Revelation discussion - 1 of 2

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

Timothy Litteral wrote:

> Me:
> The angel said that John would be shown things that must
> "come to pass" and I believe this refered to the viewing or
> revelation of literal future events.  

Why?

God can show what is to shortly come to pass with symbolic
visions.   I am simply saying your thoughts are not conclusive
proofs.  That is all.

> The angel told Mary
> literal events that took place.  Joseph (Mary's husband)
> was told of literal events in his dreams.
> I gotta put kids to bed so I can't go into depth.

Still, though, John received VISIONS as the means for
things that would shortly come to pass.  That means we must
study other visions in the Bible and compare them with Rev.
in the interpretation.

Even Ezekiel's experience of eating a scroll was a vision.

For example, if we say that literal "marks" (computer chips 
or whatever) are to come in days ahead due to Rev 13, 
then why cannot we say that an actual beast with seven
heads is not going to arise out of the sea?  SOME
is certainly symbolic.  What visions in the past contained
SOME symbolism and literalism?

> Rev. Blume:
> > 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.
> 
> Me:
> I think that the book is conbinations of prophecy, visions
> and real events.

But again we ned proof.  And the only way I can think of I
proving "yes" or "no" is to look at previous visions.  

Think Of Daniel  God showed Daniel the picture of the image
of Nebuchadnezzar.  Yes, the dream was given to Neb., but
God had to show it to Daniel in order for Daniel to repeat
it to Neb.  Anyway, it was a foretelling of things to come.
WHich nations would rise and what characteristics these 
nations would have.  Were they fulfilled literally?  No.  
There was not a literal golden head that ruled.  It represented
Babylon.
 
> Rev. Blume"
> If visions were never fulfilled literally before, and we
> determine this one set of visions is different,
> 
> Me:
> Unnecessary.  Prophecies are always literally fulfilled.
> They sound strangely like discriptions of visions BTW.

Daniel's visions were prophetic but symbolically so.

> Rev. Blume:
> > 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?
> 
> Me:
> If this is part vision and part prophecy delivered by the
> angel the method of interpretation would change.  Agreed?

I cannot agree with your wording because the visions are
prophetic.  Again, look at Daniel.


> PS (personal note but I forgot the brother's name) Catch
> that brother?

What are you referring to?

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