Original Meaning and Original Understanding

[Josheb]

The first rule of exegesis is to read the text exactly as written with the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage unless there is something in the text itself provides a reason to do otherwise. This alone would save us all a lot of disagreement in eschatology if this rule were followed consistently AND used to measure what we read/hear from end-times teachings. It does not matter whether we're premil, amil, post, mil, or idealist; being able to apply this concept to our own reading of scripture AND the teachers of these doctrines is invaluable.

Likewise, one of the other basic exegetical precepts is to understand the text as its original author intended it and as his original audience would have understood it. This principle will prevent a lot of speculation, especially the wilder iterations, if and when applied. It will also aid in identifying teachers who break this rule. Our eschatological affiliation does not matter because the principle transcends the doctrines. For example, it does not matter whether a person is a preterist or a futurist, the "mark" of the beast could be something like a scar, or a tattoo, or a burn, or some other device someone in the first century would have understood. It CANNOT, logically speaking, be a computer chip surgically implanted under the skin or some modification to DNA simply because both of those interpretations would have been completely alien to and incomprehensible by the first century reader. They would never have understood that possibility from their reading..... and Revelation was revealed for the purpose of understanding what was going to happen, not to add more mystery. The same concept applies to mentions of first century conditions, like arrows or chariots (arrows are arrows, not ICBMs or guided missiles, and chariots are not M1 Abrams tanks). So, when we read/hear teachers violating this principle we should disregard their teaching as faulty regardless of our own eschatological affiliation.

Even when the words are figurative, symbolic, or even allegorical they cannot violate these most basic and foundational principles of exegesis.

And anyone perusing the threads in this board will readily observe these concepts being ignored, neglected, even denied. The problem is quite common. It is also readily solved.

 

[for_his_glory]

I can only believe in the visions that John received by the angel that Jesus sent him while being held a prisoner on the isle of Patmos for preaching the word of God to the seven churches in Asia that he could only understand all these different things of that particular era in what he saw in those visions. There is much that is literal and also symbolic in Revelation, but yet it takes all the scriptures in the OT and NT and the history of these nations and Empires to truly understand that which has already been written.

I had to literally empty my head of all the various teachings I use to sit under for many years as many contradicted each other and that which has already been written in the scriptures and just start from scratch taking the book of Rev and reading it word by word, verse by verse, chapter by chapter, doing a lot of cross referencing and studying the history of those eras and studying the history of the four Empires praying and asking the Holy Spirit teach me. Some agree with what I teach on Revelations while others disagree and that does nor bother me. What matters the most not to just take a persons word for what they teach, but to take the scriptures they give and go study them for yourself so you can discern what is truth from error.

1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.