balances?
When you take things in Revelation literally you end up with huge holes in your theology.
Is the 144,000 literal too you as well?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: creatures of revlation - 11/5/2009 7:26:27 PM
|
|
|
Retrobyter
Posts: 801
Joined: 8/23/2007
From: Florida
Status: offline
|
Shalom, jjbird.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
quote:
ORIGINAL: Retrobyter
Shalom, jjbird.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
I am sorry Roy but you are asking the wrong question.
With apocalyptic literature the interpretive rules are the other way around.
You take the passages symbolically unless forced to take them literally.
That's hermeneutics 101 my friend.
Then hermeneutics 101 needs to be corrected, my friend. The same thing still stands: How does one determine what was meant to be understood by the passage? Furthermore, whose idea is correct, since one idea is as good as another?
No, that approach to the interpretation of Scripture is SEVERELY flawed! ... AND DANGEROUS! I'll stick to the historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture which some erroneously call the "literal" interpretation. Simply put, John (or rather, Jesus, since He was telling John what to write) had A thought to communicate in the context of a passage, and it was not open to multiple interpretations!
It's not the wrong question if you have the world rightside up! Symbols are fine in the historical, grammatical interpretation of Scripture IF it is clear from Scripture that it is to be interpreted symbolically, and only THEN when the symbols are clearly defined! IF these were symbols, they should be CLEARLY defined and they are NOT, IF they were indeed symbols.
I question where you have taken your "hermeneutics 101" course! The Vatican?
In the Messiah's love for a better approach,
Roy
No, I am not catholic.
So how do you determine what to take literal and what to take figuratively in Revelation?
What is your theological system of checks and balances?
When you take things in Revelation literally you end up with huge holes in your theology.
Is the 144,000 literal too you as well?
LOL. I was only teasing about the "Vatican" remark. Sorry about that. It's just that they are NOTORIOUS for taking an allegorical interpretation of ALL Scripture!
Yes, that's the rub, isn't it? How does one determine what is literal and what is figurative? My system of checks and balances is quite simple: I take the normal, grammatical and historical interpretation of a passage. If within that interpretation I am TOLD that a portion is figurative (as Paul has said that portions of his writings are to be taken allegorically), then I expect a figurative, symbolic meaning. IF I am NOT told directly but the context strongly IMPLIES that a portion is figurative, then I expect a figurative, symbolic meaning. For instance, "the seven heads are seven mountains" symbolism. Because one is equated to the other, we can rest assured that the heads are symbolic. Furthermore, we can also rest assured that these seven heads represent seven mountains. Which mountains? Well, we need to ascertain more information from the text to determine things that aren't told to us directly.
These symbols can also be telegraphed by similes and metaphors in the text, but in ALL cases, the text must give the contextual clues to tell us what these symbols represent. IF the context does NOT tell us what the symbols represent, then what the symbols represent is not important to what is being communicated! Here's a case in Matthew 13:
Yeshua` has given us several parables ABOUT THE KINGDOM! Because I believe in a literal Kingdom that doesn't begin until the King has returned, that means to me that these parables are NOT about this present time period at all. They are about the future Kingdom!
So, let's look at one of them: The parable of the leaven. Notice the very first sentence (in fact, the ONLY sentence):
Matt 13:33
33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
KJV
We have only a few elements: the leaven, the woman, the meal, and the three measures. What do they represent? Well, we were only given one of them directly: "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven." Leaven is a rising agent like baking powder or baking soda or yeast that causes bread to rise. In any case, the kingdom ITSELF is what was represented by the leaven! This is NOT what you usually will hear in sermons on this chapter. Frequently, preachers will say that "leaven is a type of sin." NOT IN THIS CASE! In THIS particular case, the kingdom of heaven itself is likened to the leaven! (We really must be careful that we don't fall into "typolatry," the worship of types. It is NOT true that leaven always represents sin!)
So, what does the parable mean? Well, if the THINGS aren't important, then the ACTIONS are! While it is true that the objects--the nouns--are not defined, the actions are the meat of this parable: The three measures of meal is just a LOT of meal or a LOT of flour! This woman (who she is is not important) takes the kingdom from the sky (kingdom of heaven) and "HIDES" it somewhere in this huge amount of flour! After time has passed, "the whole amount of flour was leavened!" I believe that the Messiah was saying that the kingdom from the sky will start relatively hidden among the huge amount of flour that could be influenced by the kingdom. To me, that implies the rest of the world. However, we are told that after time, the whole (i.e., the rest of the world) is leavened or influenced by the kingdom from the sky!
This is how I look at the various themes of Revelation. If the THINGS, the OBJECTS, the NOUNS, are not defined, then the ACTIONS are the focus of the symbolism.
Finally, if a passage has described nouns with very distinct modifiers and several modifiers, to me that is a clear indication that the passage is NOT to be taken symbolically. Why would there be such a detailed description if the whole thing is just to be taken figurative of something else? Therefore, I believe that the New Jerusalem as described in Revelation 21 and 22 is indeed to be taken literally since it is described so thoroughly!
Yes, I take the 144,000 literal, too. There are several qualifiers in the passage that determine who these 144,000 are. First, they are indeed children of Isra'el. The 12 tribes that are mentioned are literal. Furthermore, these are not ALL who are sealed. These are the 144,000 VIRGINS who are so sealed! They, being virgins, are those who can afford to be and are totally committed to God's agenda. There are NO Gentiles (non-Israelites) included in this number (unless they might be proselytes merged into one of the twelve tribes mentioned), and so these are those of the Isra'elites who have come to accept Yeshua` as their Messiah BEFORE His return!
I hope you can understand this; I'm trying to be very clear on this issue because it is so important.
In the Messiah's love,
Roy
_____________________________
Stick to the Scriptures! The minute you start to draw an analogy or explain what a Scripture means or give a particular view of theology, you've left the safety of Absolute Truth, and you're on your own!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: creatures of revlation - 11/7/2009 12:29:17 PM
|
|
|
Uriah
Posts: 118
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi sureclarity,
I only mentioned that the "original thinking" comment because you said you were a free thinker. I thought it was curious then to simply quote the works of others, making it not so free or original sounding. It is more original to simply to say, "not sure what this is".
However going to lengths to propose these things may be Arabs when we can clearly see that they sting people, to me at least, seems to be drifting.
The scripture plainly seems to say they are locusts! I'll stick with that over Arabs. They are just locusts like we haven't seen before.
There is enough room however, to interpret these creatures else wise, to which I have my own theories. Nothing terribly new, mind you. But a more common sense approach COULD help shed light.
_____________________________
Producer of the upcoming documentary video: The Return of the Christ
See the text version at thereturnofthechrist.net
|
|
|
|
|
RE: creatures of revlation - 11/18/2009 11:27:31 AM
|
|
|
adsey1223
Posts: 1
Joined: 11/18/2009
Status: offline
|
Hi,
i'm pretty new to this stuff compared to the two of you who have been going back and forth. I've been reading your conversation all morning and i must say that i find it absolutely fascinating! i'm not completely sure who i agree with more but i have always thought both of your views to be extremely possible.
To the war machine theory, i have a question. Does it really make sense if it is people flying helicopters, or something like that, that if they are of the unsaved/demonic type that they would only attack other unsaved/demonic types? The unsaved going after the unsaved seems to fly in the face of the unsaved persecuting the saved. Doesn't it? Also, granted that the "stars" name is Abbadon, meaning some sort of destruction/destroyer, is there any clear passage saying that "he" has to be a demonic sort? When i think of angel types that kill or torment the unsaved while sparing the saved i tend to think of ones like the angel of death from Moses' days. He wasn't a demon type, he was an angel type. So why do we assume that because his name is destroyer/destruction that he must be an enemy of God and not one of the good guys?
Those are my questions. You two are by far more intelligent than i and i hope you can give me some good answers.
Oh, however, i do have to say one thing... first i'll quote who said it though.
quote:
It is the Apostles, many years later that regulated women back into the shadows of ministry. Shame on them! One must always balance what the Apostles say to the example of Yeshua.
Did you really just say "shame on them (apostles)?" Are you kidding me? The apostles were chosen by God, trained by Christ, and filled with the Spirit in a way that no one since has been (have you raised anyone from the dead lately?). READ THE BIBLE!
1Co 14:34-37 "the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord."
Is Paul now a liar? I don't think so. Also,
1Tim 2:11-12 "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
Why does he say this? Because he thinks less of women? Because he is a chauvinistic pig? Oh wait, no, because:
1Tim 2:13 "For Adam was formed first, then Eve"
To say "shame on them (apostles)" is to one, show a severe lack in judgment, and possible over-drive of arrogance, and two is to say that the scriptures are no longer the inherent word of God. If they (scripture) are filled with errors than it doesn't really matter if it's war machines or insects, because chances are it isn't true anyway. You cannot ignore one part of scripture as "silly men" and then believe the rest. It doesn't work that way. i know i'm not as smart as you two but i am definitely not fool hardy enough to throw out parts of scripture just because i don't like how it sounds.
You should know, i have nothing against women. My mother is the human that is solely responsible for my accepting Christ at age 5, some 25 years ago now. Women are incredibly bright and intelligent and often COULD lead better than men, and in some instances they probably should. However, within the confines of the Church God has set up a proper order of things. That order includes women not preaching over men. You don't have to like it you just have to accept it. Why? Cause God says so. You know why i think God made it so men HAVE to be the leaders? It's part of the curse. When Adam failed to step in and be the leader and keep Eve from eating the fruit, God said, "here's your punishment. From now on you HAVE to lead, it all rests on your shoulders." It would have been much easier if the multi-taskers (women) were the ones put in charge, but God isn't concerned with what's right. He's concerned with what He's said, and He said, through His scriptures, that women are not to lead over men within the confines of the Church.
Just to bring it back... i would really love to know what you two think about my questions of Abbadon being a good guy and why the unsaved would attack the unsaved.
Thanks much in advance!
Love in Christ,
aj
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
