Mark of the beast idea

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Where is this rule of interpretation found or upon what authority is it based?

There is no rule of interpretation laid out in the bible. All that we have is the first verse's information saying the book is SIGNIFYING a message. That means it is symbolic. Literalists obviuosly ignore that verse, though.

When there is no rule in the book itself, with just a note of symbolism, we have to determine how to interpret those symbols correctly. The interpretations are not up for grabs. There has to be a systematic approach. Looking to the rest of prophetic scripture, we find apocalyptic language used with imagery over and over again. Read 2 Sam 22 for a very good example. So many things were said by David that cannot be taken literally. The same is found throughout the minor prophets. A sword is said to be made fat from consuming the blood of its victims in Isa 34:6, when swords neither have mouths or stomachs.

The only rule that makes the most sense is to let the bible interpret itself. How can it do that? Revelation has some obvious patterns that everyone sees such as the LAMB in Rev who is only known to be Jesus because of the Passover references in it's blood redeeming us, as the passover lamb's blood redeemed the firstborn in Egypt. And since John called Jesus the Lamb who takes the sins of the world, we find the way Revelation is understood is by looking for the same symbol elsewhere in scripture.

Rev 5 does not say the Lamb is Jesus. Jesus' name is not even mentioned in that chapter. how do we know it's Jesus? By the understanding of Christ and the passover lamb that is found elsewhere.

So, the same method is obviously to be used for the rest of the Revelation. In that manner, it is self-evident.

[Sean]

Mike, I have been playing along. I know what you are saying.

The book of Rev. does indeed have symbolism...but tied to its literal meanings.

My point is you guys OVER symbolize the meanings, into your private interpretation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sean

Mike, I have been playing along. I know what you are saying.

The book of Rev. does indeed have symbolism...but tied to its literal meanings.

My point is you guys OVER symbolize the meanings, into your private interpretation.

Of course it is tied to literal meanings! We never said it did not! Over-symbolizing something is not only not a word, lol, but it is NOT possible. Something is either a symbol or it's not. There's no such thing as oversymbolizing anything as much as it's impossible to overliteralize something. It's either literal or symbolic.

So please explain to us why the buying in Rev 3 is not literal but is in Rev 13? Why can't Revelation 13's buying be tied to literal meanings?

the key is to STICK TO THE BIBLE. Not the koran, or the newspapers like you do with Revelation today. You look at the newspapers. Aquila looks at the Koran, and we look to the rest of the bible.

[Sean]

Okay my friends, this is your Bible answer man for futurism...

Welcome to my forum.

May I take your next question please?


LOL

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by Sean

Okay my friends, this is your Bible answer man for futurism...

Welcome to my forum.

May I take your next question please?


LOL

Yeah, how about the great whore in Rev. 17, was that Rome (Catholism) or Jerusalem (Judaism)?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

Yeah, how about the great whore in Rev. 17, was that Rome (Catholism) or Jerusalem (Judaism)?

Hey, this works!!!...LOL


No really, it seems to be the Catholic Church as seated in Rome. It has given its political power over slowly during the centuries to a multinational conglomerate of nations. It is still by far, the most powerful church in Christendom the world has. It is the foundation of widespread false Christianity and is not a bride, but a WHORE.

Coinciding with the iron/clay mix in Daniel 2.....40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.(Political Rome)

41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.(political/religious power struggle, religious spreads rapidly)

42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.(as in the power struggles of the Roman church in the DARK AGES)

43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. (spreading of the Catholic church in the world as Romes' only influence left in the end times)

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.(as the Iron/clay is left in power, The Lord returns to end/destroy the "kingdoms of ALL men", to happen in the future, as we are waiting to see now)

Then this prophecy will find its fulfillment...Zach. 14:9...
And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

[mfblume]

Hey Sean, what about your figurative rapture in Rev 4? John is not raptured, but caught yup to heaven and you claim that is about the rapture of the church. Figurative! lol

[Sean]

This stuff is ADDICTING!!!

[Sean]

It could be Rev. 4, but also very likely Rev. 11 bro.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sean

It could be Rev. 4, but also very likely Rev. 11 bro.

If it is, it is VERY FIGURATIVE, you figurative espouser, you. lol