Discussion on the End Times

It's my attempt to simply the meaning, bringing it into modern vernacular and understanding.

sémainó - "Definition: to give a sign
Usage: I signify, indicate, give a sign, make known. from séma (a sign, mark)"

Symbol - "a mark or character used as a conventional representation of an object, function, or process; a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract"

Throughout the text, John says, "...and I saw another sign..." and it be a detailed object or event.

It's the same way prophecy was given to Daniel, through symbolic objects that representing literal, physical entities or events. And many times those symbols (or signs, if you will) were explained for what they really represented.

True. And haven't many given a whole host of different interpretations? But the rules were set in chapter one.

Recall why the Messiah said he spoke in parables instead of speaking to the people plainly. He said it's because the secrets weren't given to everyone but only to those meant to hear it.

The living God doesn't change.

So likewise the book of Revelation was written for the SERVANTS, not for just anyone...and as we both know, not even everyone who says "Lord, Lord" is actually one of His.

The bible is the most published book in the world. Everyone has access to one, friend and foe.

It's not meant to be understood by everyone. And before you imply that I'm saying "I am one and you're not", let me say "no". What I'm saying is the book is like college-level courses that necessitate mastering the elementary courses first (i.e. the first books) as it references everything that came before it.

It's the crescendo; the resulting "fruit" from the foundations that were laid beforehand. So we must study the "old" stuff to understand all the "new" stuff.



It's not supposed to be a mystery to His servants. It was written to prepare His servants, fulfilling His word in Amos.

Amos 3:7
"Surely the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing His plan to His servants the prophets"

You dont have the entire picture. That assumption alone removes any credibility you may have once had.

Nobody has all knowledge.
Only God knows what was forbidden from the seven thunders.(but I am sure can handle that one too. Just ascribe anything to it and tell us in advance since you are all knowing)
Besides you randomly ascribe whatever fits your deal to the flying scorpions, the mark on the right hand, and the hailstones and call it spiritual.

I suppose when it says "he who sits on the throne ",under your "rules of nothing literal" a random interpretation would be "oh that just means some king."
We cant make it a literal God the Father

You dont have the entire picture. That assumption alone removes any credibility you may have once had.

Nobody has all knowledge.
Only God knows what was forbidden from the seven thunders.(but I am sure can handle that one too. Just ascribe anything to it and tell us in advance since you are all knowing)
Besides you randomly ascribe whatever fits your deal to the flying scorpions, the mark on the right hand, and the hailstones and call it spiritual.

suppose when it says "he who sits on the throne ",under your "rules of nothing literal" a random interpretation would be "oh that just means some king."
We cant make it a literal God the Father

It might not simplify the vernacular as it is used in Revelation 1:1 though in that it explains it's own meaning of it's usage by stating " he signified it by(exactly how) sending it through his angel. So He(Jesus) explains his intention himself.

Maybe not to you, and that's fine... But no one speaks Elizabethan English anymore, and not many minor in literary scholarship.

It can be argued that He is simply "signing" the vision by sending it through an angel...but how can one tell a vision is from the Most High and not a fallen angel pretending to be an angel of light? An angel itself isn't a sign of authenticity.

The confirmation of authenticity is "consistency" with the Almighty, since it's a promise that He doesn't change. So as He has given revelations before is how He gives revelations again, through symbolic visions interpreted by angels.

Daniel is our witness. In chapter after chapter John tells us, "and I saw a sign..." and another sign and another sign.. Sign here means symbolic visions.

The entire Revelation was given through visions that represent something. For example:

The 7-headed beast of Revelation 13 is only explained in Revelation 17 for what it literally represents. Or we go back to chapter 2 and the lamp stands are explained for what they represent...

Yes it is worded differently in the many interpretations but in Greek the word rendered with "by" would be https://biblehub.com/greek/649.htm a verb, to send,I send forth ect. so it seems it is conveying it is signified by sending forth his angel to his servant John.

Ok. I have no problem with what the Greek renders. Whether they're "signed" by way of transference to John by the angel or "sent as signs" representative of something, I think the body of the text bears out that the visions are symbolic. Would you agree or no?

Are you thinking of symbols and spiritually as synonyms of one another before I answer?

And I've been calling the visions/prophecies symbolic. It's something that REALLY HAPPENS in our physical world and in the spiritual world, experienced by real people and heavenly beings respectively, just not as "literally envisioned." That's not how the living God gives visions in past text.

No that was someone else's assumption that I keep trying to explain is not what I'm saying.

See post #284 where I say...


"Symbolic" and "Spiritual" are not synonymous to me. Something is either symbolically described or it is literally described...and that description is either towards something physical (on earth) or something spiritual (in heaven).

For example, say I had a dream of an angel standing in front of me speaking...versus another dreaming of a burning torch hovering in front of me emanating words...

Both dreams describe the angel (a real spirit being) speaking to me, but one is a literal description while the other is symbolic [requiring foreknowledge of the verse about angels being ministers of flames of fire to understand the imagery].

So no, they aren't synonymous to me.

lol, Yes I agree they are not synonyms. These words are often used interchangeably in the threads though so it's better to determine what each person might be thinking they mean when they use them because there are symbols employed throughout Scripture. That's why I used Rev.13:15 and 19:21 as examples in that they are surrounded by symbols(the definition were discussing) but in both cases speaking of a literal fulfillment.

Right. Agreed. So we seem to be saying the same thing regarding definitions. Unfortunately, words often fail us (especially on an online forum) because it's missing other elements of communication like tone and body language, facial expressions, the person's background and way of using words, etc., and then there's maliciously misinterpretating what's said, perpetrated by a few...

Just further proof of the weakness of the letter.

And so in all fairness it should stand out to us that we should be as patient with them as we can because they might not disagree at all if the discussion was in person. Me and an family member were discussing this many years ago because when we read the Scriptures and try to understand the thing that is being conveyed by the writer (Paul for instance) as we all notice every person might think it means something a little different.

I don't know where I came up with it but I said "I have four foot long hairs in my nose" and so he ask me "what?" so I ask him what I meant, did I say I have four hairs in my nose that were a foot long or that all of them were four foot long? lol, we joke about that on the www at times when discussing this issue.

I agree though it's hard to sit in front of a keyboard and type something because someone reading it might not know your laughing,or angry or what. For a long time here I would use "lol" in a lot of post but as time went on a few people made comments about me laughing at them so I tried to slow that down. I don't get angry very easy and was only trying to use "lol" as a way to express lightheartedness(happy) but not everyone saw that so I had to learn not to do that the way I was. It's a lot harder to explain something in a post than what I thought at first.

Lol I initially tried the same thing too when I first joined, to keep things light, but would get accused of having a haughty attitude or comming off as "better than".. I do like to be thought-provoking though.

I agree with your post here wholeheartedly.

-----

Ok inkeeping with this foundation let's.......

Hm...

...I forgot why i contributed to this thread (??) and will need to reread what I initially wrote.

There are several Scriptures in Revelation that any way you try to see them there is no way possible they could be discerned as not being literal here is one of them. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 13:15&version=KJV

So if they do worship the image then it is because they were deceived by the beast/false prophet and so they are then spiritually dead right? And so the beast/FP spiritually slew them correct? Then there are those who do not worship the image and so they are not spiritually dead correct?

Then so if they would not worship the image of the beast and are (not) spiritually dead what is the only possible method that the beast kills them...is it a literal killing or spiritual?

Would you say my credibility was "Absolutely" removed? Lol. Just joshing you.

I'm not sure what assumption you're referring to because it's literally what the text says.

Revelation 1:1
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John"




I'm not sure where this is coming from as I haven't actually shared any interpretation just yet (as least I don't think I have here yet..I'll need to reread my posts...). I'm just sharing how God has done things in past text when it comes to delivering prophecy. He doesn't change (also something the text says).

And I've been calling the visions/prophecies symbolic. It's something that REALLY HAPPENS in our physical world and in the spiritual world, experienced by real people and heavenly beings respectively, just not as "literally envisioned." That's not how the living God gives visions in past text.




You're implying I'm minimalizing truth. No, the opposite. If anything, I'm saying the symbols and signs were given so that we - with our feeble minds and understanding - can grasp the complexity and majesty of it all.

Let's take your example: "he who sits on the throne". Taken on its face one envisions a king sitting in a high chair...but scripture says 'the living God is not a man.'

Scripture also says the living God, Father God is invisible and only the Son declares him.

Scripture also says the living God neither slumbers or sleeps and needs no rest (only resting on the 1st Sabbath as an example to us).

Scripture also describes that the "glory" of the Father is the Son; "the expressed radiance".

Scripture says the living God is 'a consuming fire'.

Scripture details that the ark of the covenant is an earthly representation of the throne in heaven...and it was mercy seated between two cherubim (one on the right and one on the left) with the law as the foundation.

These are too many scriptural truths to limit our understanding of "He who sits on the throne" to what is described in Revelation...

The Living God is Power Himself, Indescribable and Supreme. That's the best I can do to explain what "He who sits on the throne" really means.

I'm not sure what assumption you're referring to because it's literally what the text says.

And I've been calling the visions/prophecies symbolic. It's something that REALLY HAPPENS in our physical world and in the spiritual world, experienced by real people and heavenly beings respectively, just not as "literally envisioned." That's not how the living God gives visions in past text.