P
I am no prophecy scholar, nor, for that matter, even a student. I have no special insight to it nor do I claim to. I do, however, recognize when someone does. I am going to put up some of a book by just such a man, and altho I do not agree with all he has to say aboutit, mush of what he says cannot be denied as truth. The first thing he will tell us is how symbolim works, and he hits it dead center. All that I post here will be from The Revelation Explained, by F. G. Smith.
The Revelation Explained by F. Smith - Full Text Free Book (Part 1/7)
"Nature of Symbolic Language.
Before proceeding with the interpretation of this wonderful book, it
will be necessary for us to pause and make inquiry concerning the nature
of the language employed in its prophecies and concerning the mode of
its interpretation. It will be seen at a glance that it is wholly unlike
the common language of life; and it will be useless for us to undertake
to ascertain its signification unless we understand perfectly the
principles upon which it is founded.
The question may be asked, "Is the language intelligible at all?"
Considering the variety of interpretations placed upon it by expositors
and the opinions generally held respecting it, we might conclude that it
is not. The majority of the people look upon these prophecies as "a mass
of unintelligible enigmas," and are ready to tell the student of
Revelation that this book "either finds or leaves a man mad." But are we
to look upon its language as being applied at a venture, without any
definite rule, capable of every variety of meaning, so that we can never
be quite _sure_ that we have its correct interpretation?
Commentators generally unite in attaching a definite meaning to certain
symbols, and they tell us that these can not be applied otherwise
without violating their nature. They may not give us their reasons for
thus applying them (in fact, they generally do not), yet it is evidently
assumed that such reasons do exist. Now, if reasons actually exist why a
definite signification must be applied to the symbol in the one case,
why do they not exist in another case, and in all cases? If any law
exists in the case at all, it is a uniform one, for a law that does not
possess uniformity is no law; otherwise, it would be an unintelligible
revelation, and the only possible thing left for us to do would be to
attempt to solve it like a riddle--guess it out. It would be as if the
writer were to use words with every variety of meaning peculiarly his
own attached, without informing the reader what signification to give
them in a given instance. No man has a right thus to abuse written or
spoken language; and we may take it for granted that the God of heaven
would not make such an indiscriminate use of symbolical language when
making a revelation to men. There is no other book the wide world around
in which language is as carefully employed as in the Bible; and we can
rest assured that when God gave this Revelation to Jesus Christ "to
_show_ unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass," he
made choice of proper symbols whose meaning can be definitely evolved,
provided we can but ascertain the great underlying principles upon which
their original selection was based.
In the ordinary communication of our thoughts we employ arbitrary signs
and sounds to which we have universally agreed to fix a definite
meaning. Thus, our entire spoken language is made up of a great variety
of sounds or words with which by long practise we have become familiar.
We call a certain object a horse, not because there is any similarity
between the sound and the animal designated, but because we have agreed
that that sound shall represent that object. So, also, we have agreed
that the characters h-o-r-s-e shall represent the same thing; and by the
use of twenty-six characters, called the alphabet, placed together in
various combinations, we are able to write our entire spoken language.
The incidents connected with the introduction of written language among
a barbarous people are worthy of remark in this connection. That thought
can be conveyed to persons at a distance by the use of certain
cabalistic characters seems to them incredible, and when compelled to
believe it, they look upon the person that can accomplish such wonders
as embodying something supernatural. These things I mention merely to
call attention to the fact that spoken and written language is a curious
and wonderfully complicated affair. This is brought forcibly to our
minds when we hear persons conversing in a foreign tongue, or when we
pick up a book the characters of which are wholly unlike those of our
own language. To us an English book is full of instinctive beauty, every
letter or mark possessing a definite meaning that is instantly conveyed
to our minds, because we have become familiar with them by diligent
study and practise."
This is the opening of the book, and it is much more detailed than the small part I have posted. I encourage everyone involved in this discussion to read what this man has to say. It is in depth and clearly he had spiritual guidance while undertaking it.
The Revelation Explained by F. Smith - Full Text Free Book (Part 1/7)
"Nature of Symbolic Language.
Before proceeding with the interpretation of this wonderful book, it
will be necessary for us to pause and make inquiry concerning the nature
of the language employed in its prophecies and concerning the mode of
its interpretation. It will be seen at a glance that it is wholly unlike
the common language of life; and it will be useless for us to undertake
to ascertain its signification unless we understand perfectly the
principles upon which it is founded.
The question may be asked, "Is the language intelligible at all?"
Considering the variety of interpretations placed upon it by expositors
and the opinions generally held respecting it, we might conclude that it
is not. The majority of the people look upon these prophecies as "a mass
of unintelligible enigmas," and are ready to tell the student of
Revelation that this book "either finds or leaves a man mad." But are we
to look upon its language as being applied at a venture, without any
definite rule, capable of every variety of meaning, so that we can never
be quite _sure_ that we have its correct interpretation?
Commentators generally unite in attaching a definite meaning to certain
symbols, and they tell us that these can not be applied otherwise
without violating their nature. They may not give us their reasons for
thus applying them (in fact, they generally do not), yet it is evidently
assumed that such reasons do exist. Now, if reasons actually exist why a
definite signification must be applied to the symbol in the one case,
why do they not exist in another case, and in all cases? If any law
exists in the case at all, it is a uniform one, for a law that does not
possess uniformity is no law; otherwise, it would be an unintelligible
revelation, and the only possible thing left for us to do would be to
attempt to solve it like a riddle--guess it out. It would be as if the
writer were to use words with every variety of meaning peculiarly his
own attached, without informing the reader what signification to give
them in a given instance. No man has a right thus to abuse written or
spoken language; and we may take it for granted that the God of heaven
would not make such an indiscriminate use of symbolical language when
making a revelation to men. There is no other book the wide world around
in which language is as carefully employed as in the Bible; and we can
rest assured that when God gave this Revelation to Jesus Christ "to
_show_ unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass," he
made choice of proper symbols whose meaning can be definitely evolved,
provided we can but ascertain the great underlying principles upon which
their original selection was based.
In the ordinary communication of our thoughts we employ arbitrary signs
and sounds to which we have universally agreed to fix a definite
meaning. Thus, our entire spoken language is made up of a great variety
of sounds or words with which by long practise we have become familiar.
We call a certain object a horse, not because there is any similarity
between the sound and the animal designated, but because we have agreed
that that sound shall represent that object. So, also, we have agreed
that the characters h-o-r-s-e shall represent the same thing; and by the
use of twenty-six characters, called the alphabet, placed together in
various combinations, we are able to write our entire spoken language.
The incidents connected with the introduction of written language among
a barbarous people are worthy of remark in this connection. That thought
can be conveyed to persons at a distance by the use of certain
cabalistic characters seems to them incredible, and when compelled to
believe it, they look upon the person that can accomplish such wonders
as embodying something supernatural. These things I mention merely to
call attention to the fact that spoken and written language is a curious
and wonderfully complicated affair. This is brought forcibly to our
minds when we hear persons conversing in a foreign tongue, or when we
pick up a book the characters of which are wholly unlike those of our
own language. To us an English book is full of instinctive beauty, every
letter or mark possessing a definite meaning that is instantly conveyed
to our minds, because we have become familiar with them by diligent
study and practise."
This is the opening of the book, and it is much more detailed than the small part I have posted. I encourage everyone involved in this discussion to read what this man has to say. It is in depth and clearly he had spiritual guidance while undertaking it.
