Isn't the Book of Revelation just a fable and not literal?

[polonius]

http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/0

Introduction to Revelation " New American Bible Revised Edition

This much, however, is certain: symbolic descriptions are not to be taken as literal descriptions, nor is the symbolism meant to be pictured realistically. One would find it difficult and repulsive to visualize a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes; yet Jesus Christ is described in precisely such words (Rev 5:6). The author used these images to suggest Christs universal (seven) power (horns) and knowledge (eyes). A significant feature of apocalyptic writing is the use of symbolic colors, metals, garments (Rev 1:13"16; 3:18; 4:4; 6:1"8; 17:4; 19:8), and numbers (four signifies the world, six imperfection, seven totality or perfection, twelve Israels tribes or the apostles, one thousand immensity). Finally the vindictive language in the book (Rev 6:9"10; 18:1"19:4) is also to be understood symbolically and not literally. The cries for vengeance on the lips of Christian martyrs that sound so harsh are in fact literary devices the author employed to evoke in the reader and hearer a feeling of horror for apostasy and rebellion that will be severely punished by God.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 86 by Checkpoint]

Peace to you Checkpoint!


Could you elaborate on that?


For example, what vision you believe this is the first part OF, and what might be the second (or more) parts?


thank you!

Peace again!

Sure. My elaboration will prepare for the answer to your twofold question.

I see Revelation as a series of visions that convey spiritual realities, often in metaphorical language, concerning things that are, and that are to come [1:19].


The immediate context of our passage is the opening of the sixth seal and what that reveals through to the end of chapter 7.

The sixth seal reveals and illustrates the answer to its own question found in 6:17, "who shall be able to stand?" in the coming day of wrath.

Those unable to stand are the lost, as portrayed in the first vision, in 6:12-17.

Those able to stand[7:9] are the saved, as portrayed in the second vision, contained in the whole of chapter 17, which is divided into three parts, verses 1-3; 4-8; 9-17.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 88 by onewithhim]

However, the number 12 can logically be thought of as literal, as we see when we consider the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 Apostles, and 12 gates around the temple (see Rev.21:12-14).

I think there can be both literal and metaphorical passages in the Bible, as it is easy to see for example in Matthew's Gospel.....Jesus tells allegorical/metaphorical stories or parables and he also speaks some pretty literal things, e.g., about the hypocrisy of the religious leaders.

A vision is not speaking plainly but conveys its truths in non-literal ways, including numbers; as in the 12 gates, for example.

Numberss 12:

6 He said, Listen to My words:

When there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, reveal Myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.

7 But this is not true of My servant Moses;
he is faithful in all My house.

8 With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.

Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?

[polonius]

Checkpoint posted:

A vision is not speaking plainly but conveys its truths in non-literal ways, including numbers; as in the 12 gates, for example.

RESPONSE: "truths"??? "a"vision" which is not speaking plainly??? What is the obvious conclusion about the reliability of the "truths" of this "vision"?

[marco]

Men have been twisting scriptures to advance their special views for a long time. Anyway, I have to ask: Are you saying that we have to look at the Scriptures as all literal OR all metaphorical?

Sometimes it is quite clear when a metaphor is being used and Christ liked figurative language. However, when we deal with something where people are in dispute about figurative and literal, it is hard to see how we come to an objective view. We are ruled by our own prejudices, surely.

The RC Church extracts an interpretation that fits their dogma; so do you. What's the difference?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 94 by marco]

The best strategy is to "Let the bible interpret itself" meaning there are usually enough clues in if one takes the bible as a whole( perhaps in other bible bookss) to decipher the less easily understood verses. That's the Jehovah's witness methodology anyway.

JW

[marco]

[Replying to post 94 by marco]

The best strategy is to "Let the bible interpret itself" meaning there are usually enough clues in if one takes the bible as a whole( perhaps in other bible bookss) to decipher the less easily understood verses. That's the Jehovah's witness methodology anyway.

If "Let the Bible interpret itself" made obvious sense, then I'm sure this stratagem would pay dividends. I have immersed myself in the complexities of translating Russian and ancient languages; I've fought with obscure integral equations and played with series involving complex numbers and puzzling infinities; I've attempted to understand Fischer's treatment of the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez against Gligoric; I think I have mastered the French subjunctive adequately and have had my adolescence tested on historical dates from Solon to the present, taking in something called the gabelle in the French Revolution, Simon of Sudbury in the Peasants' revolt and Rotten Boroughs in England; I have with modest success produced Sapphics, villanelles and even a palindromic haiku. So why on earth would I have any difficulty deciphering the statements in the Bible? Do we require two heads?

I can often see WHY you would take a particular interpretation. And just as often I can disagree. It seems preposterous to decare "This is correct because I say so." At the very least one should concede there are several interpretations.

But I agree, the RC Church for example believes she has the singularly correct interpretation and she believes this because Jesus gave her the authority so to believe. He hasn't given me such authority.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 96 by marco]

I'm sorry I just thought you might be interested in my input. I'm afraid I don't understand a lot of your post but I would just like to clarify that I didn't say we had any definitive interpretation, sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses don't claim infallibility.

Sorry I didn't make that clear, please forgive that oversight. Anyway, just ignore my post, just adding my 2c.

JW

[Checkpoint]

Checkpoint posted:

A vision is not speaking plainly but conveys its truths in non-literal ways, including numbers; as in the 12 gates, for example.

RESPONSE: "truths"??? "a"vision" which is not speaking plainly??? What is the obvious conclusion about the reliability of the "truths" of this "vision"?

That those truths can only be recognised, believed, and appreciated, by those with eyes to see and ears to hear what the Spirit says.

The issue is not the truths or the visions, but the responses that people give.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 88 by onewithhim]

However, the number 12 can logically be thought of as literal, as we see when we consider the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 Apostles, and 12 gates around the temple (see Rev.21:12-14).

I think there can be both literal and metaphorical passages in the Bible, as it is easy to see for example in Matthew's Gospel.....Jesus tells allegorical/metaphorical stories or parables and he also speaks some pretty literal things, e.g., about the hypocrisy of the religious leaders.

A vision is not speaking plainly but conveys its truths in non-literal ways, including numbers; as in the 12 gates, for example.

Numberss 12:

6 He said, Listen to My words:

When there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, reveal Myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.

7 But this is not true of My servant Moses;
he is faithful in all My house.

8 With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.

Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?

Yes, I agree, but what about the literal 12 tribes and 12 Apostles being mentioned?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 94 by marco]

The best strategy is to "Let the bible interpret itself" meaning there are usually enough clues in if one takes the bible as a whole( perhaps in other bible bookss) to decipher the less easily understood verses. That's the Jehovah's witness methodology anyway.

If "Let the Bible interpret itself" made obvious sense, then I'm sure this stratagem would pay dividends. I have immersed myself in the complexities of translating Russian and ancient languages; I've fought with obscure integral equations and played with series involving complex numbers and puzzling infinities; I've attempted to understand Fischer's treatment of the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez against Gligoric; I think I have mastered the French subjunctive adequately and have had my adolescence tested on historical dates from Solon to the present, taking in something called the gabelle in the French Revolution, Simon of Sudbury in the Peasants' revolt and Rotten Boroughs in England; I have with modest success produced Sapphics, villanelles and even a palindromic haiku. So why on earth would I have any difficulty deciphering the statements in the Bible? Do we require two heads?

I can often see WHY you would take a particular interpretation. And just as often I can disagree. It seems preposterous to decare "This is correct because I say so." At the very least one should concede there are several interpretations.

But I agree, the RC Church for example believes she has the singularly correct interpretation and she believes this because Jesus gave her the authority so to believe. He hasn't given me such authority.

JW has explained it as well I as could. I also have to mention that the Bible is a different type of canon than worldly writings. It is to be understood with the help of the Holy Spirit, and physical-minded individuals cannot get it, because "it is foolishness to them."

"A physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually." (I Corinthians 2:14)

Jesus encouraged all to seek their spiritual needs, so he understood the importance of being spiritually-minded. (Matthew 5:3)

I commend you for your in-depth work with other languages. It is a very good thing, to have knowledge of other languages. I wish I had the patience to learn. I have spent years trying to learn German and I can't stick with it. I would just love to learn Hebrew and Greek!

BTW, the Catholic Church considers Revelation (Apocalypse) to be something that can't be understood, so their claim on having God's direction in interpreting the Bible is suspect. They also differ with the Genesis account, and honor the thinking of Hawking and other evolutionists and atheists.