Question about Revelation

[mohammadibnyaqub]

I have read it too, makes perfect sense to me. The verse you posted is pretty simple to understand whats the reason behind you posting it? You dont necessarily need to read the hadeeths, sometimes they are placed to make it even more simple to understand the word of God.

[jhall38]

You are a great storyteller. I love the voice. The dramatic quality of your read brings out the meanigs of the text well. This rendering of the book was moving. This reminds me that our own lives are texts read by men. The loving ones who turn towards us, recognizing the possibilities inherent in us, fully attentive to the other, make ways in which there are true meetings. Thanks for meeting with the writer of the book and being open to the possibilities of that other. You are a communicator.

[SupositoryRepository]

Thanks for not being a premillennial dispensationalist. How they became the dominant voice in American Christian eschatology is beyond me.

The fact is John of Patmos wrote his epistle to the 7 churches from a Roman prison. He couldn't say in plain language that the Romans were coming to persecute them,that would be subversion. The Romans would've destroyed his letters. Writing in Hebraic Apocalyptic writing, it looked like nonsense to the Romans but the [largely Hebrew] believers understood it.

[ndyt]

if the bible or quran were from a god that cared about us then he/she would have updated it by now so it wouldn't be so hard to understand.

[mohammadibnyaqub]

@ndyt the Quran isn't hard to understand; for people of understanding, it is clear and simple. shop around for the Noble Quran translated by Muhsin Khan and Taqi ud Din Hilali. Google Muslim Outreach, they will actually send you one for free (depending on levels of stock) If you honestly tell me you can't understand that, then you really would need to go back to primary school and be re-educated.

[ndyt]

@mohammadibnyaqub, I have read it and if you think it is easy to understand then you haven't read it because anyone who has read it will notice 2 things about it right away: 1) it is not in chronological order 2) you have to read the hadiths to understand it because so many things are left out.

Surah 98.6:

Verily, those who disbelieve in the Prophet from among the people of the book (jews and christians) and Al-Mushrikun will will abide in the fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

[postsimianproduct]

I agree. There's no way anyone who reads Revelation can honestly conclude that it was meant to be taken literally. -- a biblically-literate atheist.

[andersfresh]

12:7 My servant Moses [is] not so, who [is] faithful in all mine house.

12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

get it? they dont want ppl to worship them but the I am that I am (the holy spirit the supreme creator of the universe that is their/our god), that's why they in many cases speak through visions and dreams in the bible.

[andersfresh]

whenever it is a dream the vision is symbolic.. and when it is symbolic description of a physical event that is going to take place, and when it is very easy to see.. the example stated in this video is very good, where there's a lamb with 7 eyes. whenever it is not it is a description of a physical event. That's the cipher.

[Leiflton]

yeah and often it explains the particular symbol (ie the seven eyes/horns are the seven spirits of God sent forth throughout the earth.)

but i think the first white horse is the antichrist...and he went forth "conquering and to conquer."

it says in Daniel he will "by peace DESTROY (ie conquer) many."

then he becomes the second horseman, and takes "peace from the earth."

this is why it says "they will cry PEACE and SAFETY and SUDDEN DESTRUCTION COMETH UPON THEM."

[StopFear]

THank you TogetherForPeace, please make more videos/responses. Very interesting

[orcodrilo]

Explaining metaphoric language though a metaphor does not really clear the picture.

[Maggieamin]

If you ever need a logical quiet mature discussion with a muslim, pls. let me know.

[connerjd]

I believe the bible to be a symbolic book.

[kylekage13]

A great critique on the book. I enjoyed it.

[gerinja]

Amen, my brother.

there are many things in the book of Revelations that could probably be easily understood, interpreted, and makes perfect sense; however I have found that there are still some verses that leave me puzzled though. but that is ok, i think some things will be revealed when the time comes, and God reveals the secrets to us.

I like your videos, great as always

God bless all

[NoTrueScotsman]

If the Book of Revelation can be taken figuratively, why can't the resurrection of Jesus be taken figuratively?

[TheAmazingImbecile]

The Gospels were not written figuratively, and Paul stressed the importance of the resurrection in his epistles. It's rather easy to tell why one should take the resurrection of Jesus literally, just as it is rather easy to tell that Revelation is apocalyptic, were you to read the Gospels/Epistles compared to the Book of Revelation.

[David578593]

amen bro

[Barklord]

bless you, dude!

[BurntTreeProduct]

You grown a good beard, I'll give you that haha

[Christisms]

Good video! Of course the Lamb of God has seven eyes and seven horns, seven is the number of divinity. The eyes represent the Lamb sees with the eyes of God and the horns represents that the Lamb's power and authority is that of God. I find Jewish scholars who studied the Book of Revelation and can see the strong Aramaic imagery throughout this whole book. This shows the Christians who read this could fully understand the imagery.

[thejette61]

I love when you teach. Anyone listening to you can tell that you are very intelligent. I like your analogies.

[siekertr21]

Jack you should really go to bed at a better hour, all of your videos typically show up at 2am CST.

[Soul4JC]

Maranatha..

[Youdannny]

Great video. I'd love to see more videos like this, where you just explain how to put things in the bible in the right context rather than get sucked into arguments with athiest that won't really go anywhere.

[anonymolol]

religious people never cease to amaze me in the way they always manage to make the end of the world sound so beautiful

[Soul4JC]

Depends on which side you're on.

[anonymolol]

indeed. thanks god, for creating these arbitrary "sides", and for punishing those who are so imprisoned by reason and logic that they cannot be on the "good" side.

thanks.

[Soul4JC]

You're funny, but reason and logic (if you truly go by that) would tell you that what you see (eg.nature) can never be in such perfect harmony by "accident" or "natural selection". Logic would tell you that a book (Bible), as old as it is, could never predict the future so accurately by pure "coincidence". If you wanna believe that this is all an accident and that we have no purpose but to live, go through hell, die and wither away into "nothingness", that's your choice. The proof is out there.

[anonymolol]

i never said i believed this was all an accident. we've been over this in our private communications, but i'm pretty sure none of what i took the time to write to you ever sunk in.

[Soul4JC]

I guess what I said didn't sink in either.

[anonymolol]

what are you referring to, exactly? because from what i can tell, i answered every single one of your questions honestly, whereas you dodged pretty much all of mine.

[siekertr21]

Jack has covered this before but I'll bring it up again. Why do you assume that reason and logic are on the side of the atheist? Don't you think that I too feel compelled by reason and logic to believe in Christ?

[anonymolol]

i guess it depends on our definition of reason and logic, then.

[siekertr21]

It really doesn't depend on that. I would say that it is reasonable and logical to believe that Jesus is God. You would disagree. So when you claim rights to logic and reason, you do so on false grounds.

[anonymolol]

it is just as reasonable and logical to believe that jesus is god as it is reasonable and logical to believe that he is not (just ask a muslim or a jew). so if a statement can both be stated to be true and not true at the same time, then what can we say about the nature of the statement?

[siekertr21]

I would say that it takes a certain faith to believe it to be true or untrue. Simply because two sides differ, does not mean that the subject as a whole is pointless. I personally believe that ultimately one of us is right and the other wrong. MY reason dictates to me that Jesus is God. My conclusion is no more or no less noble than your own.

[anonymolol]

it does take faith to say that it is false, which is why i referred you to the muslim or the jew. for me, i classify the statement "jesus is god" as "unverifiable".

do you see the difference?

[anonymolol]

it was a simple yes or no question. btw, i like your videos. which realm do you play on? i'm on staghelm/horde. (level 80 priest ^_^)

[MajeauX]

Now, from a doubter's standpoint, couching a prophecy in vagueness allows anything that fits the description vaguely to fulfill the prophecy, and it allows plausible deniability should the prophecy "appear" to come about but not result in the desired outcome. "J will kill J" could apply to Joe and John if one of them dies, or it could remain valid if they only seriously wound one another (or perhaps it meant "kill" as in "killed his spirit", etc.)

[MajeauX]

From an apologetic standpoint, prophecies would come in a vague form because if they were concrete and real it would prevent the event from happening. If I predicted that Joe would kill John, then both Joe and John would be in on the details and would subsequently avoid the confrontation if they didn't want that event to happen. Couching the prophecy in vagueness allows it to come to pass without impacting the way in which things ought to happen.

[StopFear]

this is great, can't wait for Jesus to come back

[Soul4JC]

Amen! Gotta be ready though.. Like the virgin that always kept the oil in her lamp filled.

[PtrFmls]

Yeah, the quality of the Revelation is really far out. Like a psychedelic experience. Anyting but gray and boring. I think this text is a worthy vehicle for christian experience. Something strong, intoxicating and vibrant.

[ibtrippen]

So, why does the lamb have seven eyes?

[MajeauX]

Seven was seen as a holy number. I'm not up to snuff on the contextual meaning of eyes and horns at the time of authorship, but seven eyes would imply divine vision, seven horns divine leadership.

[ibtrippen]

Okay. Thanks.

[rd1999]

nice beard, content...not so much

[EternalAlert]

A real god could use words that transcend time and culture.

[PtrFmls]

But then again, it is humans - flesh and blood - that wrote those texts. Inspired - yes, but still... human beings like you and me.

[siekertr21]

It also goes to show that our language isn't as amazing as we thought it was. Jesus had to speak in parables to describe certain things to us that we would otherwise not understand. Why? Because we don't have language for it.

[PtrFmls]

It is written somewhere [in the B] that he spoke in parables because he didn't want to be understood by everybody. He didn't like the pharisees for instance (the leading group in his time!), he thought they were corrupt.

[siekertr21]

I'm sure Jesus didn't "dislike" them. But I follow.

[teacherofpeace]

@PtrFmls The scripture your thinking of is Matt. 13:10-17. God bless you, after reading I pray you see that and all that read it, that it wasnt because He did like them. In fact the contrary; Matt 23:37

Peace and may the Lord enlighten the eyes of your understanding.

[hellavadeal]

One cannot understand Shakespear with our modern launguage and understandings. To understand it we need to understand the way people lived and talked back then. Same with the scriptures.

Thanks Jack.

[gothatfunk]

oh goodie! talk about Revelation, my favourite book in the Bible. i've read that one so may times, cos i find it fascinating.

first off, Jack i have some sympathy with your willingness to be open to imagery and symbolism within Revelation. as a person whose writings (and videos) rely heavily on metaphor, i could not reject such a writing technique based purely on its style.

anyway, Revelation IMO, indisputably cannot be approached from a literalist standpoint.

(continued)

[gothatfunk]

the problem, and its a BIG problem, is that since it relies on interpretation, we are at the mercy of the interpretator.

before you say the Spirit will interpret, i must counter that i know MANY christians who don't read the Revelation, because they find it too confusing. why? should not their Spirit be informing them what it all means?

i've heard as many interpretations of revelation as i've had conversations about revelation. to me, that says it all.

[gothatfunk]

LOL @ my accidental Bush-ism - interpretator.

obviously i meant "interpretor"

[randyhelzerman]

Great video. I don't think that the stories in revelation are any more phantasmigorical than the stories modern physicists are telling us; e.g. Schroedinger's cat. The coolest thing about revelation is this: we have many collection of letters from antiquity (cicero's letters, pauls letters) AND we have many apocalypses from antiquity (the book of daniel, the book of enoch, etc). But we only have one apocalypse which is put in the form of a letter collection! (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to Jack) because the book of revelation was written very early, this is evidence that Paul's letters were also not just written very early, but collected very early and were known to the christian community in a collection of (probably 7) letters. (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to Jack) Asking what the "real" meaning or the "one and only" meaning of the 4 horsement is is kind of like asking what is the "real" meaning of 2+2-4? "Don't give me this crap about 2+2=4 could mean that 2 beers + 2 beers= 4 beers or 2 dollars + 2 dollars = 4 dollars ---don't give me this allegorical crap..." anything anybody says has multiple meanings.

[4McClain]

Randy, Assuming that John and revelation share the same author. Do you think that revelation was written before John?

[randyhelzerman]

Hi 4McClain, well, we know that the gospel of John was not written by 1 person, but was changed and revised over at least 2 generations, and probably 3, of authors. We know this because not all manuscripts of John have the same contents (for example, the earliest copies we have do not have the story of the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus gives his classic "cast the first stone" rebuke.) So its very likely that Revelation was being written either at the same time (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to 4McClain) as one of these later revisions of the gospel of John was being written, or perhaps a few years after it was finalized. But parts of the Gospel of John are probaby very old, in particular, the opening hymn where jesus is equated to being the logos--that hymn was probably was written soon after the resurrection and was probabloy sung for years before the rest of the gospel of john was written.

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to 4McClain) As to whether John of Patmos was the Apostle John, probably not---the apostle john lived a long time, but he probably did not live to see the collection of Paul's letters (which the first part of revelation is clearly patterned after). But John of Patmos might very well have been one of the final revisers of the Gospel of John. At the very least, we know that he knew about the Gospel of John, because he equates jesus with "the word" (logos) like the Gospel of john does.

[jemerson85]

Randy, I'm sure you are aware, but some of the statements you're making are a bit presumptuous. There are many decent cases for the authorship, dating, and composition of the Johannine literature which differs greatly from all the "probably" statements you just set forth.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi jemerson85, as far as I know, those statements reflect the majority view of new testament scholarship today. If you've got some updated info about any one of them, it would be cool to hear it; new information is always comming to light about these texts.

[jemerson85]

Randy, I don't have any "updated" info per se. I just have well-researched, scholarly positions which differ greatly from the ones that you're putting forth as a "majority" position. Could you properly cite a scholarly work that specifically outlines your position as the "majority view"?

[randyhelzerman]

Sure, asking for references is alway in order. Most of this informationw as gleaned from the references given in the website "early christian writings" (just google for it) and in classes from the teaching company given by Bart ehreman and Luke Timothy Johnson. Note that Dr. Johnson is a very devout believer, so none of the views given above are incompatible with a very robust faith. Do you have a specific view I've outlined which you disagree with? If so, what's your source?

[jemerson85]

I'm not asking for names of scholars that support your view. I'm asking for a scholarly *citation* that *specifically states* yours to be the "majority view". One source in particular, Kenneth Gentry's book "Before Jerusalem Fell", is in stark opposition to your position. Ben Witherington, another New Testament scholar states that Ehrman "does not represent what might be called a majority view" (benwitherington [dot] blogspot [dot] com/2009/04/bart-interrupted-d­etailed-analysis-of [dot] html).

[randyhelzerman]

Hi jemerson85, I did give you specific references. The web page in question lists out hundreds of such; for example, that Revelation was patterned after Pauls letter collection comes from a reference on that page to Norman Perrin's book "The new Testament: and introduction p. 81-82". The courses too were specific references: they are audio recordings available from the teaching company. As to a blog which says that ehrman doesn't represent the majority view, well, (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to jemmerson85) that's about as out there as a blog which would say that hawking doesn't represent the majority view of physicists.

[jemerson85]

As you'll note, the Perrin reference does not state itself as a "majority view". Thus, if you actually have a specific, scholarly citation that states your position as a "majority view", please share it. Otherwise, you ought to retract your statement that it is. Furthermore, the Witherington article is not just "a blog". He's a highly respected scholar with a Ph.D. in New Testament. To dismiss his lengthy criticism of Ehrman's research by way of a weak analogy is, at best, disingenuous.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi jemerson85, Whether somebody agrees with the majority view is not determined by one person honking on a blog. One person cannot declair their own views a majority. I've given you a list of literally hundreds of citations of scholarly work which support the assertions I've described above, many of them are online and you can go read them for yourself. Look up The gospel of john in any encyclopedia and you'll find what I've said is quite consistent with what is presented there.

[jemerson85]

"One person cannot declair their own views a majority."

Haha. That's quite ironic because that's EXACTLY what Bart Ehrman does.

the perspectives that I present in the following chapters are not my own idiosyncratic views of the Bible. They are the views that have held sway for many, many years among the majority of serious critical scholars teaching in universities and seminaries of North America and Europe" (Jesus Interrupted, Page 2).

[randyhelzerman]

Right, it doesn't make it true just because Eherman proclaims it true, but by the same token, it doesn't make it false that Witherington proclaims if false, right? To determine whether its true or not, you have to actually do some work; you have to read up on what all the other scholars are saying, and see if it jibes with what Eherman also says. That's exactly why I though it was important to point you to a substantial body of citations, and not just one or two citations.

[jemerson85]

That is fair enough. However, my issue is that the sources you are citating are by and large, if not entirely, liberal sources. You seem to have omitted conservative scholarship from any serious consideration in the matter.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi jemerson85, hmmm......well, for example, the earliest copies of the gospel of john we have do not contain the story of the woman caught in adultery. Copies which were written a generation or so later do. Its not really a liberal or a conservative position to say that the gospel of john as we have it now was written over several generations? And yet you are correct that professors employed by more conservative schools are more likely to say that John had 1 author, who was the apostle.(cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to jemerson85) I suppose I don't know what to say besides I just don't find their arguments very convincing. But then again, neither do the majority of scholars which are employed at our top universities. If you take the professors at Harvard, Stanford, Emory, Gottingen, Cambridge, etc you'll find the majority of them don't think the apostle John wrote the johaniine literature. But of course you can always come back and say that my list of top universities is bogus (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to jemmerson85) and give me another list of universities whose professors agree that John was written by one person who was the same person as "the elder" in the epistles and John of patmos in Revelation. But I have given that position very serious consideration (I was raised a very conservative christian) and in the end I just didn't find their arguments convincing. Your milage may vary; I could be wrong and I might change my mind again, new information is always commming in.

[jemerson85]

PART 1 OF 3

Sure, I could provide a list of scholars that do not find the liberal scholarship convincing, but as Witherington also notes, "appeal to authority or expertise...does not really settle much. The issue is - what is the evidence and why should we draw this or that conclusion?" Along this line, there is a lot of evidence supporting the conservative position.

[jemerson85]

PART 2 OF 3

It is not unlikely that John the Apostle would describe himself as "the Elder" - not to distinguish himself from "the Apostle," but to emphasize his authority and seniority. The early church father, Papias, referred to the apostles as elders (see Eusebius, Church History, 3.39.4). Furthermore, there is scant evidence that another John even existed.

[jemerson85]

PART 3 OF 3

According to R.C.H. Lenski, the reason the two Johns theory caught on in the first place was not historical evidence but distaste for chiliasm. Lenski says, "Eusebius adopted the view of Dionysius and, for the same reason, dislike of the chiliasm that sought its support in RevelationThus was launched this view about a 'presbyter John' [elder John]."

[randyhelzerman]

Hi Hemerson85, agreed, appeals to authority don't go very far, which is why I like to look at the arguments provided and see if they are very convincing to me. For example, the argument above w.r.t. "the Elder" is not convincing to me at all, because "the apostle" is a much more prestigious title than "the elder". Paul, for example, in 1 Cor 9:1 says "am I not an apostle?" when emphasizing his authority. We know so little about these texts, but we do have the texts themselves (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to Jemerson85) therefore, I feel much more confident going on the basis of the biblical text itself than other theories about it: the elder never claimed to be john the apostle, and john of patmos never claimed to be john of patmos, and even the gospel of john never claimed to be written by john (in fact, it goes out of its way not to name its author, naming the 'beloved disciple' instead). The bible itself doesn't even claim they were all written by the same person (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to Jemmerson85) and the bible itself doesn't claim they were all written at the same time by the same person. Seems to me it would be a conservative position to assume they weren't, rather than reading back into the bible something which just isn't there.

[jemerson85]

The very fact that the author of Revelation simply calls himself "John" is a dead giveaway that he was well-known throughout the churches in Asia Minor. There was only one John who did not need to add 'the apostle'...for the very reason that he was well-known *as* the apostle. The early church fathers Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Tertullian and Hippolytus discussed and debated many issues like this one. But they seem to assume Revelation's authorship without any discussion whatsoever.

[jemerson85]

Furthermore, why would it have been necessary for John to go a step further to emphasize his own prestigious identity if the recipients of his message already knew who he was? And how do you know what his motives *ought* to have been with respect to his own self-identification?

[randyhelzerman]

Why would it have been necessary for John to go a step further to emphasize his own prestigious identity? Good question, but that wasn't my claim, it was the claim you gave above. You can't have it both ways :-) How do I know what his motives might have been? I don't!!!! Which is why I don't assume that he was really John the apostle, but had some other motive to call himself something else in those letters. As far as the church fathers goes, sure, the later church fathers (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to jemerson85) thought john wrote them all, but the early church fathers don't mention that at all. For example, pollycarp, who should have been in a position to know, never wrote about that. Our first identification of John the apostle as being the author of revelation doesn't come until hundreds of years after christ. And even so, its still an addition to the text. The texts themselves don't claim any kind of apostolic authorship whatsoever, so why do you feel forced to?

[jemerson85]

"Why would it have been necessary for John to go a step further to emphasize his own prestigious identity? Good question, but that wasn't my claim"

Given that you have no other evidence that two Johns existed, and there's nothing that inherently precludes the same author from using different titles for his different roles in the Church, you claimed, "the argument above w.r.t. 'the Elder' is not convincing to me at all, because 'the apostle' is a much more prestigious title than 'the elder'."

[jemerson85]

"The texts themselves don't claim any kind of apostolic authorship whatsoever, so why do you feel forced to?"

I don't feel forced to. You're simply making an argument from silence. The prime facie evidence that we do have points to apostolic authorship. The evidence to the contrary is based almost entirely in silence and speculation. Is there anything other than silence that precludes your acceptance of the traditional view?

[randyhelzerman]

???? I have no other evidence that two johns existed??? John was a common name back then. There was, uh, John the Baptist, for example. The father of the apostle of John was also named John---perhaps it was a family tradition? The author of revelation might have been written by his grandson, John the third :-) Or maybe it was written by John Mark, who was mentioned in acts?? Come on man, if you just look at THE BIBLE (sola scriptura, dude) there's no reason to assume they are the same.

[jemerson85]

"I have no other evidence that two johns existed?"

I was obviously referring to Johns that held an authoritative place in the early Church. You're suggesting Johns that you know quite well wouldn't be candidates for the authorship of Revelation. Please. Name a candidate for authorship that held an authoritative place in the early Church for the latter half of the first century other than the Apostle John. And please provide a shred of corroborating evidence for his authoritative position.

[jemerson85]

"there's no reason to assume they are the same"

I've already provided multiple reasons, would you like more? There's been scholarly books dedicated to giving reasons why they are the same.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi jemerson85 you say you've provided multiple reasons for believing they were written by the same person....well, I hope at least you understand why I don't find those reasons convincing. They may be convincing to you, heck, they may even be right, but I've also given my reasons for not finding them convincing at all. Its just too speculative. What's more, it totally doesn't even matter-the books could still be inspired by God, used by devout christians, etc, so what's the big deal anyways?

[randyhelzerman]

*chuckle* Hi Jemerson85, well, John Mark held an authoritative position, in fact its been suggested that he was the one who wrote the gospel of Mark. Perhaps after writing that gospel, he moved to Patmos and wrote revelation :-) Like Peter who sometimes went by the name of Cephas, perhaps John mark sometimes went by John and sometimes went by Mark. (cont)

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to Jemerson85) but Dude, I could sit here speculating all night, but my speculations don't prove one thing about who did or didn't write the books of the bible. But here's the kicker: neither do anybody else's. We are in a state of almost complete ignorance about the authorship of the gospels, the 3 letters, and revelation. Its much more honest, IMHO, to humbly admit that we don't know.

[jemerson85]

"Its much more honest, IMHO, to humbly admit that we don't know."

Haha. Fair enough. It was good to finally have an exchange with you. I saw one of your other exchanges with KabaneTheChristian a while back about the authorship of Matthew's Gospel. I've subscribed to your channel. So hopefully you'll continue to produce more stuff on these Biblical issues and that which surrounds them. Take care.

[randyhelzerman]

Likewise dude; I'm a big fan of Kabane, so I'm sure I'll see you commenting on his vids as well.

[tries2getitright]

Any institution that has overconfidence in your own imagination, arrogance, high mindedness, and ignoring truth won't have Christians in leading positions, but that doesn't make Christians wrong. Universities teach some and puff up much.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi tries2getitright, it is not my place, nor yours, to question the christian devotion of people. Certainly there are many scholars at those universities who self-describe as very devout christians. Nothing I've said is contradictory to a very robust faith in christ.

[tries2getitright]

You sounded so stuffy when you said that, lol. would you go watch the SHAYTARDS channel and take a Shay pill?

[4McClain]

Randy, thanks for the very lucid explanation.

[cjunk351]

The Book of revelation reveals nothing. It tells the story and leaves it at that. Thats like walking into a room smelling the cooking and asking "Whats that?" and the cook says "Its food".

[cjunk351]

(2). And then one christian says "Its pea and ham soup". And another christian says "NO, its vegetable soup". And another christian says "Your both wrong, its dog food high in protein". then a Muslim says "You are all wrong its a science experiment"

Then the atheist says "I have no idea what it is, but I know that either one or none of these theists are correct"

[antipelagian]

Great response.

[ReligionThink]

wayman gives Jack a high five for defending the metaphor and abstract expressionism..

[ForgedInStone]

5/5

Good video.

[TrustinJC]

Good vid Jack.

[FraggedMind]

Revelations: Pick Your Century, Pick Your Region of the World - And Presto: Revelations applies.

[ForgedInStone]

My mind got fragged. :(

[Larsinger58]

Thanks for sharing. That was nice.

Having an intellectual who is articulate is reassuring!

Have a great day.

Peace to you.

[iToyRobot]

Revelation for me was written by John almost in a poetic style of writing.. reading it, you shouldnt take it literally its symbolic/analogy.. how things will really go down when Revelation is translated into happening materialistically we wont know till it happens..

[omegahunter9]

Thank you for that incite :)

[MST3KonBlog]

Revelation was a dream. That was one helluva detailed dream.