I finished chapter nine this morn, and will wait to read on. Thought I would come back to this thread and catch up a little. I stopped reading after page 14.
It is sad, amusing, and disheartening all at the same time to see most of these posts. So many have
opinions about Revelation that don't even understand simple bible doctrine. So many are spouting what they have been taught or learned from man as gospel about this book. And then some here are just getting a thrill our of seeing their name as the author of posts.
Revelation wasn't meant for any and all christians to understand.
Revelation 10:4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.
I am confident that if we could completely understand this book we would know the time of the end, and no man knows that. Revelation and understanding about it will continue until that last day, when all will be revealed to us.
So many here have put forth this author, or that writing, as an authority on the book. I mention F. G. Smith, not as a know all of Revelation, but as a man that understands symbolism quite well. Clearly he was a man of God, but he, like so many others, leans to his own understanding when the Spirit stops revealing to him. If you read his complete "The Revelation Explained" you will see that he had no knowledge or understanding of the destructive technology that man has today. Just because he was right about part of it doesn't mean he is right about all of it. So many times one allows the old man, self, to step in and offer an explanation instead of admitting their own ignorance.
If I know something about the bible I will not hesitate to speak about it. If I don't know, I will admit it right up front. Some people just get too full of themselves, too puffed up, to admit their own lack of knowledge - even to themselves.
I'll say this - if you don't understand symbolism and
when it is being used, you have no business trying to teach on this book.
I started this to further my own understanding of the book. The OP is something that many of you glossed over and simply didn't think about. Understanding that John started this book with spiritual revelation on earth and then was spiritually transported to heaven is important. There is a time division there, and what happened in the first 3 chapters is to be understood in a different light of the rest of the book.
Past the 3rd chapter there is very little to be taken literally. I will post part of Smith's explanation on symbolism and encourage you to actually read it. It is a bit long but it is eye opening. If you don't read anything else, read that much.
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.
The Revelation Explained by F. Smith - Full Text Free Book (Part 1/7)