The Book of Revelation: Mystery Or Profitable?

[glorydaz]

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?

It's good old common sense. Not that hard.

 

[Right Divider]

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

When the passage has literal terms, it's to be taken literally.

Sound reason based on what?

If you don't know what sound reason is based upon, you should stay far away from interpreting the Bible.

Logical deduction based on what?

Logic.

Now what might influence the determination is a belief already held brought into the reading.

Everyone has to guard against that.

Already having a conclusion and then searching the text to decide how to apply it.

Is wrong.

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.

No, you're not but you say that you are.

 

[Right Divider]

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?

So nobody can determine what sound reason is? You're lost in the fog.

 

[Right Divider]

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

My personal opinion is that 666 refers to Solomon, since the only other place that the number shows up is related to him. 1 Kings 10:14
Solomon is both a type of Christ (during his faithful time when the kingdom of Israel was at its greatest) and a type of anti-Christ (when he was completely apostate).

 

[Tambora]

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.

Yes, I am aware of the gematria theory.
I just don't think Nero did everything associated with what the beast does.

And there is the additional confusion of the dating of Revelation.
Either way, Nero was dead before 70 AD so he couldn't have anything to do with the destruction of the temple.

But it's interesting enough to keep in the back of your mind.

 

[Tambora]

My personal opinion is that 666 refers to Solomon, since the only other place that the number shows up is related to him. 1 Kings 10:14
Solomon is both a type of Christ (during his faithful time when the kingdom of Israel was at its greatest) and a type of anti-Christ (when he was completely apostate).

That's an interesting theory I know of as well.

But does Solomon's name equal 666?

Revelation 13:17 ESV
(17) so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.

And who would have the worse crime, Solomon or Dan?

It's no so plain.

 

[Right Divider]

That's an interesting theory I know of as well.

But does Solomon's name equal 666?

Revelation 13:17 ESV
(17) so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.

Not sure how I would get there... just saying...

And who would have the worse crime, Solomon or Dan?

Solomon is not a tribe.

It's no so plain.

No, it's not.

 

[Clete]

@Clete Please read all the way through before responding. There is a reason I ask this of you.
Way back in 1984 I first came to Christ. In the beginning, like a child trusts a parent, and having not yet learned much of God or Christ or theology, just beginning my own first journey through the Bible, word by word starting with Gen 1:1, I believed what I was told and heard. I traveled through mostly charismatic churches, believed the teachings on Revelation that were dispensationalist that I gleaned from Christian writings. And I could even see what they were saying for myself in Revelation itself, though more questions arose than were answered. I gave up on trying to understand it. I knew the crucial point. Jesus wins and all things are restored and I would be with Him forever. I believed too in the Rapture and figured one way or the other, it wasn't something I would go through. (I am not denouncing the rapture here, just telling my path. I intend to start a thread on it and it can be discussed there. Not here please.)

After twenty some years and many trips through the totality of scripture, and times of focus on one thing or another, there were things that I could see in the word that in my mind did not jive with what I was hearing. From the pulpits it seemed to be all about what God has done for us in the here and now. Worship was no more than a stirring of emotions and feelings. It was all about us and God as the one with the handouts. I began to yearn for something as a deer pants for water, and I could not name what that something was except to cry out in my mind one Sunday morning, coming down my stairs, on my way to church "I want more of God. I want to hear about God."

It was shortly after this that my brother who had just begun this same new step in his growth, brought me a little book called "Truths That Transform."
"It will change your life," he said. I snorted with derision and replied, "There is no such book." (Outside the Bible.) But my thoughts were on all the Christian books that promise ways to change your life, your financial situation, get your prayers answered, break bad habits, be a better person etc. that are no more than self help books from a Christian perspective. My brother just smiled. When he left I opened the book. Before I had finished the first paragraph, I was pleasantly astonished. It was actually about God---not us---but God. And there was nothing in it from beginning to end but an exposition of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, redemption, atonement, grace. And thus began my introduction to and exploration of Reformed theology, the next leg of my journey to growing in the knowledge and love and worship of God.

What I found in Reformed theology was that it was consistently and always about God and the things of God. It was consistent with itself, unfolding from beginning to end in a steady progression of expound on God as it expounded on the scriptures, book by book. I checked everything against scripture to see if there was a valid reason for saying whatever was said. I pondered and studied and pondered some more. Rather than leaving hanging things that can seem contradictory, it traced through clear scriptures on the same subject to make sense of the paradox. ALways it used the Bible to interpret the Bible. It never wavered or flagged off course to leave room for fallacies or confusion to enter in. It was solid as a rock. Following that interpretation of scripture, the wolves in sheeps clothing are held at bay. And it looks deeply and deeper still into those vast and glorious ideas and words that become only surface agreements. The atonement. Justification. Propitiation. Grace. The cross. And everything else as I grew and grew and grew. And yes I was gaining knowledge, but this knowledge is like a kaleidoscope in my heart. It is firm ground for me that grows my actual trust in God in all things, and this growing and learning will never stop for His word is living, and He gives us what we need.

So my point in saying all this is that my saying it, no matter how true it is for me, will convince no one. Sway no one. No one will say, "OH well then, that is the way I must go." And it shouldn't. It is proof of something to no one but me. It is the same with your story. As long as a person has the faith necessary and in the things of that faith necessary for salvation, for union with Christ, each individual takes their own individual journey, and it is God who goes before them, God who holds them up when they stumble, God who directs their footsteps. We don't all go through the same exact processes in this life. And those things that do not affect salvation, are not things we need to fight over, or proclaim that our way is the only way, and the absolute truth. And we should never, never, tamper with another's faith by ridiculing their beliefs, just because of a difference in how they see those things that do not pertain to salvation. Discuss them. Fine and good. But treat them with contempt for believing differently----never. When we do that it is really God we are messing with. He is the one doing a work in each believer.

People think differently. Each person is as individual as each snowflake is, and I'm guessing much more complex. And God made each snowflake and He made each person. He takes us each on our own personal journey. It is an intensely personal relationship.

So it's God's fault that you believe that He is unjust?!
I don't know why this should surprise me! Of course that's what Calvinists would believe, just as they must also believe that it's God's fault that I not only believe what I believe but say what I say and that I win every debate I ever have against Calvinists.

In spite of whatever you believe, God IS NOT responsible for the blasphemous nonsense that it is Reformed Theology (i.e. Calvinism). Augustine, Luther and Calvin, yes, but not God! The god of Calvin is arbitrary, the God of scripture (i.e. the real God) is just. The god of Calvin is impassible, the God of scripture is love incarnate. The god of Calvin is immutable, the God of scripture became a man and died and arose from the dead.

You are worshiping the god of Aristotle and Plato, Arial. And I can prove it to everyone, including you!

By the way, did you even notice that your premise here was "all about God" and then the very next sentence is about convincing no one but YOU and how nothing YOU say should convince anyone other than YOU and that its all proof to no one other than YOU.

There isn't any such thing as an argument that is "proof to no one but you". Such a proof is proof of nothing at all. All you basically said here is that doctrine, at the end of the day, is nothing more than personal opinion. To that I say, "Prove it!"

The issue of whether someone alters their belief isn't about the proof (i.e. the substantive evidence), its with one's willingness to be persuaded by it (Hebrews 11:1).

Would you say the same nonsense to a follower of David Koresh? No? Why not? They could quote the bible in circles around you and so could most all of the citizens of Jamestown, by the way. Do you think those folks in Jamestown drank the cool-aid because they weren't convinced that the doctrine they had been taught hadn't been "proven to them"? Do you see the immense danger of the ideas you are proposing here? No, I'm sure you don't.
Suffice it to say that truth is truth whether you're convinced of it or not. If you are convinced in opposition to the truth then that means you are wrong. Not only that, but there's a whole lot of truth that is absolutely KNOWABLE and not merely something we think we probably have right or that we merely hope we have right. But, of course, a Calvinist would reject this too! Everything (practically) in their entire construct is built upon the idea that the things of God aren't supposed to make sense to our stupid human minds, right? If we understand it, where does faith come into it, right? The entire system is literally built on the willingness of its adherents to accept nonsense as truth.

I'm telling you right now, you might as well just go believe whatever random nonsense the local drug addicted homeless person is peddling. You'd have no more basis to debunk whatever random nonsense he uttered than you would anything else. If what you've said in this post is true, then the only real difference between the two is your own personal "proof" (i.e. opinion).

Clete

 

[glorydaz]

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?

The plain reason is that Dan is missing for a reason. Ephraim is also missing. I have a theory about that, and it's related to the Catholic/Babylon connection.

 

[Tambora]

Not sure how I would get there... just saying...

I hear ya.
It is very interesting to read all the theories on how Solomon was a type of the antichirst.
I've even heard that the Song of Solomon does as well.
Mainly because the woman seems to prefer her true love, the shepherd, rather than give into the wooing and flattery of the King.

I find all the perspectives interesting.

 

[Clete]

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

As a general rule, I'd say that this a healthy attitude to have but there are things that we can know as absolute facts.

Just as the disciples learned when the master of scripture understanding was in their midst and they still didn't have it figured out.

Well, not really. The things that the followers of Christ didn't understand had been intentionally hidden. They weren't supposed to have figured it out. If has been made plain then Jesus' enemies would have understood that killing Him would only play into His hand.

No argument there.

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.

Of course! Anyone can make a claim but saying it doesn't make it so!

The point being that not everyone on that list is on equal footing. Many of those who make such a claim barely make any attempt to establish it as truth at all and of the ones who do make an argument, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism does a way better job of establishing that claim than any other systematic theology that I've ever been exposed to - BY FAR! There isn't anything that's a close second, including other kinds of dispensationalism.

Clete

 

[Tambora]

The plain reason is that Dan is missing for a reason. Ephraim is also missing. I have a theory about that, and it's related to the Catholic/Babylon connection.

I would love to hear your analysis.

I recently read a scholar who thinks the reason a count number of the tribes is associated with taking a census count of the tribes for military personal available.
Mainly because counting the people was prohibited except when analyzing how many men were available for military.
Also Revelation says they were virgins, which some speculate is a reference to them avoiding sex when fighting in the military.

Seems kinda reasonable in one sense, since there is a battle going on in Revelation.
But then again, the tribe of Levi is counted and they were never in the census counts for military.
However, they were present at Jericho.

Who knows for sure?
If only we had a decoder ring.
hehe!

 

[Arial]

So it's God's fault that you believe that He is unjust?!
I don't know why this should surprise me! Of course that's what Calvinists would believe, just as they must also believe that it's God's fault that I not only believe what I believe but say what I say and that I win every debate I ever have against Calvinists.

In spite of whatever you believe, God IS NOT responsible for the blasphemous nonsense that it is Reformed Theology (i.e. Calvinism). Augustine, Luther and Calvin, yes, but not God! The god of Calvin is arbitrary, the God of scripture (i.e. the real God) is just. The god of Calvin is impassible, the God of scripture is love incarnate. The god of Calvin is immutable, the God of scripture became a man and died and arose from the dead.

You are worshiping the god of Aristotle and Plato, Arial. And I can prove it to everyone, including you!

By the way, did you even notice that your premise here was "all about God" and then the very next sentence is about convincing no one but YOU and how nothing YOU say should convince anyone other than YOU and that its all proof to no one other than YOU.

There isn't any such thing as an argument that is "proof to no one but you". Such a proof is proof of nothing at all. All you basically said here is that doctrine, at the end of the day, is nothing more than personal opinion. To that I say, "Prove it!"

The issue of whether someone alters their belief isn't about the proof (i.e. the substantive evidence), its with one's willingness to be persuaded by it (Hebrews 11:1).

Would you say the same nonsense to a follower of David Koresh? No? Why not? They could quote the bible in circles around you and so could most all of the citizens of James Town, by the way. Do you think those folks in Jamestown drank the cool-aid because they weren't convinced that the doctrine they had been taught hadn't been "proven to them"? Do you see the immense danger of the ideas you are proposing here? No, I'm sure you don't. Suffice it to say that truth is truth whether you're convinced of it or not. If you are convinced in opposition to the truth then that means you are wrong. Not only that but there a whole lot of truth is absolutely KNOWABLE and not merely something we think we probably have right or that we merely hope we have right. But, of course, a Calvinist would reject this too! Everything (practically) in their entire construct is built upon the idea that the things of God aren't supposed to make sense to our stupid human minds, right? If we understand it, where does faith come into it, right? The entire system is literally built on the willingness of its adherents to accept nonsense as truth.

I'm telling you right now, you might as well just go believe whatever random nonsense the local drug addicted homeless person is peddling. You'd have no more basis to debunk whatever random nonsense he uttered than you would anything else. If what you've said in this post is true, then the only real difference between the two is your own personal "proof" (i.e. opinion).

Clete

Typical.

 

[glorydaz]

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.

Yes, Dan and Ephraimi are both off that list for a good reason. And there's this....

Gen. 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.

 

[Arial]

So nobody can determine what sound reason is? You're lost in the fog.

You are dense as a bucket of rocks. You wouldn't know sound reasoning if it jumped up and bit you. You couldn't even reason through my short post.

 

[Arial]

When the passage has literal terms, it's to be taken literally.

Since we are talking about Rev 7; are angels literal? Is the earth literal? Is wind literal? The land? The sea? Trees? So why do you not interpret verses 1-3 literally?

If you don't know what sound reason is based upon, you should stay far away from interpreting the Bible.

I do know what sound reason is based upon. I was asking if you did----so the answer is no you don't.

Logic.

Logic has to be based on something. Otherwise there is no logic to it. A basic principle.

Everyone has to guard against that.

Yet you do it.

Is wrong.

Yet you do it.

No, you're not but you say that you are.

I guess that means that no, you have nothing in scripture on which to base your assumptions.

 

[Arial]

It's good old common sense. Not that hard.

Good common sense? Really? So who makes the determination of good, of common, of sense? Don't you really mean, whatever you reason out is sound reason? And anything opposed to that is not sound reason?

I am sick of you people. All I hear in this thread, for the most part, Tam accepted, is a bunch of bluster and insult and pride and arrogance aimed at those who disagree with you all. And such contempt for others!! None of that has a place in the household of God. I have not seen a trace of focus on God, but only on the head knowledge that can be spewed. Not an ounce of any sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit going on. Not one iota of the fruit that salvation should be producing. Not even the primary indication that one is saved----love for the brethren. I do see hate for the brethren.

Hate: feel intense or passionate dislike for someone. Which on this joke of a forum is anyone who does not agree with MAD. 1John 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
1 John 2:9 Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. (Oh. John wrote that. It doesn't apply to you but only to the Jews.)

God corrects and disciplines His children so surely, if the MAD triangle in this thread are His children, He is correcting you, but not only will you not listen to Him, or don't hear Him, or---but you refuse to repent. In fact, as you have said before, "I have done nothing to repent of, I have done nothing wrong." you all will tell yourselves that same lie and carry on. You bring absolutely no praise or glory to His name but only seek it for yourselves. It is as though God, in your "Christianity", is peripheral and the center is how smart you think you sound. Very very sad, and a sad evidence of the condition of Christ's church. Plus none of you sound very smart. The reasoning displayed is so flawed it shouldn't even be call reasoning.

So you can have the thread and you can have the stinkin' joke of a forum. Theology? Christian? What a joke.

 

[Tambora]

Good common sense? Really? So who makes the determination of good, of common, of sense? Don't you really mean, whatever you reason out is sound reason? And anything opposed to that is not sound reason?

I am sick of you people. All I hear in this thread, for the most part, Tam accepted, is a bunch of bluster and insult and pride and arrogance aimed at those who disagree with you all. And such contempt for others!! None of that has a place in the household of God. I have not seen a trace of focus on God, but only on the head knowledge that can be spewed. Not an ounce of any sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit going on. Not one iota of the fruit that salvation should be producing. Not even the primary indication that one is saved----love for the brethren. I do see hate for the brethren.

Hate: feel intense or passionate dislike for someone. Which on this joke of a forum is anyone who does not agree with MAD. 1John 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
1 John 2:9 Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. (Oh. John wrote that. It doesn't apply to you but only to the Jews.)

God corrects and disciplines His children so surely, if the MAD triangle in this thread are His children, He is correcting you, but not only will you not listen to Him, or don't hear Him, or---but you refuse to repent. In fact, as you have said before, "I have done nothing to repent of, I have done nothing wrong." you all will tell yourselves that same lie and carry on. You bring absolutely no praise or glory to His name but only seek it for yourselves. It is as though God, in your "Christianity", is peripheral and the center is how smart you think you sound. Very very sad, and a sad evidence of the condition of Christ's church. Plus none of you sound very smart. The reasoning displayed is so flawed it shouldn't even be call reasoning.

So you can have the thread and you can have the stinkin' joke of a forum. Theology? Christian? What a joke.

Don't leave on account of them.
You don't have to respond to any of them.

I want to hear your perspectives.

 

[Right Divider]

You are dense as a bucket of rocks.

Projection.

You wouldn't know sound reasoning if it jumped up and bit you.

That's funny coming from the person that cannot even determine what sound reasoning is.

You couldn't even reason through my short post.

Your posts are unreasonable.

 

[Right Divider]

Since we are talking about Rev 7; are angels literal? Is the earth literal? Is wind literal? The land? The sea? Trees? So why do you not interpret verses 1-3 literally?

The angels are literal.
The wind is literal.
The land is literal.
The sea is literal.
The trees are literal.

I do know what sound reason is based upon. I was asking if you did----so the answer is no you don't.

LOL

Sound reason is based on the laws of logic which are a reflection of the nature of the Creator.

Logic has to be based on something. Otherwise there is no logic to it. A basic principle.

The laws of logic are not that difficult, except for someone like you.