Study Question: Revelation 12:1-6 - Who is the Woman?

[Revmitchell]

Nope.

And no one in over 2000 years has ever said what you say.

That may be true it it neither proves nor disproves his claim.

 

[taisto]

This is the problem. You do not, like the other fella, know what it means to interpret the Bible literally. You guys make bad arguments because of this and ask questions such as this.

I understand literal interpretation quite well, despite your claims to the contrary.

My understanding of Revelation is because, unlike you, I do not project a theory into the book.

When one interprets the Bible literally it does nothing to take away from the genre of the language. To interpret the Bible in a wooden literal sense, of which no real student of scripture does, is to miss this.

I agree. In Revelation we never read of the Church being removed from the Tribulation. Instead, we see it, literally, going through the Tribulation.

However, where prophecy and apocalyptic language is concerned we know that what is being said represents something literal.

In every chapter of Revelation we see John "revealing" the Bible to us from Adam to the return of the King, Jesus.

In contrast parables are meant to convey a principle or idea.

Revelation is apocalyptic language. Do you understand apocalyptic language? It's not literal, but it is pointing at what has taken place in all of history.

Parables show us a heavenly idea using an earthly simile.

The book of Revelation is meant to convey actual literal events not simply ideas.

I agree. It points us to literal things that have already taken place, are taking place, and will take place, using symbolic language.

 

[taisto]

"Revmitchell, post: 2862356, member: 1536"]

All of the prophecies of Christ and things surrounding Him were fulfilled literally.

Not all. For example
Psalm 2:7-9 has yet to happen. John points to this in Revelation.

The king proclaims the Lord’s decree: “The Lord said to me, ‘You are my son. Today I have become your Father. Only ask, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, the whole earth as your possession. You will break them with an iron rod and smash them like clay pots.’”

The book of Revelation is about Him and His work in this world at a specific time.

Indeed, it is a Revelation of what Christ has been doing since the very moment God the Father introduced Jesus as the Firstborn to all the created Angels.

The descriptive language in Revelation communicates literal events not principles or ideas. It communicates things about literal people not principles of ideas.

It points to all that has already been revealed in the Bible from Genesis to Judge. It tells you what God is doing, explaining the meta narrative of scripture.

That is the genre of Revelation.

The genre is apocalyptic.

To interpret it allegorically is to miss its genre.

To miss the genre is to miss all that John is pointing at in the entire Bible and imagine that all of Revelation is future facing.

Since the people and events are intended to communicate literal events and people that is the literal interpretation.

When I point to all of scripture, I am showing you the literal interpretation that John is conveying in apocalyptic language. But, you will not acknowledge all the massive amounts of scripture John is showing you to connect the Bible to Revelation.

Further, The literal interpretation also interprets the book of Genesis literally meaning Adam and Eve were literally people who God literally fellowshipped with as literally described in scripture.

We agree that there is a literal Adam and Eve. Do you recognize that John points you toward Adam and Eve in Revelation 12?

The enmity between the seeds is not allegorical language but represents literal people and a literal conflict between them. The events surrounding the return of Christ are literal events not simply spiritual.

Agreed. The enmity is very real and the Israel of God as God's elect people is very real. You and I are very much the Israel of God. Literally.

Yes, the return of Christ after the Tribulation is very literally real. It's the rapture of the church, before the Tribulation that is fiction.

Now whether one agrees with that should not affect the ability to understand that. How one who studies scripture doesn't already know these things is beyond me.

Indeed, how one who studies scripture does not see how John is revealing all of the Bible to us in his letter is truly amazing. How is it that you don't understand these things?

 

[Revmitchell]

I understand literal interpretation quite well, despite your claims to the contrary.

If you did you wouldn't ask some of the questions you do whether you agree with it or not.

 

[taisto]

If you did you wouldn't ask some of the questions you do whether you agree with it or not.

First off, I apologize for the two posts above as I believe they should have been in the other thread.

Second, you provide, literally, no evidence, yet make big sweeping gestures as though thrashing your hand through the air somehow gives you legitimacy.

I answered your claims, one by one, and you are metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la, la, la" with the idea that somehow this makes your claims valid.

You have been given ample time to prove your point and you have failed. Why? Because you cannot prove a myth that you have bought into, that comes from a quack theologian in the 1800s.

If your view has merit, you could prove it in the Bible and you have done nothing to that end. Literally nothing.

 

[Revmitchell]

First off, I apologize for the two posts above as I believe they should have been in the other thread.

Second, you provide, literally, no evidence, yet make big sweeping gestures as though thrashing your hand through the air somehow gives you legitimacy.

I answered your claims, one by one, and you are metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la, la, la" with the idea that somehow this makes your claims valid.

You have been given ample time to prove your point and you have failed. Why? Because you cannot prove a myth that you have bought into, that comes from a quack theologian in the 1800s.

If your view has merit, you could prove it in the Bible and you have done nothing to that end. Literally nothing.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean I have nor proven it. As this post I quote here is an example your posts are childish. I will leave you to it.

 

[taisto]

Just because you disagree doesn't mean I have nor proven it. As this post I quote here is an example your posts are childish. I will leave you to it.

We all can read. You have never provided any biblical evidence for a pre-trib rapture and you certainly cannot provide anything in the book of Revelation. But, this is for the other topic, not this one that is dedicated to who the woman is in Revelation 12.

You have displayed no evidence for your opinion being valid. I suggest you may hold your view, not because it is in the Bible, but because you were taught this view by someone who convinced you.