Revelation discussion - 1 of 2

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

Dee Goepel wrote:


> prophets, dreams, etc.).  By human nature, the first
> time we encounter something, we normally see the literal or
> surface message, but quite often when we analyze it further,
> there are symbolic implications as well.  (BTW, if God is
> presenting two (or more) messages through a scripture, who
> is to say what His "MAIN POINT" was?  They were all His
> points. I think the label "MAIN POINT" is rather subjective.)

The main point is always a spiritual lesson on the heart and relationship
with God.  What could be more important?


> In any case, there are both literal and symbolic meanings
> to messages throughout God's word.  My point was only that
> one shouldn't dismiss a literal interpretation of Revelation.
> It is certainly filled with sybolism and there is much we
> can learn by looking beyond the literal, but that doesn't
> in any way discount the literal message.

To speak as you do requires a paradigm in thinking that Revelation
MUST be literal.  But that basis of thinking is not accurate.
When nobody who wrote the Bible distinctly said that it was a literal
issue then we only assume so.  But I will say that perhaps it is 
literal.  I only propose, on the basis of the overabundant
correlation between points given in revelation and the points
blatantly said to be spiritual in other books of the Bible, along
with the fact that never was a vision (which Revelation totally consists
of) ever fulfilled literally as per the elements of the vision, that
it is not what it SURFACELY appears to be due to its
total  visionary element.


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