Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Revalation

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
What's the easiest way to understand this book of the bible? I think it's about the future. But I could be wrong. Please give me some ideas to understand it easy. I want to study it after you give me some things to make it easy to understand.
 
What's the easiest way to understand this book of the bible? I think it's about the future. But I could be wrong. Please give me some ideas to understand it easy. I want to study it after you give me some things to make it easy to understand.
lol. seriously you will need to get into an indepth study of the tabernacle and the torah? why? the book of revalation has plenty of imagery from there, the books of Daniel, Ezekiel but this last book has imagery that really is the tabernacle itself.
 
It starts like this...

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, My guess is it would be about the revealing of Christ.
 
It starts like this...

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, My guess is it would be about the revealing of Christ.
oh, its gets even more cornfusing. let the oper see that the entire imagery of the visions of HIm on the throne, the lamb are the same person. that will shake the Trinitarian views a little. there is no name for the father in the bible, just the word Father in the new testament. I could go into into jewish thought that the YHWH is the father of all men. but that when you study it is actually Jesus. that doesn't mean the trinity doesn't exist just merely theres no visions of the father, or the Holy Spirit. God wanted us to see jesus and what he did. that is more important then an image of what our maker, whom is a spirit, is in person. if one wants to see God then do his will. act like him. love as he did, have mercy as he did. be LIKE him. then and only then will you see Jesus.
 
I read somewhere there are over 300-500 parallels to the book of Genesis alone. Like any good book, start from the front.
 
Ryan maybe that's what I should do. I think Revalation is the hardest book to understand. I will work on Genesis and get to Revalation at some point in my walk. Will take a whole, but I will get there.
 
Just dive in Dana. Pray for some understanding before you read and see where the spirit leads you.
Edited to add: check out www.biblestudytools.com
go to the library tag. All kinds of commentaries, lexicons, dictionaries, etc. It's a good site. Maybe it'll help. God bless.
 
Ryan maybe that's what I should do. I think Revalation is the hardest book to understand. I will work on Genesis and get to Revalation at some point in my walk. Will take a whole, but I will get there.
You can also try something like this:
Day 1: Genesis 1-2, Isaiah 1-2, Matthew 1-2
Day 2: Genesis 3-4, Isaiah 3-4, Matthew 3-4
Day3: Continue on through the various books till completed.

Pray for revelation and your eyes be opened to his truth.
 
I have a large print bible that shows me the days, and books I should read. I may do it. Or I have an audio bible on my iPod touch that I can listen to.
 
I have a large print bible that shows me the days, and books I should read. I may do it. Or I have an audio bible on my iPod touch that I can listen to.
Just saw your signature...hilarious.

Just understand that the beginning lays the foundation for everything in subsequent books. Isaiah speaks if you want to understand the end, go to the beginning.

Isaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;
 
What's the easiest way to understand this book of the bible? I think it's about the future. But I could be wrong. Please give me some ideas to understand it easy. I want to study it after you give me some things to make it easy to understand.
Rev contains what was, what is and what will be. (at the time it was given to the church)

I believe the war in heaven was past tense. The message to the seven churches was present tense and the wrath of God and the final outcome of the righteous and unrighteous is still future tense.
 
I have a large print bible that shows me the days, and books I should read. I may do it. Or I have an audio bible on my iPod touch that I can listen to.
I find the audio bible is helpful for identifying the the patterns and imagery that repeats throughout the bible and points to Jesus as the revealed Messiah.
 
What's the easiest way to understand this book of the bible? I think it's about the future. But I could be wrong. Please give me some ideas to understand it easy. I want to study it after you give me some things to make it easy to understand.

It is not in the human power to make something easy to understand, as I think.

So, just read it.
 
The seven churches(though at the time were actual churches) represent seven time periods. I believe we are in the laodicean time period now leading up to the time of Jacobs trouble. You can also look at them as 7 different types of Christians.....don't be a laodicean...these seem to be the only apostates(false converts)...Put your trust only on the the Lord Jesus Christ who died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day according to the scriptures(1 Cor. 15 3-4) and on nothing else, for nothing else can save you but the Lord Jesus Christ(see Eph 2: 8-9 and Rom 11: 6). Then you have a picture of the rapture in ch.4 leading up to the rise of the antichrist. Try to look at the sets of judgements as you would the 4 gospels. They are not in chronological order but rather all happening at roughly the same time. It gets confusing when it seems that Christs' second advent happens more then once when really it is once, just described in a few different ways.
 
There are so many interpretations of Revelation that it seems like everyone has a different one. Good luck with that book. I've studied it a lot and it's very very difficult to understand.
 
I think the point can be made is that the language itself is clear and straightforward; the interpretations are more complex.
 
I would recommend that before you begin, decide whether you want to approach your study from the perspective of one of these two time frames:

The Revelation was written after A.D. 70 (e.g., after the destruction of Jerusalem.)

The Revelation was written before A.D. 70.

If you choose the former, you already know everything you need to know, because the book can mean anything; and I do mean anything! There are a gazillion books, commentaries, and articles on the Revelation over the past 1500 years, or so, with about the same number of different interpretations.

However, if you choose the latter, your interpretation will most likely concentrate on the early Christian Church, its persecution by the Jews and Emperor Nero, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies.

I, personally, would start out by assuming John meant “exactly” what he wrote: that he was writing to the early Christians of the Seven Churches in Asia as instructed by the angel of the Lord. I qualified “exactly” because we all know there is a lot of symbolism in the book; but I would assume the symbolism could be understood by its target audience: the early Christian Church.

The first obstacle I had to overcome was the belief in the late date of the book, generally determined to be A.D. 90-95. If that were true, the interpretation of the book would be much as it is today: one man’s interpretation is as good as the next, limited only by one’s imagination.

However, once I overcame that obstacle I was able to faithfully proceed knowing that the early date of the book was far more likely.

From a biblical perspective, there are many reasons to believe Babylon the Great was the Jerusalem of 70 A.D. These are only a few:

1) The angel of Jesus declared the events would "shortly come to pass." Chronologically, nothing occurred at that time in history with the magnitude of the destruction of Babylon the Great other than the destruction of Jerusalem.

2) The sins of Babylon the Great were virtually identical to those of Jerusalem: both had the blood of the prophets on their hands:

This is Babylon the Great:

"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." (Revelation 17:6, Babylon)

"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." (Revelation 18:24, Babylon)

“Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.” (Revelation 18:20, Babylon)


This is Jerusalem:

"Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" (Luke 13:33-34, Jerusalem)

". . . I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." (Luke 11:49-51, Jerusalem)

"For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22, Jerusalem)


Note that in each case the destruction of the cities was determined by God as vengeance for the blood of the prophets and other holy men.

Both cities committed whoredom:

“For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.” (Revelation 19:2, Babylon)

"Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,…Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the Lord: Thus saith the Lord God; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them;” (Ezekiel 16:2, 35-36, Jerusalem.)

There are many references to the whoredom (or harlotry) of Jerusalem and Israel.

Both cities were made desolate:

“… for in one hour is she made desolate.” (Revelation 18:19, Babylon)

“Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” (Matthew 23:38, Jerusalem)


“Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate.” (Jeremiah 7:34, Jerusalem)

Compare the last verse about Jerusalem and Judea with this one about Babylon the Great:

“And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee:” (Revelation 18:24, Babylon)

There were two “witnesses” mentioned in the Revelation that prophesied “a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth:”

"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Rev 11:8)

The “great city” in the Revelation was Babylon, and our Lord was crucified in Jerusalem.

Anyway, those verses provided me with sufficient faith to believe the two cities were probably the same, and that John wrote the book prior to A.D. 70.

There is more in the gospels relating to the destruction of Jerusalem that ties it to the book of the Revelation. In the Epistles there is the occasional verse that explains parts of the Revelation referencing the heavenly city, New Jerusalem, located on the heavenly mount Sion, as follows:

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant . . ." (Hebrews 12:22-24. See also Rev 14:1-4; 1 Peter 2:3-10; Romans 9:29-33; Ephesians 2:18-22; Isaiah 8:14 and 28:14-18; and Psalms 118:22-23)

The understanding that mount Sion in the New Testament is a heavenly place, and not the physical Mount Zion of Israel, helps in the interpretation of the Revelation.

Now, for some history:

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish priest, military general, and a historian. As a general he was captured early in the Jewish-Roman War, and was spared his life or imprisonment by his accurate prediction of the destiny of the Roman general, Vespasian. He was instead “rewarded” a ring-side seat during the war. His classic book, “The Wars of the Jews” [a.k.a. “Wars”], which includes many details of the destruction of Jerusalem, has been cited by nearly every Biblical scholar over the centuries; and his confirmation of the validity of the scriptures, from Moses to St John, has become legendary.

For example, in “Wars,” Book V, Chapter V, it is written:

"The [catapult] engines . . . were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion: those that threw darts and those that threw stones were more forcible and larger than the rest, by which they not only repelled the excursions of the Jews, but drove those away that were upon the walls also. Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs [1/4 mile] and further." (my brackets )

Compare the highlighted part with this verse in the Revelation:

"And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great." (Revelation 16:21)

Note the same contextual use of the words "stone" and “weight of a talent” in both. That is too much of a “coincidence” to ignore.

This is the passage that many historians have used to declare a late date for the book:

“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” (Vol 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V.30.3)

But Irenaeus wrote this two paragraphs earlier:

“Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies, and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, according to the Greek mode of calculation by the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six;” (Vol 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V.30.1)

If John’s vision was “almost in our day” (the usual interpretation,) then why are John’s books containing the vision considered “ancient” by the same man in the same book, in almost the same chapter?

“Almost in our day” and “ancient” do not grammatically relate. Since there are no other sources for late-dating, I am obliged to assume that which was seen “almost in our time” was not the vision, and that a late-date cannot be proven unless new sources are discovered.

Dan
 
A warm welcome to you Dan. Having read your post concerning the time frame of the writing of Revelation, may I ask if you follow Preterism? Thanks.
 
A warm welcome to you Dan. Having read your post concerning the time frame of the writing of Revelation, may I ask if you follow Preterism? Thanks.

Eugene,

I have been reading about Preterism and other doctrines, of late, and I think partial Preterism may the doctrine that is more inline with my interpretation of the scripture. In general, my interpretation is centered around the notion that Christ was not trying to fool his disciples, the Jews, or anyone else with timing. If he said, "this generation," he meant within his own generation. If he said, "shortly come to pass," he didn't mean a thousand years. If he said, "a thousand years," he didn't mean shortly or within his own generation. He meant what he said!

In a nutshell, I take Christ's timing literally, and interpret the timing of other prophecies to fall within Christ's frame of reference. He is the Lord. He is the Chief Cornerstone. Any other frame of reference doesn't make sense to me.

For the record, I was a "nothing" for over four decades. That is, my KJV bible has no concordance, no footnotes--nothing, so I had no outside influence. I was so naive I did not know what a Scofield Bible was until this past summer. All I knew was the Scripture. So when I first heard about a "third temple," a "gap" in Daniel's 70 weeks, and some of the other more recent "revelations," I was of the opinion, "they must be reading a different bible than I am reading."

Anyway, that sparked my interest in learning more about the various doctrines.

One other point: when I first began to seriously study the Scripture, I started with the New Testament (not for any particular reason that I was aware of at the time,) then gradually worked my way to the Old, seeking out first the prophecies referenced by the New. Books like the Chronicles and the early books of Moses bored me to tears, so I read those grudgingly, and only after I had read everything else. After all, family trees are about as boring as watching grass grown; and I had watched "The Ten Commandments" with Charleton Heston many times. What else did I need to know about Moses? :)

In hindsight, I am convinced this was a good way to go, and I now believe the Lord led me in that direction. Why read the Old Testament first, and risk having the same blinders placed on you as most of the Jews and Israel had placed on them? They knew the Messiah was coming, and yet most did not recognize Christ because they were blinded by misinterpretation of the Old Testament prophecies. Even today there are Christians who, like the Pharisaic Jews, do not believe that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the Malachi prophecy on Elijah. If they had read the New Testament, first, with no outside influence, they would most likely believe Christ, first.

Dan
 
Back
Top