The Simple Key to Interpreting Revelation

[Paul Timothy]

Simple key to understanding Revelation is to follow the instructions included in Revelation.

Rev 1:3. Read, hear, keep the words.
Don't "interpret", alter or change the "words" of the text.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Simple key to understanding Revelation is to follow the instructions included in Revelation.

Rev 1:3. Read, hear, keep the words.
Don't "interpret", alter or change the "words" of the text.

If one did that, never looking to
fulfillment in history, one would never see that Isaiah 53 is already fulfilled.

 

[Paul Timothy]

If one did that, never looking to
fulfillment in history, one would never see that Isaiah 53 is already fulfilled.

But that is the proper way to examine all Scripture. Read it as written snd don't mess with the text.

Otherwise we are making up our own personal Scripture. Stick to the text as written.

 

[GodsGrace]

Simple key to understanding Revelation is to follow the instructions included in Revelation.

Rev 1:3. Read, hear, keep the words.
Don't "interpret", alter or change the "words" of the text.

What do you mean by WORDS OF THE TEXT?

 

[Paul Timothy]

What do you mean by WORDS OF THE TEXT?

The words of the book of this prophecy.
Rev 22:18-19

 

[Dorothy Mae]

But that is the proper way to examine all Scripture. Read it as written snd don't mess with the text.

If one did that, one would never know that the vision Daniel had is now fulfilled. Greece rose and was defeated, etc. If one never looked at history, one would never understand.

Otherwise we are making up our own personal Scripture. Stick to the text as written.

All prophesied is meant to be fulfilled in real life. That is the whole purpose of the text.

 

[Paul Timothy]

If one did that, one would never know that the vision Daniel had is now fulfilled. Greece rose and was defeated, etc. If one never looked at history, one would never understand.

Again you misunderstand everything I am saying.

All prophesied is meant to be fulfilled in real life. That is the whole purpose of the text.

Right... so just don't interpret it to say something it doesn't say.

Careful making absolute statements.
Maybe that is not the "whole" purpose of the text. Maybe there is also a lesson to be learned as well.

 

[RBDERRICK]

I didn't say our bodily transformation is past.

That's what resurrection is. If you claim to be resurrected, you are saying the resurrection is past.

I know it may seem technical only, but it's important to teach Scripture accurately and not make up our own version of it.

Also, this false teaching of having been 'spiritually' resurrected is used to teach a secured salvation in this life, that has nothing to do with this life.

They say they are already resurrected spiritually, and so the bodily resurrection is a 'guarantee' no matter how they live unto the end.

Some even go so far as to claim to have already inherited eternal life, and are now 'spiritually' in heaven.

Our minds are transformed 1st and they can only be renewed

True. Renewal of the mind in Christ according to His word, becomes transformation of our life in His righteousness and true holiness.

God has always ruled.

The error here is the difference between God over all things, and His kingdom rule on earth. He has yet to personally rule with power over the earth, beginning with the command for man to do so in the beginning.

When He comes again, He will put an end to man's rule on earth, which is usually unjust, and will rule justly Himself.

There will be His law, judgment, and rule established over all nations of the earth in every corner of the earth. There will be no place on earth, where He and His saints do not rule with rod of iron.

Many people don't believe he's ruling now, the same way they they never thought our Father isn't ruling over all. Big mistake.

Many people don't be there is the true God, nor that Jesus is the Christ.

Not believing in a 'spirit-only' rule of God on earth in some 'spiritual' millennium, has nothing to do with believing and obeying Him today.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Again you misunderstand everything I am saying.

I don’t see that. Please elucidate. otherwise stop saying every response to which you have no legimate is the other “misunderstanding.”

Right... so just don't interpret it to say something it doesn't say.

Examples please.

Careful making absolute statements.

The Daniel had a vision about Greece is really understood to be the case. They make absolute statements about this too. You afraid of absolute statements? Everything needs to be rubber?

Maybe that is not the "whole" purpose of the text. Maybe there is also a lesson to be learned as well.

Feel free to add to what was clearly predicted and fulfilled.

 

[Paul Timothy]

I don’t see that. Please elucidate. otherwise stop saying every response to which you have no legimate is the other “misunderstanding.”

I said nothing about applying history to prophecy. That is your invention. So there... you now see how you mistook my words for saying something I didn't say

Examples please.

Well you would have to say something that I could say was accurate or not.
There is no example of people adding words to Revelation if no one says anything.

The Daniel had a vision about Greece is really understood to be the case. They make absolute statements about this too. You afraid of absolute statements? Everything needs to be rubber?

why should I be afraid of absolute statements. I seldom make them. We souls be sure of a statement before making it though.

Feel free to add to what was clearly predicted and fulfilled.

And again this statement 9f your show that you do not understand what I am talking about.
I am not talking about adding to prophecy... but coming against your claim that prophecy is ONLY about predictions and fulfillment. Maybe there is a moral lesson in the prophecy or a correction included in the prophecy.

 

[RBDERRICK]

Where does Paul say that? (we have a right to our opinions)

There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

Having opinions and voicing them as opinion is not wrong. It's only if we try to teach our opinions as the truth, that are not easily proven by Scripture.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

There's plenty of liberty in the law of the Lord, and so our own opinions and will is not the problem, so long as we are behaving within His law. Much of false ministry is from preaching our own personal opinion as prophecy of Scripture, and even worse our own will as the rule of the Lord.

Ex of prophecy: Some Christians like to think we are already 'spiritually' resurrected and therefore, there is already a 'spiritual' millennium of the Lord on earth. They are free to think that all they want, but teaching it as true is the error, since no Scripture says so.

The only time the Spirit and resurrection are mentioned together, is that the bodily resurrection is by the Spirit of holiness. (Rom 1)

The only resurrection taught by Scripture is bodily. The likeness of His resurrection is bodily. The only Millennium of the Lord prophesied by Scripture is over all nations with His resurrected body. Which includes His resurrected saints ruling with Him.

Ex of the law: Some Christians choose not to drink alcohol, which is fine for themselves, but then err by teaching all such drinking is a sin. They are establishing their own personal will as rule for all the body of Christ on earth. They are making their own personal rule into law of Christ for all. It's akin to a Christian teaching their liberty to drink alcohol as a necessity for all Christians. That's less common, but it is done if communion is only with wine.

Paul says we are not to destroy the weaker conscience with our liberty (1 Cor 8), nor to judge the liberty of others by our own conscience. (1 Cor 10)

Some people search the scriptures to see if these things be so. Some are after truth. But I admit few want truth.

And fewer still want to be corrected by the truth of simple Scripture. We must always be ready to allow the words of God to change our minds and lives, if necessary.

With all due respect, I doubt this.

You doubt I am disciplined enough to know the difference? Or to be corrected? If so, do you have an example?

I’ve found that those who don’t know the difference between what the author intended and their own pre taught theology aren’t open to consider they might be in error.

True. Experience shows that once a Christian has settled on a doctrine or prophecy, then they are rarely willing to be corrected by simple verses of the Bible that say otherwise. Especially with prophecy, where they spend years learning something, and really think they know what they are talking about. And then someone comes quoting a plain verse of Scripture, and they go into a tailspin to avoid the truth of it.

A whole lifetime of scholarship can be corrected by one verse of Scripture. Like the stone cut out of the mountain that lands on the toes of the idol, and the whole body of scholarship comes crashing down. Most tend to try to prop up the body, rather than rebuild from simple truth.

Ex: Rev 19:15 rebukes all amillennialism.

When we find ourselves avoiding any verse of Scripture, or changing it's plain meaning into something else, in order to keep teaching our own doctrine and prophecy, then we become false teachers and prophets of our own will.

Ex: John 1:1 rebukes all created christ doctrine. The Word was God, not a god.

Those who loudly insist the Holy Spirit is teaching them are least likely to be taught by the HS. The louder one claims what they say IS what the Bible says the least likely this is to be true.

True. That's why I avoid exclamation marks.

If what we teach is true, then we can quote the plain Scripture proving it.

Another sign of false teaching is pages of scholarship, especially that of original languages and manuscript study, in order to teach something, that is not plainly said by God in His own written words.

As I said, teaching the Bible is simply believing and teaching what is written.

The first rule of rightly dividing the word of truth is rightly dividing between what is written and what is not. The first rule of ministering the truth follows, by only teaching what is written, and not what we only think, but is not plainly written.

If we can't quote Scripture as written, or trying to change it into something else, then we ought not teach it as the truth of Scripture. At least until we do find the Scripture that plainly says so.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

Doesn’t say they have a RIGHT to their opinion. That was your claim.

Having opinions and voicing them as opinion is not wrong. It's only if we try to teach our opinions as the truth, that are not easily proven by Scripture.

Ok

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

There's plenty of liberty in the law of the Lord, and so our own opinions and will is not the problem, so long as we are behaving within His law. Much of false ministry is from preaching our own personal opinion as prophecy of Scripture, and even worse our own will as the rule of the Lord.

Ok

Ex of prophecy: Some Christians like to think we are already 'spiritually' resurrected and therefore, there is already a 'spiritual' millennium of the Lord on earth. They are free to think that all they want, but teaching it as true is the error, since no Scripture says so.

Never heard of that.

The only time the Spirit and resurrection are mentioned together, is that the bodily resurrection is by the Spirit of holiness. (Rom 1)

Agreed

The only resurrection taught by Scripture is bodily. The likeness of His resurrection is bodily. The only Millennium of the Lord prophesied by Scripture is over all nations with His resurrected body. Which includes His resurrected saints ruling with Him.

Agreed

Ex of the law: Some Christians choose not to drink alcohol, which is fine for themselves, but then err by teaching all such drinking is a sin. They are establishing their own personal will as rule for all the body of Christ on earth. They are making their own personal rule into law of Christ for all. It's akin to a Christian teaching their liberty to drink alcohol as a necessity for all Christians. That's less common, but it is done if communion is only with wine.

Yes, the Bible (aka heart attack) belt. I agree.

Paul says we are not to destroy the weaker conscience with our liberty (1 Cor 8), nor to judge the liberty of others by our own conscience. (1 Cor 10)

Agreed.

And fewer still want to be corrected by the truth of simple Scripture. We must always be ready to allow the words of God to change our minds and lives, if necessary.

I agreed.

You doubt I am disciplined enough to know the difference? Or to be corrected? If so, do you have an example?

Our posting was a while ago. I’ll have to recall why I said that. Was it because what you teach you claim is always scripture?

True. Experience shows that once a Christian has settled on a doctrine or prophecy, then they are rarely willing to be corrected by simple verses of the Bible that say otherwise. Especially with prophecy, where they spend years learning something, and really think they know what they are talking about. And then someone comes quoting a plain verse of Scripture, and they go into a tailspin to avoid the truth of it.

Absolutely true. If they write a book about it, then that mind is sealed shut.

A whole lifetime of scholarship can be corrected by one verse of Scripture. Like the stone cut out of the mountain that lands on the toes of the idol, and the whole body of scholarship comes crashing down. Most tend to try to prop up the body, rather than rebuild from simple truth.

Very true.

Ex: Rev 19:15 rebukes all amillennialism.

When we find ourselves avoiding any verse of Scripture, or changing it's plain meaning into something else, in order to keep teaching our own doctrine and prophecy, then we become false teachers and prophets of our own will.

Again agreed.

Ex: John 1:1 rebukes all created christ doctrine. The Word was God, not a god.

Agreed.

True. That's why I avoid exclamation marks.

If what we teach is true, then we can quote the plain Scripture proving it.

Yes, although all false teachers use scripture.

Another sign of false teaching is pages of scholarship, especially that of original languages and manuscript study, in order to teach something, that is not plainly said by God in His own written words.

As I said, teaching the Bible is simply believing and teaching what is written.

The first rule of rightly dividing the word of truth is rightly dividing between what is written and what is not. The first rule of ministering the truth follows, by only teaching what is written, and not what we only think, but is not plainly written.

Well, every false teacher says the above. Thinking is actually vital to knowing the truth. The Bereans searched the scriptures thinking every step of the way.

If we can't quote Scripture as written, or trying to change it into something else, then we ought not teach it as the truth of Scripture. At least until we do find the Scripture that plainly says so.

Well, many teach to get praises from man.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

That's what resurrection is. If you claim to be resurrected, you are saying the resurrection is past.

I know it may seem technical only, but it's important to teach Scripture accurately and not make up our own version of it.

I don't want to make up a different version from what scripture teaches. Consider this,

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Mt.22:31-32

The Patriarchs believed in the promises of Christ, the 1st resurrection.

Also, this false teaching of having been 'spiritually' resurrected is used to teach a secured salvation in this life, that has nothing to do with this life.

What we sow in this world is what we reap in the next, so how we conduct ourselves now effects our final standing.

They say they are already resurrected spiritually, and so the bodily resurrection is a 'guarantee' no matter how they live unto the end.

Some even go so far as to claim to have already inherited eternal life, and are now 'spiritually' in heaven.

Paul talks of
Iheavenly places in Christ, Eph.1:3
Set your mind on things above, Col.3:2

The writer of Hebrews didn't mean his listeners took a donkey ride to Jerusalem when he said, "you have come to Mount Zion" Heb.12:22

True. Renewal of the mind in Christ according to His word, becomes transformation of our life in His righteousness and true holiness.

The error here is the difference between God over all things, and His kingdom rule on earth. He has yet to personally rule with power over the earth, beginning with the command for man to do so in the beginning.

The real problem here is that people think Jesus didn't rule by force over sinners because he wasn"t able to. Fatal mistake.

When He comes again, He will put an end to man's rule on earth, which is usually unjust, and will rule justly Himself.

Man isn't ruling this earth. Pilate though he was. Nebuchadnezzer thought he was. Pharaoh thought he was.
Gods' word describes the return of Jesus as a consuming inferno encompassing the entire universe.

There will be His law, judgment, and rule established over all nations of the earth in every corner of the earth. There will be no place on earth, where He and His saints do not rule with rod of iron.

Many people don't be there is the true God, nor that Jesus is the Christ.

Not believing in a 'spirit-only' rule of God on earth in some 'spiritual' millennium, has nothing to do with believing and obeying Him today.

When God shows kindness to unbelievers and they keep sinning, it isn't because he isn't ruling over them.

 

[RBDERRICK]

Our posting was a while ago. I’ll have to recall why I said that. Was it because what you teach you claim is always scripture?

That could be. Some get offended by my apparent arrogance, but I am only quoting the words exactly as written, and giving the normal sense of them: I simple repeat the words written on paper in an orderly way.

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (Nehem 8)

It's easy to teach prophecy of Scripture, when we are only reading the words of prophecy and repeating them in a conclusive manner.

Ex: from (Ps 22, 67, 82, 96, 98) we can easily conclude the Lord Himself will come to the earth to inherit all nations, and judge them righteously. Those nations will worship Him and will be glad for it.

We now add Rev 19 to the previous certain conclusion, that the resurrected Lord will come again to the earth in the air. He will first smite the nations with the sword of His mouth, and then righteously rule the nations with a rod of iron. Those nations will be glad for His rule, and will flow up to Jerusalem to worship the King.

This is a simple repetition of the words of prophecy. The sense of it can't be denied, if the words are believed as written.

Some have said I talk like Scripture when teaching it. That's because I discipline myself to only use Bible words to teach Bible doctrine and prophecy.

Ex: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

The first rule of ministry of the word, is to only teach what is written, because what is written is only from God, and not the minds of men.

Private interpretations of Scripture is fine, but only Scripture ought be prophesied and ministered as the word of God.

I can show elsewhere in Scripture how prophecy is not just foretelling events, but is ministry and exhortation in the things of God. The old meaning of prophecy in the Bible is simply speaking the true things of God.

Absolutely true. If they write a book about it, then that mind is sealed shut.

True. Both Jesus and Paul says to leave them alone, and let them go into their own ditch.

That's when our own desire to argue the truth can become our own pride.

Yes, although all false teachers use scripture.

Abuse Scripture. Peter calls it wresting, and Paul calls it mishandling.

Well, every false teacher says the above.

I have never heard this rule from anywhere else. It's so simple, that many may take it for granted. The problem is they don't actually do it. It takes purposed discipline to only teach what is written, and not try to teach what is not written, but is only our own desirable ideas.

Well, many teach to get praises from man.

And first from themselves. Pride of knowledge rebels against correction.

Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

 

[GodsGrace]

That could be. Some get offended by my apparent arrogance, but I am only quoting the words exactly as written, and giving the normal sense of them: I simple repeat the words written on paper in an orderly way.

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (Nehem 8)

It's easy to teach prophecy of Scripture, when we are only reading the words of prophecy and repeating them in a conclusive manner.

Ex: from (Ps 22, 67, 82, 96, 98) we can easily conclude the Lord Himself will come to the earth to inherit all nations, and judge them righteously. Those nations will worship Him and will be glad for it.

We now add Rev 19 to the previous certain conclusion, that the resurrected Lord will come again to the earth in the air. He will first smite the nations with the sword of His mouth, and then righteously rule the nations with a rod of iron. Those nations will be glad for His rule, and will flow up to Jerusalem to worship the King.

This is a simple repetition of the words of prophecy. The sense of it can't be denied, if the words are believed as written.

Some have said I talk like Scripture when teaching it. That's because I discipline myself to only use Bible words to teach Bible doctrine and prophecy.

Ex: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

The first rule of ministry of the word, is to only teach what is written, because what is written is only from God, and not the minds of men.

Private interpretations of Scripture is fine, but only Scripture ought be prophesied and ministered as the word of God.

I can show elsewhere in Scripture how prophecy is not just foretelling events, but is ministry and exhortation in the things of God. The old meaning of prophecy in the Bible is simply speaking the true things of God.


True. Both Jesus and Paul says to leave them alone, and let them go into their own ditch.

That's when our own desire to argue the truth can become our own pride.

Abuse Scripture. Peter calls it wresting, and Paul calls it mishandling.


I have never heard this rule from anywhere else. It's so simple, that many may take it for granted. The problem is they don't actually do it. It takes purposed discipline to only teach what is written, and not try to teach what is not written, but is only our own desirable ideas.




And first from themselves. Pride of knowledge rebels against correction.

Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

Everyone is reading the words exactly as they're stated.

How come we end up with different doctrine in different denominations.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

That could be. Some get offended by my apparent arrogance, but I am only quoting the words exactly as written, and giving the normal sense of them: I simple repeat the words written on paper in an orderly way.

Everyone says they only give the normal sense of them. Everyone!!

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (Nehem 8)

Not everything everyone says is God causing understanding. Surely that’s obvious.

It's easy to teach prophecy of Scripture, when we are only reading the words of prophecy and repeating them in a conclusive manner.

Especially if one assumes it’s a future event. No actually history to correct one. The Jews think it’s all future, for example.

Ex: from (Ps 22, 67, 82, 96, 98) we can easily conclude the Lord Himself will come to the earth to inherit all nations, and judge them righteously. Those nations will worship Him and will be glad for it.

He said all authority has already been given to him. See, that’s what I mean.

We now add Rev 19 to the previous certain conclusion, that the resurrected Lord will come again to the earth in the air. He will first smite the nations with the sword of His mouth, and then righteously rule the nations with a rod of iron. Those nations will be glad for His rule, and will flow up to Jerusalem to worship the King.

Where does Revelation 19 say that? And you realize that the sword of the mouth is just words, right? Like preaching the gospel, right?

This is a simple repetition of the words of prophecy. The sense of it can't be denied, if the words are believed as written.

Well, there are considerable metaphors there. Jesus’ mouth doesn’t have a sword stuck in it.

Some have said I talk like Scripture when teaching it. That's because I discipline myself to only use Bible words to teach Bible doctrine and prophecy.

Can’t say. Haven’t noticed.

Ex: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

The first rule of ministry of the word, is to only teach what is written, because what is written is only from God, and not the minds of men.

If a man thinks a prophesy is NOT fulfilled which really is, what is written won’t help. Like the Jews and Jesus. They go by “what is written.”

Private interpretations of Scripture is fine, but only Scripture ought be prophesied and ministered as the word of God.

Again, if one is ignorant of real history, one will miss the truth.

I can show elsewhere in Scripture how prophecy is not just foretelling events, but is ministry and exhortation in the things of God. The old meaning of prophecy in the Bible is simply speaking the true things of God.

This I already know.

True. Both Jesus and Paul says to leave them alone, and let them go into their own ditch.

That's when our own desire to argue the truth can become our own pride.

Abuse Scripture. Peter calls it wresting, and Paul calls it mishandling.


I have never heard this rule from anywhere else. It's so simple, that many may take it for granted. The problem is they don't actually do it. It takes purposed discipline to only teach what is written, and not try to teach what is not written, but is only our own desirable ideas.

I’ve read a lot of false teaching to include the cults and when you look deeper, it’s always an appeal to a more comfortable theology. It’s my own observation. Take Calvinism. This theology relieves the adherent of all the unpleasantness of repentance and maintaining oneself in the faith. God (supposedly) chose one for Heaven long ago. Isn’t that appealing to laziness and pride?!!

And first from themselves. Pride of knowledge rebels against correction.

Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

Depends upon the knowledge.

 

[Paul Timothy]

Everyone is reading the words exactly as they're stated.

How come we end up with different doctrine in different denominations.

Very few people read the words exactly as written.

Most say this is symbolic.... or what the writer is saying is...

Most people have a theology in their heads and read Scripture to match their preconceived ideas.

 

[GodsGrace]

Very few people read the words exactly as written.

Most say this is symbolic.... or what the writer is saying is...

Most people have a theology in their heads and read Scripture to match their preconceived ideas.

Do you believe this of theologians?

 

[Paul Timothy]

Do you believe this of theologians?

I did say most people, did I not?

 

[GodsGrace]

I did say most people, did I not?

So you think a theologian makes up his mind about something and then goes to study the OT and the NT and brings his own beliefs, as a scholar, to his studies?

Do you know of any theologian that used to be Protestant and became Catholic?
OR
V V?