The book of Revelation

@sonship said
@whodey

Genesis is not the oldest book in the Bible, Job is. If you read Job you will notice something interesting. There is nothing that sounds familiar in it, no Israel, no Patriarchs, and the animals described sound like from a bygone era.

But we do read of Job offering sacrifices to God for the sins of his children. This is pre-Law of Moses.

The assumption is that this was only done after the Mosaic law.

@whodey

The assumption is that this was only done after the Mosaic law.

No. Apprently, Cain and Abel, Abraham and Job who lived around the time of Abraham offered these sarcifices.

I was only pointing out Job's link to the rest of the Scriptures, not much more.

@whodey said
As for Revelation, compare the "beasts" described in Daniel to the one in Revelation. If you do, you will see that the last beast described has symmetry with the one described in Daniel. In short, it is just another version of what Daniel was describing.

KellyJay believes that the multi-headed beast of Revelation are literal ly real multi-headed beasts. Presumably he thinks all that stuff in Daniel’s visions is all literal things too.

What do you think, literal or not?

@divegeester said
KellyJay believes that the multi-headed beast of Revelation are literal ly real multi-headed beasts. Presumably he thinks all that stuff in Daniel’s visions is all literal things too.

What do you think, literal or not?

The beasts and their interpretations are outlined in Daniel and somewhat in Revelation as well.

Clearly these are not literal living animals.

http://www.bibleinsight.com/beasts.html

The Fourth Beast is what Revelation expounds upon.

@whodey said
The beasts and their interpretations are outlined in Daniel and somewhat in Revelation as well.
Clearly these are not literal living animals.
http://www.bibleinsight.com/beasts.html
The Fourth Beast is what Revelation expounds upon.

KellyJay and a few others here will take issue with you on that.

Or probably not actually, given their track record.

@divegeester said
KellyJay and a few others here will take issue with you on that.

Or probably not actually, given their track record.

I'm not even sure what the controversy is. Daniel spells out what they represent.


Daniel 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

@whodey said
I'm not even sure what the controversy is. Daniel spells out what they represent.

The controversy is that KellyJay in particular (but also sonship, SecondSon and others) has famously claimed, while under forum pressure, that EVERYTHING in Revelation is literal.

He has been forced to make this claim in order to subsequently hold on to accounts of hell and eternal suffering of the lost therefore also being literal. I claim that like the rest of Revelation they are metaphorical, symbolic, visions etc.

That is where the controversy lays, in the need for some Christians to hold onto an erroneous doctrine.

@divegeester said
The controversy is that KellyJay in particular (but also sonship, SecondSon and others) has famously claimed, while under forum pressure, that EVERYTHING in Revelation is literal.

He has been forced to make this claim in order to subsequently hold on to accounts of hell and eternal suffering of the lost therefore also being literal. I claim that like the rest of Revel ...[text shortened]... t is where the controversy lays, in the need for some Christians to hold onto an erroneous doctrine.

I think it a large leap to assume teachings such as hell as not being literal just because symbolism is used in the scriptures elsewhere.

If so, we can then conclude it is all symbolism which I think is absurd.

@whodey said
I think it a large leap to assume teachings such as hell as not being literal just because symbolism is used in the scriptures elsewhere.

If so, we can then conclude it is all symbolism which I think is absurd.

Ok so I ask you the same question all of the others have so far failed to answer...

If the beast in Revelation are symbolic, is the whore riding the beast symbolic? What about the 4 horsemen? The bowls of wrath and plague? The flying creatures with locust bodies and lions heads? All symbolic right?

But the lake of fire, in the same book a few pages on ... that’s literal? And Jesus being in there overseeing the carnage, that literal too?

@divegeester said
Ok so I ask you the same question all of the others have so far failed to answer...

If the beast in Revelation are symbolic, is the whore riding the beast symbolic? What about the 4 horsemen? The bowls of wrath and plague? The flying creatures with locust bodies and lions heads? All symbolic right?

But the lake of fire, in the same book a few pages on ... that’s literal? And Jesus being in there overseeing the carnage, that literal too?

But "hell" or the second death is discussed elsewhere in scripture where symbolism is not being used.

And no, I don't think that the entire book of Revelation is symbolism.

@whodey said
But "hell" or the second death is discussed elsewhere in scripture where symbolism is not being used.

And no, I don't think that the entire book of Revelation is symbolism.

Could you provide a selection of examples of descriptions of things, events etc from the the book which you believe are literal?

@divegeester said
Could you provide a selection of examples of descriptions of things, events etc from the the book which you believe are literal?

Matthew 25:46 - And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

@whodey said
Genesis is not the oldest book in the Bible, Job is. If you read Job you will notice something interesting. There is nothing that sounds familiar in it, no Israel, no Patriarchs, and the animals described sound like from a bygone era.

As for Revelation, compare the "beasts" described in Daniel to the one in Revelation. If you do, you will see that the last beast describe ...[text shortened]... h the one described in Daniel. In short, it is just another version of what Daniel was describing.

Did I say it was the oldest book of the Bible? I said it was the first.
Job is a remarkable book, the conversation about righteousness was amazing and how it all fell out in the end.

@whodey said
Matthew 25:46 - And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

From Revelation!

@whodey said
Matthew 25:46 - And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Matthew 10:28 - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Btw. These examples are Jesus speaking using parabolic examples, he mostly spoke in parables you will remember.