The book of Revelation

[DHK]

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

"The time is always near."
The time of my death was near when I was born. In fact it was just "as near" then as it is now. The time of my death is always near.
This is the first day of the rest of my life.
Every day I am one step closer to death. The time is near.

Concerning the coming of Christ when John wrote in ca. 98 A.D. the time was near. It was near then, and it is still near.
It is not for any person to say that it is not near. It is. And if he decides not to come in this lifetime it will still be near. What is 2,000 years in the light of eternity? Not very much I would think.

[FONT=&quot]Isaiah 40:15 Behold, the nations are like a drop in a bucket, And are regarded as a speck of dust on a balance. Behold, he lifts up the islands like a very little thing.[/FONT] (WEB)
--In the light of eternity, what are we? In the light of eternity, time becomes insignificant. In the light of eternity Christ could come at any second; the rapture could occur and the Great Tribulation could start. Those events are arrived at by the most literal and natural reading of the Bible.
It would do well to remember that though Revelation is an apocalyptic book with a certain amount of symbols, it is to some extent a history book as well--a history of the future. It is a book of comfort. The believer can know the end. The end is near. Christ is coming soon. We have that hope; others do not.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

I think you are misunderstanding the term "spiritualize". Although the language is sometimes allegorical in nature or even apoctolyptic the descriptive language always represents something literal. A literal action or event. It never represents just some "spiritual" idea.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think you are misunderstanding the term "spiritualize". Although the language is sometimes allegorical in nature or even apoctolyptic the descriptive language always represents something literal. A literal action or event. It never represents just some "spiritual" idea.

Good point!

As we realise that the authors used figures of speech in their recording, such as metaphor nd symols/types, but they did not just have that mean always spiritual concepts, but were used to get us to see something that was indeed concrete and literal..

Paul called the resurrected body in1 Cor 15 as being a spiritual one, but not as in casper the Ghost, but as in our physical bodies being glorified in same state jesus body had been raised up in!

 

[go2church]

Spiritual is actual, something doesn't have to physical to be real or actual.

 

[Yeshua1]

Spiritual is actual, something doesn't have to physical to be real or actual.

Is the resurrection of the body to be a spiritual or physical one then?

Is the Second coming a spiritual or actual physical event happening?

 

[Grasshopper]

"The time is always near."
The time of my death was near when I was born. In fact it was just "as near" then as it is now. The time of my death is always near.
This is the first day of the rest of my life.
Every day I am one step closer to death. The time is near.

Concerning the coming of Christ when John wrote in ca. 98 A.D. the time was near. It was near then, and it is still near.
It is not for any person to say that it is not near. It is. And if he decides not to come in this lifetime it will still be near. What is 2,000 years in the light of eternity? Not very much I would think.

[FONT=&quot]Isaiah 40:15 Behold, the nations are like a drop in a bucket, And are regarded as a speck of dust on a balance. Behold, he lifts up the islands like a very little thing.[/FONT] (WEB)
--In the light of eternity, what are we? In the light of eternity, time becomes insignificant. In the light of eternity Christ could come at any second; the rapture could occur and the Great Tribulation could start. Those events are arrived at by the most literal and natural reading of the Bible.
It would do well to remember that though Revelation is an apocalyptic book with a certain amount of symbols, it is to some extent a history book as well--a history of the future. It is a book of comfort. The believer can know the end. The end is near. Christ is coming soon. We have that hope; others do not.

So much for, the plain and literal meaning is to be the intended one!

Love how Dispies have one standard for themselves but a different standard for others.

 

[Yeshua1]

So much for, the plain and literal meaning is to be the intended one!

Love how Dispies have one standard for themselves but a different standard for others.

When the second Coming happens, that will be quick and be right now!

 

[PreachTony]

I think you are misunderstanding the term "spiritualize". Although the language is sometimes allegorical in nature or even apoctolyptic the descriptive language always represents something literal. A literal action or event. It never represents just some "spiritual" idea.

Revmitchell, my view on the scripture is that, while there is often a straightforward and literal meaning to things, the Holy Ghost can lead us to an understanding of scripture and how it applies to us today. That's one of the reasons why I have no problem with three different preachers preaching the same scripture and preaching three different messages. The Spirit can show you something different than it shows me. It doesn't make either point of view wrong. It proves God is willing to give us guidance through His word.

Again, that's just my point of view.

 

[RLBosley]

When the second Coming happens, that will be quick and be right now!

Is there a single place in scripture that uses the word translated "near" to describe something occurring in a quick way?

Looking at it myself, I only see it referring to something that is near in time, close to occurring, not something that may be centuries away but coming speedily when it arrives.

 

[Revmitchell]

The Spirit can show you something different than it shows me.

I do not know what this means. There is only one original intent of what is written and we need to discover the single intent of the original author.

It doesn't make either point of view wrong. It proves God is willing to give us guidance through His word.

I don't know what to do with this.

Again, that's just my point of view.

I understand.

 

[go2church]

Is the resurrection of the body to be a spiritual or physical one then?

Is the Second coming a spiritual or actual physical event happening?

Not my point. I'm pointing out that something doesn't have to have a material aspect to be real. God is spirit, but most assuredly real. There several things about being a Christian that are and will only be spiritual. Of course this is from our point of view, God exists beyond our limitations and what may seem spiritual to us, is something very different to God.

Though it has nothing to do with my point, actual resurrection, actual second coming.

 

[Greektim]

Not until the time of His second Coming though!

So Paul was lying when he said we were seated w/ Jesus in the heavenlies?

 

[Yeshua1]

So Paul was lying when he said we were seated w/ Jesus in the heavenlies?

We are in the mind of God seated there, and to him a done deal, but still from our perspective awaiting his second coming and our glorification!

 

[Greektim]

We are in the mind of God seated there, and to him a done deal, but still from our perspective awaiting his second coming and our glorification!

And you get all that from your literal hermeneutic of that verse?

 

[PreachTony]

I do not know what this means. There is only one original intent of what is written and we need to discover the single intent of the original author.

An argument is easily made that, if we seek the "original intent" of the author at the time of writing, then much of the Bible becomes meaningless to us in the present day, as it was intended for audiences thousands of years ago. It becomes no more than history.

All I'm saying is that God doesn't limit His spirit from showing us different things within the scripture. Why should we place such an arbitrary limit on ourselves?

 

[Yeshua1]

An argument is easily made that, if we seek the "original intent" of the author at the time of writing, then much of the Bible becomes meaningless to us in the present day, as it was intended for audiences thousands of years ago. It becomes no more than history.

All I'm saying is that God doesn't limit His spirit from showing us different things within the scripture. Why should we place such an arbitrary limit on ourselves?

maybe because there was a single intended meaning?

 

[Yeshua1]

And you get all that from your literal hermeneutic of that verse?

Yes, as take it that we are right now seated in heaven as being htose who God has appointedjustified /sauctified/glorified in line of all scriptures, but that we cannot reign in the lieral sense until Jesus comes back and assumes the throne over the earth, and then we will be reigning with him in his Kingdom!

 

[PreachTony]

maybe because there was a single intended meaning?

I hope that I've not mislead anyone in my points. I'm not saying there isn't a single meaning. I'm just saying that operating as though only one meaning is available and allowable is limiting to not only ourselves but to the effective working of God in our lives.

We're talking about writings that are often at least 1900 years old and we're debating "original intent." If you want to see how quickly important documents can be ripped apart by arguing "original intent" simply look at the US Constitution and the arguments liberals and conservatives get into over it.

 

[Revmitchell]

An argument is easily made that, if we seek the "original intent" of the author at the time of writing, then much of the Bible becomes meaningless to us in the present day, as it was intended for audiences thousands of years ago. It becomes no more than history.

All I'm saying is that God doesn't limit His spirit from showing us different things within the scripture. Why should we place such an arbitrary limit on ourselves?

2Pe_1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 

[Revmitchell]

I hope that I've not mislead anyone in my points. I'm not saying there isn't a single meaning. I'm just saying that operating as though only one meaning is available and allowable is limiting to not only ourselves but to the effective working of God in our lives.

We're talking about writings that are often at least 1900 years old and we're debating "original intent." If you want to see how quickly important documents can be ripped apart by arguing "original intent" simply look at the US Constitution and the arguments liberals and conservatives get into over it.

Ok once you start comparing scripture to secular documents then you have a problem. Not a legitimate comparison. The word of God is living, it is powerful, and its truths are timeless.