Revelation discussion - 1 of 2

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

Robert J. Brown wrote:

>     Blume> The main point is always a spiritual lesson on the heart
>     Blume> and relationship with God.  What could be more important?
> 
> *YOU* are making an assumption here, unless you have scripture to back
> this up.

I am simply referring top the general tone of the entire Bible.  And whether
you agree that Revelation is literal or not doe snot change the fact that
the most important not ein every verse, chapter and book is the heart 
relationship with God, and taht is not assumption.  

>     >> 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.
> 
>     Blume> To speak as you do requires a paradigm in thinking that
>     Blume> Revelation MUST be literal.  But that basis of thinking is
>     Blume> not accurate.  When nobody who wrote the Bible distinctly
>     Blume> said that it was a literal issue then we only assume so.
>     Blume> But I will say that perhaps it is literal.  I only propose,
>     Blume> on the basis of the overabundant correlation between points
>     Blume> given in revelation and the points blatantly said to be
>     Blume> spiritual in other books of the Bible, along with the fact
>     Blume> that never was a vision (which Revelation totally consists
>     Blume> of) ever fulfilled literally as per the elements of the
>     Blume> vision, that it is not what it SURFACELY appears to be due
>     Blume> to its total visionary element.
> 
> Dee was saying the same thing Paul said when he said "scripture is of
> no private interpretation."

Fact is she mentioned that that " we can learn by looking beyond the literal, but
that doesn't in any way discount the literal message."

Such a stetement involves a paradigm that there is without doubt a literal
interpretation to Revelation, but no statement is given to first prove that
Revelation is literal.

> I think I agree with her on this.  A given passage of scripture
> provides a set of statements, called a "set of support", that rules
> out a vast number of other statements as being able to be true, given
> the assumption that this set of support is true.  There still remains
> a set of statements that may be true in the light of this set of
> support.  The set of all possible statements that may be made in the
> light of this set of support forms a Hebrand Universe over the SOS.
> Within this Hebrand Universe, some of these statements may be false,
> and some may be true.  What Dee (and Paul) said is that we have no
> right to expect the set of true statements to be a singleton.  In
> other words, more than one truth may be expressed by a single
> passage.

That was not what Paul said.    Paul was speaking about the fact that
the scripture was not given by a prophet's personal interpretation.
It was forom God and not the mind of a prophet who spoke it.  So your
reference is missapplied.  No scripture teaches us that many interpretations
can be derived from a single verse.

> There may be more than one valid interpretation to a passage of
> scripture.  

Maybe, but the Bible does not say that.

> Furthermore, in the absence of any other affirmative
> statement, we have no right to rank these interpretations according to
> importance, since it would be us, not the scripture itself, that
> assigns these inportances to the interpretations.

It is beyond refute that the greatest revelation is that of God's identity,
and secondly salvation.  This goes without question.  The entire Bible,
the entire VOLUME, is about Jesus.

Psa 40:7  Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is 
written of me,

> This is essentially what I understand the "meaning" of a scripture to
> be.  Nearly the smae statement was made by Ehud Shapiro in his book
> "The Art of Prolog" regarding the meaning of a Prolog program.
> 
> Did I read you correctly, Dee?

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