The book of Revelation

[Greektim]

GreekTim got me on this one and that was a good thing to do and so I have ordered a 4 views book which I get for FREE due to the instant $50 Amazon credit for opening a amazon CC. Anyways the book speaks of the following approaches to Rev.

Preterist
Symbolic
Classical DISP
progressive DISP

Sure there are others but the book hits on these topics. This would appear to be a hermeneutics book and this thread should be also so topics on the rapture, 2nd coming, millennium, and so forth may not be appropriate.

I am a futurist but don't believe I can defend my view over people like GK Beale whom makes good arguments. So what are you and why? Why is your view on Rev right and others wrong?

Someone whom says not to read books but the Bible will come away with a futurist interpretation so it's no wonder one former poster whom strongly disliked Calvinists had such a view. His input on this kind of a topic might be valuable. As books can corrupt viewpoints in some ways no question about it. Old Regular feels the same and so he may also be correct. I don't know and why I ordered the book.

What say you?

I just realized I failed to comment on this post in particular. Happy reading. I actually think the preterist presentation was the best articulated, although I'm an idealist when it comes to Rev (primarily an idealist). I have only skimmed through the PD and CD positions mainly because I know those all too well. This will be good for you.

 

[Don]

Apocryphal and Apocalyptic mean completely different things. Did you mean to say "apocryphal"?

No; meant to say apocalyptic. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Greektim]

Hmm...some serious differences in tone regarding the apocryphal "threats"....

So what exactly did you mean, assuming you meant "apocalyptic threats"?

 

[Don]

So what exactly did you mean, assuming you meant "apocalyptic threats"?

Comparison of the tone of Isaiah's declaration of what God will do, vice the tone of Revelation.

 

[Yeshua1]

I just r out of the text!ealized I failed to comment on this post in particular. Happy reading. I actually think the preterist presentation was the best articulated, although I'm an idealist when it comes to Rev (primarily an idealist). I have only skimmed through the PD and CD positions mainly because I know those all too well. This will be good for you.

When had the second coming happened in history though?

And when was the Messianic Age as foretold by the Hebrew prophets actually come to pass?

Just find it really doing a disservice to the scriptures when one takes all futuristic aspects of the Kingdom coming out of the text!

 

[Yeshua1]

I think that is bogus. Read Matt. 2 and tell me how many of those prophecies were fulfilled literally. More like typologically.

You do not see God causing those detailed prophecies to have been literally fulfilled?

His birth place, his manner of death, his resurrection etc?

 

[evangelist6589]

I read that in the NIV and am gonna do NKJV next. I admit I am confused.

 

[evangelist6589]

I just realized I failed to comment on this post in particular. Happy reading. I actually think the preterist presentation was the best articulated, although I'm an idealist when it comes to Rev (primarily an idealist). I have only skimmed through the PD and CD positions mainly because I know those all too well. This will be good for you.

I was not impressed with Mac nor Rhodes presentation in that it was shallow. However I lack a Walvoord Rev commentary and he is a premier bible prophecy scholar. Mac is a expert in the Lordship salvation and Charismatic debates. Ron Rhodes an expert in apologetics but neither I would call prophecy scholars.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was not impressed with Mac nor Rhodes presentation in that it was shallow. However I lack a Walvoord Rev commentary and he is a premier bible prophecy scholar. Mac is a expert in the Lordship salvation and Charismatic debates. Ron Rhodes an expert in apologetics but neither I would call prophecy scholars.

Just remember that they come from the viewpoin tthat prophecy is to be understood in a literal sense, while many others would see it as fulfilled in typology/allogories/symbolism etc!

 

[Greektim]

You do not see God causing those detailed prophecies to have been literally fulfilled?

His birth place, his manner of death, his resurrection etc?

Your issue, in this post and the next one you had, is that you keep referring to prophecy. Prophecy is not the only thing that points to Jesus. In fact, prophecy proper is not even future-telling. Like I pointed to, Matthew 2 sees fulfillment of messianic truth in very NON-literal ways. Most of what the OT points to about Jesus is typological. FACT!

 

[Greektim]

I read that in the NIV and am gonna do NKJV next. I admit I am confused.

Trying to take symbols literally is typically confusing. Try to remember the genre of apocalyptic has a political polemical agenda (they all do)... in this case, the evil of the Roman empire and why Christians should not in any way shape or form participate in the imperial cults (including trade guilds and thus eating meat offered to idols).

 

[Greektim]

Just remember that they come from the viewpoin tthat prophecy is to be understood in a literal sense, while many others would see it as fulfilled in typology/allogories/symbolism etc!

Again, the issue isn't actually prophecy per se. It is the entirety of the OT revelation like narrative and other portions that we see as typological. The literal prophecy point is a red herring anyways, bc the NT interprets other parts of the prophets very typologically. They also take their cues from the symbolic nature.

 

[Greektim]

When had the second coming happened in history though?

And when was the Messianic Age as foretold by the Hebrew prophets actually come to pass?

Just find it really doing a disservice to the scriptures when one takes all futuristic aspects of the Kingdom coming out of the text!

I find it a disservice to the text to remove all present fulfillment of the Kingdom. The present, evil age continues all the while the overlap of the age to come/the age of life ("eternal life" literally in the Greek means age/aeon of life) has been inaugurated w/ Jesus as the firstfruits of new creation at his resurrection. New creation has begun but much more to come.

And I'm not sure what you are asking about w/ the 2nd coming. I said I'm primarily an idealist when it comes to Rev.

 

[Yeshua1]

I find it a disservice to the text to remove all present fulfillment of the Kingdom. The present, evil age continues all the while the overlap of the age to come/the age of life ("eternal life" literally in the Greek means age/aeon of life) has been inaugurated w/ Jesus as the firstfruits of new creation at his resurrection. New creation has begun but much more to come.

And I'm not sure what you are asking about w/ the 2nd coming. I said I'm primarily an idealist when it comes to Rev.

That is why we see the coming Kingdom of the Messianic Age as still future, as it came in person of jesus, and is here in us , but that is not the the fullness that was prophecied. as the scriptures do see the second coming as a time of restoration, and that we will be glorified to rule and reign with Him...

Cannot be spiritual sense of reigning with him now, as we have yet been glorified!

 

[Yeshua1]

Again, the issue isn't actually prophecy per se. It is the entirety of the OT revelation like narrative and other portions that we see as typological. The literal prophecy point is a red herring anyways, bc the NT interprets other parts of the prophets very typologically. They also take their cues from the symbolic nature.

They follow the contex and genres of the various writers, but they do not impose a spiritual reading where the plain and literal meaning is to be the intended one!

 

[Greektim]

They follow the contex and genres of the various writers, but they do not impose a spiritual reading where the plain and literal meaning is to be the intended one!

I defy you to prove that w/ Matthew 2. They are not contextual and not genre relevant.

And I have not once said a "spiritual reading". I argued for a typological one. Typological interpretation was at the core of the OT ever since Noah was represented as a new Adam and Moses said one like him would follow (Joshua being the first of a long line ending with Jesus).

 

[Greektim]

That is why we see the coming Kingdom of the Messianic Age as still future, as it came in person of jesus, and is here in us , but that is not the the fullness that was prophecied. as the scriptures do see the second coming as a time of restoration, and that we will be glorified to rule and reign with Him...

Cannot be spiritual sense of reigning with him now, as we have yet been glorified!

And yet we have been seated with Jesus in the heavenlies. If he is reigning, then so are we.

 

[Yeshua1]

And yet we have been seated with Jesus in the heavenlies. If he is reigning, then so are we.

Not until the time of His second Coming though!

 

[PreachTony]

That would require someone to pretty much spirtualise entire prophetic word of the Bible, yet God seemed to be very much literal in fulfilling the prophecies made concerning jesus first coming, so why not same for His second?

Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with spiritualizing the scripture? 1 Corinthians 2:14 says "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I would certainly say that the Scripture counts as the "things of the Spirit of God."

I've read similar Biblical study philosophies in certain literature, specifically in "Revelation Unveiled" by Tim LaHaye, where LaHaye credits Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Dionysius, as introducing a "dangerous philosophy" of spiritualizing the Scriptures. To me, though, a spiritual interpretation of the Scripture is quite in line with Biblical commandment from Jesus through the Apostles.

 

[Grasshopper]

They follow the contex and genres of the various writers, but they do not impose a spiritual reading where the plain and literal meaning is to be the intended one!

You mean like when a verse says the time is near?