Revelation discussion - 1 of 2

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Timothy Litteral wrote:
 
> Me:
> Praise the Lord everyone!
>      I love the Lord and how He arranges things.  I have
> been wrestling for the past couple of days about how to
> state the differences between my views on the book of
> Revelation and those of Rev. Blume.  This paragraph was God
> sent.
>
> I entreat you Rev. Blume to let the following statements
> stand without rebuttal as they are merely statements that
> establish my "mindset" and clearify my position.

I must address a few points since you rebutted my thoughts on
the temple and they were partly based upon incorrect opinions of my 
thoughts and you assertions about the "Temple of God" are 
simply incorrect.  I explain and prove that below.

> I agree that the Book of Revelation is a book of man's
> salvation but I also believe that it is a MAJOR book of
> endtime prophecy.

Only if you treat the visions as literally to be fulfilled,
when nowhere else in the Bible was a vision ever literally
fulfilled in the sense of the elements of the vision,
such as the "mark" the speaking "image" in Revelation etc., 
literally being stamped and inserted or a machine talking.
Visions always were symbolic.

All pictures in them was symbolic.  This point needs to be
addressed.  Everyone is saying that Revelation IS a prophecy
book, which I agree with to an extent, but nobody is proving
that visions can be literally fulfilled as pertaining to the
pictures used in the visions.

I mentioned the fact that no visions in the Bible elsewhere
were ever fulfilled literally and that  the visions were
symbolic of a much non-literal fulfillment.  Nobody showed
me where that was not true.  I believe I may have missed
a vision taht was fulfilled literally, and asked for one to 
show me if I did.  Then I could reconsider the argument.

It reminds me of legals cases.  When a legal case has been
similarly situated before in the courts, then the present
case is easily dealt with.  However, if there has never
been a similar case as to the present one, then the subject
may render a whole new law to be written!!  And the law must 
hope it judges correctly
for future similar law cases will base their assessment upon that
decision.  If the present one is judged incorrectly, then 
every future case will be incorrect, too, unless they 
change the newly made law.

So with visions in this sense.  If visions were never fulfilled
literally before, and we determine this one set of visions
is different, we had better be right, or else we will start
a totally incorrect line of exegesis and study of visions 
which could cloud the whole truth of God's Word in Revelation.
Personally, I feel that the denominational scholars did this
very things.  If I am right, and many thousands agree to thoughts
similar ot mine, then it is going to be one heard task to "unlearn" 
all the traditional or "classic" interpretations (as one brother
called them) from apostolic minds.  But my whole thoughts about
the issue may be wrong.  I will always say that.  But I do not
think they are ;-)

How can this topic be addressed properly with a full orbed
discussion of all points brought up if such major points
which determine interpretation are not dealt with?

The point that visions were never interpreted literally
has much bearing on the thought of whether Revelation
is about chinese armies, and computer chips etc.,  or not.

To say John used words contemporary to his day when he spoke
of computer chips in Rev 13 is to totally ignore the possibility
that visions were symbolic alone.  If so, the "mark" upon the
right hand or forehead is not literal.

Please let us address this major point.  We are skipping into the
book without addressing bases of interpretation. 

> Now for the BIG let down.  In my
> opinion, this book is for the post rapture Jews (144,000)
> to encourage them through this great time of trial.

A statement support proof.  Borther, you will probably address
proof for that statement as we go on since this is setting your
thoughts.  But we do need to examine proof for that statement.

> Now as to the message of salvation in the book of
> Revelation I whole heartedly agree.  What I do not agree
> with is that this excludes in any way the fact that this is
> a book of prophecy whose fulfillment is at hand.

I did not say excludes any prophecy.  By the way, John said,
"shortly" in 1:1.  To say that a day with the lord is as
1,000 years and 1,00 years as a day to support the idea that
God's oppinion of 2,000 years is "shortly" is to take that
day and year reference out of context.

Let me address Peter's words.  I THINK (I do not KNOW) that
the ideas of "shortly come to pass" are based upon thoughts
derived from Peter's reference.  But let me say that
John said in his day that these things must shortly come 
to pass.  We can read them in our day and look from our point
in time forward and miss WHEN it was written.

2 Pet 3:8  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,
that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a
thousand years as one day.

If you do not read the surrounding verses, then it looks as though
Peter said that everytime we read the reference to "1000 years" we
are to take it as a day in God's eyes, or at least SOMETIMES we
are to take 1000 years as 1 day.  That is incorrect.  It is
not what Peter meant at all.  (And I think this is the basis for 
saying that Rev 1:1 in saying "shortly" refers to 2000 years or more).

Peter said that God's promises are sure.  Although the world
has continued on for thousands of years since God pronounced
judgment, that does not mean that judgment will not come.  And then
Peter says, to the effect, that if it should take one day or if it
should take one thousand years, God's word will stand.  Time makes
no difference to God.

He is not saying one thousand years are one day to God.  He is pointing
us back to the words of people who look at length of time passed
after a judgment is foretold in order to determine whether that
declaration was valid or not.  And Peter says that is folly since
God did not say WHEN it would happen, just that it would happen.  So time
means nothing when considering God's promise being fulfilled.  A day
or 1000 years passing between the declaration and the fulfillment
does not affect the reality of the judgment to come.

-- 
In Christ,
Mike Blume
mfblume@ns.sympatico.ca
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm