Why Do People Speak about a Book of Revelations?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I just checked my aramaic Bible from 165 BC which is 300 years earlier than king james Greek aramaic translated papyrus that the greeks used in 350 AD

If you've got a bible from 165 BC with the book of revelation in there then go to Ebay right now - you hit the jack pot - but don't forget to update yer password - I'd hate to see you get ripped off with this priceless gem you've got.
 
But your definition says revelation, not revelations.

Here is the title: " The Revelation of Jesus Christ"

The name of the book has no S on its end.


It really has to be a slow news week if we're arguing over an "s".

It's not even an "s" that affects doctrine...
we're strictly just talking about poor pronunciation.

Surely, in an entire world of 7 BILLION PEOPLE,
we can find something more important to argue about than pronunciation.
 
It really has to be a slow news week if we're arguing over an "s".

It's not even an "s" that affects doctrine...
we're strictly just talking about poor pronunciation.

Surely, in an entire world of 7 BILLION PEOPLE,
we can find something more important to argue about than pronunciation.

Apparently this particular gnat was bothering ataboy.
 
It really has to be a slow news week if we're arguing over an "s".

It's not even an "s" that affects doctrine...
we're strictly just talking about poor pronunciation.

Surely, in an entire world of 7 BILLION PEOPLE,
we can find something more important to argue about than pronunciation.

It depends on what "is" means?:)

Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):
Advertisement



"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

The distinction between "is" and "was" was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, "There is no improper relationship." Chatterbox confesses that at the time he thought all these beltway domes were hyperanalyzing, and in need of a little fresh air. But it turns out they were right: Bill Clinton really is a guy who's willing to think carefully about "what the meaning of the word 'is' is." This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, "Existential Willie."

Copied from "Chatterbox"
 
His former lady friend seems to have run out of money, because she is trying to sell some new, and to me unreadable, memoirs.
 
Having said and quoted that (jokingly), I do agree there is not a "s" on the end of Revelation. But I have on occasion, mostly due to old habits, said, "Revelations". It is more accurate to leave the "s" off. My brother-in-law was very condescending to me one time, suggesting that, if I did not know there was no "s" then I could not possibly have the insight to understand Revelation. And I agree, I believe that we all need help from the Holy Spirit if we are to completely understand the Revelation.
 
Sorry, I let the comment take me where it did? :) But I immediately came back.

I also realized that my Ms. unmentionable episode was off topic. The book of Revelation has some of the most encouraging passages in the whole Bible. Chapter 21, for example...
 
The title of this thread led me to believe it was a sincere question on the content of the Book, Revelation, not a criticism of the grammar, typo, or understanding of another or others.

It did not bother me that it was written, Revelation, in the plural because I understand when people use the plural. As a child, I did too, so I accept this word as from children of the Most High God, Yahweh. Yahweh bless all in Yeshua, Jesus. He understood when I thought in terms of Revelations, and He also knows I understand very little of the revelations given in Revelation.
 
I also realized that my Ms. unmentionable episode was off topic. The book of Revelation has some of the most encouraging passages in the whole Bible. Chapter 21, for example...

Yes, although you probably won't agree with me? That is okay. If we are wrong about prophecy, I don't believe that we are condemned. So whether it is you or I that is wrong, we are saved through the blood of Jesus Christ, if we accept Him as our Savior.

I see a lot of the church in Revelation 21 and 22. He talks about the bride (the church) and making all things new. This part, I am sure we agree on. But, I see it as the establishment of the church. And the new heaven and new earth being set up in the first century. I find that very encouraging. But many do not share this view or anything close to it. I have been called a heretic for thinking this way. I do not claim that Jesus will not come back, but even if He doesn't, we will all be saved through Him or judged by Him. Revelation seems to scream fulfillment of prophecy, destruction of the "old system", and the bringing in of the new, which is the Church. Not that He has rejected Israel (individuals, I mean*), but has given them the same choice as the rest of the world, Jesus Christ.

* Ephesians 2:11-22
[SUP]11 [/SUP]Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— [SUP]12 [/SUP]remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. [SUP]13 [/SUP]But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. [SUP]14 [/SUP]For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, [SUP]15 [/SUP]by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, [SUP]16 [/SUP]and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. [SUP]17 [/SUP]And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; [SUP]18 [/SUP]for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. [SUP]19 [/SUP]So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, [SUP]20 [/SUP]having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, [SUP]21 [/SUP]in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, [SUP]22 [/SUP]in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

I do not write this to confront or cause distress. I enjoy reading and listening to the bible? I have great joy in having peaceful discussions about the bible. Though, it seems, many tend to get out of hand. I understand this. We are passionate about Jesus and don't like it when someone says something that seems to disregard scripture.

I often think of the verse, "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise." (1 Corinthians 3:18) This verse really gets to me. I think that I must not be so sure of what I know that I cannot learn the Truth. This is hard because we don't want to let go of something that we have believed so long.

Example:
I have believed my whole life that Jesus was the Son of God and not God himself (Not that He is not God, being the Son of God). I am aware of the scriptures that say there is only One God. But I also know that there are scriptures that suggests Plurality. I do not want to get off topic. Nor am I trying to persuade you one way or the other, as I haven't settled on either one of these views myself. It is just hard to let go of something that you have always "known". And, quite honestly, are not sure that you should let go. Again, I know you will want to make a comment on this, but I don't want to totally go off on a tangent (from the topic on this thread).
 
Last edited:
It may be a revelation to us now a singular revelation of a truth. But for John it was several revelations hence the title of the book of revelations. Who cares. If the Bible had another name would it still not be the Bible. Is the good book considered the bible depends on who you ask. Word play and typos happened still do, how does that stop the content? Sheesh! I'm just about fed up with foolish questions that seem to have meaning but have no purpose. One revelation can contain many revelations!1 Just a thought
 
Why Do people speak about "Revelations."
There is no such book in the Bible.
If someone starts talking about the book of "Revelations,"
others may think that such persons doesn't know much about it,
since there is no such book.

Funny enough it's the same in dutch: most people prefer to call the last book of the Bible 'Openbaringen' (plural) although the name of book clearly is 'Openbaring' (singular). So maybe (because it also occurs in the dutch language) I should start a thread on this phenomenon myself, I mean: this is FASCINATING stuff. :rolleyes:
 
Question: Should we quote a verse taking it out of context, chapter, and/or book? Some people are cautious. (Talking about Revelation).
 
Question: Should we quote a verse taking it out of context,chapter, and book? Some people are cautious.

The Bible's chapters were not put in until the Middle Ages, and the verses were not put in until the 16th century.
It's the whole passage that is inspired.

Blessings.
 
The Bible's chapters were not put in until the Middle Ages, and the verses were not put in until the 16th century.
It's the whole passage that is inspired.

Blessings.

No brother, I'm talking about Revelation in connection to verse 22:18-19.