- Aug 14, 2024
- 1,026
- 365
In saying this you've undone your own argument, that the Revelation is chronological, and supported my notion that the Revelation cannot be completely chronological. If there are "parallel accounts" then you substantiate what I've said, that saying John sees something "next" has nothing to do with the chronology of the fulfillments, but only with his own time in seeing these visions.I do understand, I've made my argument about two parallel accounts of the 3.5 year tribulation. There're plenty of such examples in the bible, Gen. 1 and 2 are two parallel accounts of the creation, the synoptic gospels and John are two parallel accounts of Jesus's ministry, the two Kings and the two Chronicles are two parallel accounts of Israel's history, Jospeh's two dreams, Pharaoh's two dreams, king Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the metallic statue and Daniel's vision of the four beasts, and so on. This is based on the "two or more witnesses principle" from the bible itself, that by the testimonies of two or more witnesses, a case is established.
I've not at all dismissed "parallel" prophecies, but have, in fact, established them as my own position, that some visions represent the same timeframe. I agree with you that there is not a 7 year Tribulation (supposedly based on Daniel's "70th Week") but see the Reign of Antichrist (not "the Tribulation") as only a 3.5 year period, based on Dan 7 (not Dan 9).For the record, I had argued repeatedly that the great tribulation is only 3.5 years, not 7 years, because I understand it's not one 3.5 year period after another as in a chronological order. When I read Rev. 11:15 where Christ's kingdom has already come, then it shifted from heaven to earth in the following chapters, I hypothesized that there might be parallel accounts, contrary to the seven year tribulation narrative; then I discovered the chiastic structure in the book that the second half mirrors the first half, which corroborated my hypothesis, then I drew my conclusion. You may dismiss "parallel accounts" and "chiastic structure" as irrelevant, but these are the key to bible study, they help connect the dots and show you the bigger picture, as shown in the summary below - not my opinion or some wild theories, but a simple summary of the book's contents.
Jesus defined the "Great Tribulation" not as the Reign of Antichrist, but rather, as the Punishment of national Israel over the entire NT era. This is clearly set forth in Luke 21, which explains Matthew's account and Mark's account, as well. The Olivet Discourse is all about Israel's NT punishment for rejecting their Messiah and their Kingdom (with the exception of the Christian remnant).
Not at all. What I've said is that because Revelation does not specify that these sets of 7 represent consecutive periods of time we should not declare they are! Revelation says we should not "add" to the words of this book, and I'm complying with that--far from only "speculating."A: Prologue 1:1-1:11
B: First Septet – Seven Churches 1:12-3:22
C: Second Septet – Seven Seals 4:1-8:1
D: Third Septet – Seven Trumpets 8:2-11:19
E: Fourth Septet – Seven Signs 12:1-15:1
D′: Fifth Septet – Seven Bowls 15:2-16:17
C′: Sixth Septet – Seven Condemnations of Babylon 16:18-19:10
B′: Seventh Septet – Seven sights of the victory of Christ’s Kingdom (I saw xyz ...) 19:11-22:5
A′: Epilogue 22:6-22:21
You on the other hand have just refuted the possibility of chronological order, while you've offered no other viable alternative. If these apocalyptic events are supposed to happen randomly or simultaneously, you haven't made any argument, so far you've just speculated.
The fact that they are sets of 7, 1 taking place after the other, may indicate a set, rather than a timing order. They may all take place in the same general time period. And that would be a healthier kind of "speculation," should you want that.