The Book of Revelation: Mystery Or Profitable?

[Tambora]

This is why the two have to go together. It is sound reason AND the plain reading of scripture.

Or, one should consider that their sound reason and their plain reading of scripture could be wrong.
Just as the disciples learned when the master of scripture understanding was in their midst and they still didn't have it figured out.

The point is simply that the bible trumps doctrine, not the other way around.

No argument there.

Figurative language and symbols are used throughout the scripture but an acknowledgment of that obvious fact does not tacitly give someone the right to turn any passage they want into an allegory, right? There has to be a reason to do so and the more objective that reason the better. In other words, bringing a doctrine to a passage in an a priori way and then making that passage fit by turning it into symbolism or allegory means that the bible takes a back seat to your doctrine. Thus, the reason you take something to be symbolic or figurative must itself be both rational and biblical and not strictly doctrinal. Otherwise, you end up like the Catholics and Calvinists, who render any passage they want in an manner that is necessary to fit their doctrine and lose the ability to be persuaded by God's word at all.

Clete

Anyone can believe that they are the one going by what scripture "plainly" says.
So add MAD to the list.
MAD is a doctrine.
And even within the MAD camp there are points that differ from each other.

 

[Right Divider]

Or, one should consider that their sound reason and their plain reading of scripture could be wrong.

How so? Sound reason leads to sound conclusions.

 

[Tambora]

Naming TWELVE thousand each from TWELVE NAMED TRIBES of Israel is NOT purely symbolic.

Possibly.
But the list of the tribal names in Revelation differs from all other lists of tribal names.
The most notable being the exclusion of Dan which is in every other tribal list in scripture.
So what the "plain reading" of the Revelation verse that excludes Dan supposed to be?

 

[Tambora]

How so? Sound reason leads to sound conclusions.

Then go ahead and give your "sound reasoning" for 666.

 

[Right Divider]

Possibly.
But the list of the tribal names in Revelation differs from all other lists of tribal names.
The most notable being the exclusion of Dan which is in every other tribal list in scripture.
So what the "plain reading" of the Revelation verse that excludes Dan supposed to be?

Dan committed "crimes" whereby they were removed from the list. It is thought by some that the anti-Christ will be of the tribe of Dan.

 

[Right Divider]

Then go ahead and give your "sound reasoning" for 666.

A "hard case" does not disprove the general rule.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Possibly.
But the list of the tribal names in Revelation differs from all other lists of tribal names.
The most notable being the exclusion of Dan which is in every other tribal list in scripture.
So what the "plain reading" of the Revelation verse that excludes Dan supposed to be?

Why is the Tribe of Dan Missing in Revelation 7? | Verse By Verse Ministry International

Get the latest online Verse by Verse Bible teaching and materials

www.versebyverseministry.org

 

[Idolater]

Then go ahead and give your "sound reasoning" for 666.

One thing to be aware of with 666 is what the Church thought about it, much closer in time to when Revelation was written. We have written evidence of a couple things worth knowing. One is that Nero was at least in some ancient 'circles' "Mr. 666", and the other is that there exist manuscripts of Revelation where 666 is written '616'. While the significance of the former is at least consistent with the idea that Nero is the one signified by 666 (it doesn't conflict with it), the significance of the latter is that the 'gematria' of 'Nero Caesar' when translated into Hebrew is in fact 666, but when gematria is used for his name in 'the Greek' (something like 'Caesar Neron') it is equal to 616. So the scripts with 616 are also consistent with the idea that 'Mr. 666' is none other than the emperor Nero, who was, after all, responsible for the executions of both Peter and Paul in the mid-60s.

 

[Right Divider]

One thing to be aware of with 666 is what the Church thought about it, much closer in time to when Revelation was written. We have written evidence of a couple things worth knowing. One is that Nero was at least in some ancient 'circles' "Mr. 666", and the other is that there exist manuscripts of Revelation where 666 is written '616'. While the significance of the former is at least consistent with the idea that Nero is the one signified by 666 (it doesn't conflict with it), the significance of the latter is that the 'gematria' of 'Nero Caesar' when translated into Hebrew is in fact 666, but when gematria is used for his name in 'the Greek' (something like 'Caesar Neron') it is equal to 616. So the scripts with 616 are also consistent with the idea that 'Mr. 666' is none other than the emperor Nero, who was, after all, responsible for the executions of both Peter and Paul in the mid-60s.

There is one other reference in the Bible to the number 666 and it relates to Solomon.
If you are not aware, Solomon is both a type of Christ (during his early faithful ministry) and the anti-Christ (during his later apostate period).

 

[Arial]

Naming TWELVE thousand each from TWELVE NAMED TRIBES of Israel is NOT purely symbolic.

How do you know that?

It's NOT an either or situation... that is a false dichotomy.

Naturally not everything in the book is symbolic. But it is, in genre, apocalyptic prophecy, so a great deal of it is. So a question for you. If some of it is symbols and representations, how do you personally know which is which?

 

[Right Divider]

How do you know that?

Because I can read.

Naturally not everything in the book is symbolic.

For sure!

But it is, in genre, apocalyptic prophecy, so a great deal of it is.

Duh.

So a question for you. If some of it is symbols and representations, how do you personally know which is which?

Sound reason. Logical deduction.

 

[Arial]

How so? Sound reason leads to sound conclusions.

Who determines what sound reason is?

 

[Right Divider]

Who determines what sound reason is?

Certainly not you.

 

[Arial]

Because I can read.

Being able to read does not solve the problem of discerning what is literal and what is symbolic or representative.

Sound reason. Logical deduction.

Sound reason based on what? Logical deduction based on what? Now what might influence the determination is a belief already held brought into the reading. Already having a conclusion and then searching the text to decide how to apply it. But if you have some scripturally sound reason and logical deduction (scriptures in other words) that support what you say, I'm all ears. We can discuss it.

 

[Arial]

Certainly not you.

I agree. I don't get to be the one to determine what is sound reason. Neither do you, or any other person. So what then would comprise sound reason? How would one find it?

 

[glorydaz]

Wow! Thank you glorydaz!

It spoke to my heart, Clete.

 

[Arial]

Duh.

Is the following logical?
Rev 7:1-3---a vision full of nothing but symbols and even numerical representations.
In 4-8 there is a list of numbers that are used frequently in scripture as symbolic or representative, (12 and multiples of 12) and you claim these verses to be literal.
In 9-12 we come to again symbols and a description of a great multitude, from all tribes and and peoples and languages. And this is not a new vision but part of the same vision.
In 13-17 we find out who this multitude is---the redeemed of the Lord. Those who die before His second coming.

It is not logical or sound reasoning to take a tiny section of a symbolic vision and claim it as literal. So----why do you?

 

[Tambora]

Dan committed "crimes" whereby they were removed from the list.

One can find crimes committed in all tribes.

It is thought by some that the anti-Christ will be of the tribe of Dan.

Some do, yes.

 

[Right Divider]

One can find crimes committed in all tribes.

Apparently theirs were worse.

 

[Tambora]

A "hard case" does not disprove the general rule.

Too bad John didn't elaborate so future readers of scripture would have the understanding of the plain reading.
Darn his hide!
hehe!