What's a good source for learning eschatology?

[seanD]

I don't have to convince anyone of anything. The rules of liberalism are very basic when it comes to Rev. Literal unless the interpretation is given. There's no ambiguity, no confusion, no guesswork in that. For example, a multi headed monster probably doesn't literally come out of the sea (at least not how it's manifested in the natural world) because the explanation of what it is in the natural given to us. No confusion, no claim of exceptional incite or understanding of scripture is needed. Your technique just brings confusion and ambiguity, hence the reason we have multiple interpretations of the symbolism that don't agree with each other. The only way for one to remedy that is to claim YOU have special incite and knowledge about how to interpret the scripture, thus your interpretation is true and everyone else is wrong. That not only leads to confusion and contention, but it leads to cult-like type situations -- "Our interpretations of the symbolism are correct because We have the true knowledge and understanding and revelation from God."

I meant literalism. Stupid spellcheck.

[eschaton]

I don't have to convince anyone of anything. The rules of liberalism are very basic when it comes to Rev. Literal unless the interpretation is given. There's no ambiguity, no confusion, no guesswork in that. For example, a multi headed monster probably doesn't literally come out of the sea (at least not how it's manifested in the natural world) because the explanation of what it is in the natural given to us. No confusion, no claim of exceptional incite or understanding of scripture is needed. Your technique just brings confusion and ambiguity, hence the reason we have multiple interpretations of the symbolism that don't agree with each other. The only way for one to remedy that is to claim YOU have special incite and knowledge about how to interpret the scripture, thus your interpretation is true and everyone else is wrong. That not only leads to confusion and contention, but it leads to cult-like type situations -- "Our interpretations of the symbolism are correct because We have the true knowledge and understanding and revelation from God."

I don't think you're describing liberal interpretation correctly. Historical-critical interpretation is considered a liberal Bible interpretation. It says that Jesus was a failed prophet. Academic historical-critical interpretation denies the supernatural. It leads to atheism. That's not what I believe in at all. Your understanding is closer to liberalism than mine because you insist on literal interpretation.

The primary goal of historical criticism is to discover the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense or sensus literalis historicus. - Wikipedia

If literal interpretation is so great then do all literal interpreters agree that the beast is Rome, or the Roman church, or Nero, or Islam, or a European computer, or whatever else you think it is?

[eschaton]

BTW Sean,

Let me add something.

Liberal theology grew out of Enlightenment rationalism and romanticism of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Wikipedia

My understanding of the beast as the heart came from Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – c.  50 AD). It is not liberal Christianity since he was born before Jesus' ministry on earth.

[seanD]

BTW Sean,

Let me add something.

Wikipedia

My understanding of the beast as the heart came from Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – c.  50 AD). It is not liberal Christianity since he was born before Jesus' ministry on earth.

I meant to say literalism. My bad, I'll make the correction:


I don't have to convince anyone of anything. The rules of literalism are very basic when it comes to Rev: Literal unless the interpretation is given. There's no ambiguity, no confusion, no guesswork in that. For example, a multi headed monster probably doesn't literally come out of the sea (at least not how it's manifested in the natural world) because the explanation of what it is in the natural given to us. No confusion, no claim of exceptional incite or understanding of scripture is needed. Your technique just brings confusion and ambiguity, hence the reason we have multiple interpretations of the symbolism that don't agree with each other. The only way for one to remedy that is to claim YOU have special incite and knowledge about how to interpret the scripture, thus your interpretation is true and everyone else is wrong. That not only leads to confusion and contention, but it leads to cult-like type situations -- "Our interpretations of the symbolism are correct because We have the true knowledge and understanding and revelation from God."

[eschaton]

I meant to say literalism. My bad, I'll make the correction:


I don't have to convince anyone of anything. The rules of literalism are very basic when it comes to Rev: Literal unless the interpretation is given. There's no ambiguity, no confusion, no guesswork in that. For example, a multi headed monster probably doesn't literally come out of the sea (at least not how it's manifested in the natural world) because the explanation of what it is in the natural given to us. No confusion, no claim of exceptional incite or understanding of scripture is needed. Your technique just brings confusion and ambiguity, hence the reason we have multiple interpretations of the symbolism that don't agree with each other. The only way for one to remedy that is to claim YOU have special incite and knowledge about how to interpret the scripture, thus your interpretation is true and everyone else is wrong. That not only leads to confusion and contention, but it leads to cult-like type situations -- "Our interpretations of the symbolism are correct because We have the true knowledge and understanding and revelation from God."

Okay, I'll bite. What is the literal beast that comes out of the sea? Demonstrate to me how all literal interpreters agree on that.

[Darfius]

Okay, I'll bite. What is the literal beast that comes out of the sea? Demonstrate to me how all literal interpreters agree on that.

The beast out of the sea is a clear throwback to the beasts described in Daniel, which stood for literal kingdoms. The beast out of the sea is the Antichrist who leads the kingdom. They are interchangeable.

[seanD]

Okay, I'll bite. What is the literal beast that comes out of the sea? Demonstrate to me how all literal interpreters agree on that.

I'm not sure what you mean. Did you not read Revelation? The Beast coming out of the sea is obvious symbolism because the angel then interprets the meaning to John later in the book. The angel interprets it because God obviously doesn't want us guessing what the symbolism means, because he knows that will result in confusion and error, contrary to your argument about symbolism. If God wanted us to interpret it ourselves using your technique, why did he provide the interpretation himself?

[eschaton]

I'm not sure what you mean. Did you not read Revelation? The Beast coming out of the sea is obvious symbolism because the angel then interprets the meaning to John later in the book. The angel interprets it because God obviously doesn't want us guessing what the symbolism means, because he knows that will result in confusion and error, contrary to your argument about symbolism. If God wanted us to interpret it ourselves using your technique, why did he provide the interpretation himself?

Did I say I interpreted it myself? I don't think so. Refresh my memory. What did the angel say?

[seanD]

Did I say I interpreted it myself? I don't think so. Refresh my memory. What did the angel say?

Well, then why did you ask me for an interpretation of the symbolism of the Beast when it's in the book, in Rev 17? Your argument is that we should interpret everything in Rev as symbolism. I argue that that isn't necessary because when it is symbolism, God gives us the correct interpretation. The exception is when the symbolism is more than obvious. We don't need God to tell us that Jesus is not literally a lamb when John told us this in his other works. Rev 9 is not obvious at all, yet no interpretation was given by God for what it means if it's all just symbolism.

[eschaton]

Well, then why did you ask me for an interpretation of the symbolism of the Beast when it's in the book, in Rev 17? Your argument is that we should interpret everything in Rev as symbolism. I argue that that isn't necessary because when it is symbolism, God gives us the correct interpretation. The exception is when the symbolism is more than obvious. We don't need God to tell us that Jesus is not literally a lamb when John told us this in his other works. Rev 9 is not obvious at all, yet no interpretation was given by God for what it means if it's all just symbolism.

I call that a cop-out. You know as well as I do that people who claim to take the Bible literally come up with all kinds of wacko interpretations, like computer chips in the head or hand, etc. You've maybe heard of the expression tin foil hats? If 17 has a literal interpretation then how are the seven heads both mountains and kings? You know there are probably dozens of interpretations. You said the church fathers probably had a lot of interpretations but you didn't bother to try and give them.

I'm not afraid to give an interpretation of Revelation 9 because it is much like Revelation 20. Just compare scripture to scripture, it's not a private interpretation. Satan is bound from deceiving the hearts of believers. (Revelation 9:4, 20:3-4). Then comes the judgment (Hebrews 9:27, Matthew 13:39).

[seanD]

I call that a cop-out. You know as well as I do that people who claim to take the Bible literally come up with all kinds of wacko interpretations, like computer chips in the head or hand, etc. You've maybe heard of the expression tin foil hats? If 17 has a literal interpretation then how are the seven heads both mountains and kings? You know there are probably dozens of interpretations. You said the church fathers probably had a lot of interpretations but you didn't bother to try and give them.

I'm not afraid to give an interpretation of Revelation 9 because it is much like Revelation 20. Just compare scripture to scripture, it's not a private interpretation. Satan is bound from deceiving the hearts of believers. (Revelation 9:4, 20:3-4). Then comes the judgment (Hebrews 9:27, Matthew 13:39).

Though I don't necessarily believe RFID chips will be that simplistic, it's certainly not "tin foil hat" when we know the technology is already in existence. It's not like we need to believe in some impossible supernatural intervention of the natural or anything (which you also seem to scoff at). I can see this being nutty stuff prior to 2000, but now, not so much. But that takes us way off topic.

The heads are symbolic = literally ruling kings. Is it really that complicated, or are you being intentionally obtuse? I didn't give the interpretation, he did. I have confidence that when it's literally fulfilled, we'll see it plainly as it was described.

Why did God give us the interpretation for Rev 13, but not Rev 9, or any other of the crazy images like Rev 19, 20, 21 and so fourth? Why did he leave us hanging with confusion and dozens of different inevitable interpretations?

[eschaton]

Though I don't necessarily believe RFID chips will be that simplistic, it's certainly not "tin foil hat" when we know the technology is already in existence. It's not like we need to believe in some impossible supernatural intervention of the natural or anything (which you also seem to scoff at). I can see this being nutty stuff prior to 2000, but now, not so much. But that takes us way off topic.

The heads are symbolic = literally ruling kings. Is it really that complicated, or are you being intentionally obtuse? I didn't give the interpretation, he did. I have confidence that when it's literally fulfilled, we'll see it plainly as it was described.

Why did God give us the interpretation for Rev 13, but not Rev 9, or any other of the crazy images like Rev 19, 20, 21 and so fourth? Why did he leave us hanging with confusion and dozens of different inevitable interpretations?

I believe God gave us intelligence for a reason. Paul explains it. (2 Corinthians 5:17, Ephesians 4:22, Colossians 3:9) Some have their minds on earthly things while others consider the spiritual. Like Jesus explained to Nicodemus in John 3. In plainer words, there is a philosophical way to look at scripture and a rhetorical way. In 2 Corinthians 3:6, it's called letter and spirit.

[seanD]

I believe God gave us intelligence for a reason. Paul explains it. (2 Corinthians 5:17, Ephesians 4:22, Colossians 3:9) Some have their minds on earthly things while others consider the spiritual. Like Jesus explained to Nicodemus in John 3. In plainer words, there is a philosophical way to look at scripture and a rhetorical way. In 2 Corinthians 3:6, it's called letter and spirit.

That doesn't answer the question. Why does God believe we can accurately interpret the crazy images in Rev 9 but not Rev 13? There's an inconsistency problem with your exegesis, as there is inconsistency in most of your arguments -- i.e. the devil is chained so as not to deceive believers, but believers must also proactively prevent themselves from being deceived by a chained devil.

[eschaton]

That doesn't answer the question. Why does God believe we can accurately interpret the crazy images in Rev 9 but not Rev 13? There's an inconsistency problem with your exegesis, as there is inconsistency in most of your arguments -- i.e. the devil is chained so as not to deceive believers, but believers must also proactively prevent themselves from being deceived by a chained devil.

It's like the 144,000 and those who come out of the great tribulation. (Revelation 7:14, 1 Corinthians 2:6, 1 Corinthians 13:10, Hebrews 6:1, Hebrews 12:23, etc.) It's about a perfect loving faith. Hebrews 12:22
It is something like sanctification, although there are different ideas about that which are more modern. In this life, you will have tribulation (John 16:33). It's like the wheat and tares, challenges to faith. Talk to you later.

[Faber]

Then the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star from heaven which had fallen to the earth; and the key of the bottomless pit was given to him. He opened the bottomless pit, and smoke went up out of the pit, like the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by the smoke of the pit. Then out of the smoke came locusts upon the earth, and power was given them, as the scorpions of the earth have power. They were told not to hurt the grass of the earth, nor any green thing, nor any tree, but only the men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. And they were not permitted to kill anyone, but to torment for five months; and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it stings a man. And in those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, and death flees from them.

The appearance of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle; and on their heads appeared to be crowns like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men. They had hair like the hair of women, and their teeth were like the teeth of lions. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was like the sound of chariots, of many horses rushing to battle. They have tails like scorpions, and stings; and in their tails is their power to hurt men for five months. They have as king over them, the angel of the abyss; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in the Greek he has the name Apollyon. (Revelation 9:1-11, NASB)

From Hebron Simon pursued his march through the whole of Idumaea, not confining his ravages to villages and towns, but making havoc also of the country, since provisions proved insufficient for such a multitude; for, exclusive of his troops, he had forty thousand followers. But, besides his needs, his cruelty and animosity against the nation contributed to complete the devastation of Idumaea. Just as a forest in the wake of locusts may be seen stripped quite bare, so in the rear of Simon’s army nothing remained but a desert. Some places they burnt, others they razed to the ground; all vegetation throughout the country vanished, either trodden underfoot or consumed; while the tramp of their march rendered cultivated land harder than the barren soil. In short, nothing touched by their ravages left any sign of its having ever existed. (Flavius Josephus, War of the Jews, Book 4, (Niese 4:534-37; Whiston iv.9.7), trans. by H. St. John Thackeray, M.A., Josephus, with an English Translation in Nine Volumes, Vol.III (The Jewish War, Books IV-VII). (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961) 159,161.)

It was, however, no tender feelings but indignation which her capture aroused in his breast, and advancing to the walls of Jerusalem like some wounded beast, when it has failed to catch its tormentors, he vented his wrath upon all whom he met. Any who had ventured outside the gates to gather herbs or fuel, unarmed and aged individuals, he seized, tortured and killed, in the extravagance of his rage almost gnawing their very corpses. Many others he sent back into the city with their hands cut off, with the twofold object of intimidating his foes and of causing the people to rise against the responsible parties. These persons received injunctions to say that Simon had sworn by God, the overseer of all, that unless they restored his wife to him forthwith, he would break down the wall and inflict similar punishment on every soul in the city, sparing neither young nor old, and making no distinction between guilty and innocent. These threats so terrified not only the people but even the Zealots, that they sent him back his wife' whereat, momentarily mollified, he paused for a while from his ceaseless slaughter. (Ibid., (Niese 4:556; Whiston iv.9.10).)

With an insatiable lust for loot, they ransacked the houses of the wealthy; the murder of men and the violation of women were their sport; they caroused on their spoils, with blood to wash them down, and from mere satiety unscrupulously indulged in effeminate practices, plaiting their hair and attiring themselves in women's apparel, drenching themselves with perfumes and painting their eyelids to enhance their beauty. And not only did they imitate the dress, but also the passions of women, devising in their excess of lasciviousness unlawful pleasures and wallowing as in a brothel in the city, which they polluted from end to end with their foul deeds. Yet, while they wore women's faces, their hands were murderous, and approaching with mincing steps they would suddenly become warriors and whipping out their swords from under their dyed mantles transfix whomsoever they met. Any who fled from John had a yet bloodier reception from Simon, and he who escaped the tyrant within the walls was slain by the other without the gates. Every avenue of escape was thus cut off from those desirous to desert to the Romans. (Ibid., (Niese 4:560-67; Whiston iv.9.10) Thackeray, op. cit. 167.)