Book of Revelation

Is there any equivalent in other religions?

What's the consensus on it? From what I remember, early Church fathers were hesitant about adding it to the Bible. Today I think the RCC's main view is that the book is meant to give hope to believers during hard times. The other less popular view is that the book is litteral. So what's the deal?

From what I've heard, the Islamic Koran tells almost the exact same story of Revelation.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
From what I've heard, the Islamic Koran tells almost the exact same story of Revelation.

The many callenders ending at 2012 could hint a significants. Aztec, (Mayan?), Summarian...

The Islamic Koran has the Old Testimate in it as Christainity douse in its bible. Same roots, with Islam/Jacob, and the flood etc.

In the great Annunaki ideology, allso had a flood in it affter the 'Rule Maker' attempted to destroy the humans, while the 'Creater' saved his favorite family and sent them on a boat... hmmm...

Dont trust the 'false gods' when they come, the Annunaki will claim things that you will know are false. Not saying there all bad, just saying some are discresionally proud.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
From what I've heard, the Islamic Koran tells almost the exact same story of Revelation.

read it, it's much different

there are more obvious signs, and it seems more coherent

Ever wonder why, literal, bible believing Christians feel the need to interpret the Revelations as symbolic and not literal, when the rest of the Bible has to be taken literally. When I ask this question to my fundalamentist friends I just get blank stares

whaaa///

Ever wonder why, literal, bible believing Christians feel the need to interpret the Revelations as symbolic and not literal, when the rest of the Bible has to be taken literally. When I ask this question to my fundalamentist friends I just get blank stares

Hi ,If you like an interpretation from an early Church fathers perspective of Revelation, then look toward reading the early fathers interpretation of it, and not just anyone who claims to know and interpret Scripture....this cannot be done without knowledge of what Scripture says.

Ancient tradition places the writing of the Apocalypse toward the end of the first century. For example, St. Irenaeus writes as follows: "The Apocalypse appeared not long before this and almost in our time, at the end of the rule by Domitian." The historian Eusebius (at the beginning of the fourth century) informs us that pagan writers contemporary to his time mention the exile of St. John to Patmos for witnessing to the Word of God, placing this event at the fifteenth year of Domitian's rule (81-96 A.D.).

The time, place, and intent of writing the Apocalypse

IX
helen

Originally posted by helen670

Hi ,If you like an interpretation from an early Church fathers perspective of Revelation, then look toward reading the early fathers interpretation of it, and not just anyone who claims to know and interpret Scripture....this cannot be done without knowledge of what Scripture says.

IX
helen

OK helen, I'm going to need a little help with this one. Care to elucidate?

Whaaa//

OK helen, I'm going to need a little help with this one. Care to elucidate?

Hmmm,


You want me to Hullucinate???

Ok, i'm kidding!
What is elucidate?
Is that like elaborate? (spelling )

thanks !
helen

Sorry helen, I'm a show off.

I should have said "what do you mean"

and as far as the hullucinate deal, some of my fondest memories were hallucinations.

Hi whaaa/

and as far as the hullucinate deal, some of my fondest memories were hallucinations.

Hopefully you were with High temperture when the Hullucinations occured!

Well, the early church fathers were against reading of Revelation because private interpretation was always an opinion of each person and it differed to what Scripture said....
eg/
The Apostle Paul exhorts us, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Which means that tradition is passed down from the Apostles and it cannot differ(although many still assume they know what they read)....
here a Jewish convert to Christ via evangelical Protestantism.......

does that help?

I'll gladly answer other questions you may have.....if i can

helen

The Hindu equivalent of the book of Revelation can be found in the Vedas, it's called the Kali Yuga.

some info on Kali Yuga, which Hindus believe is the current period we are living in.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by whaaa
Ever wonder why, literal, bible believing Christians feel the need to interpret the Revelations as symbolic and not literal, when the rest of the Bible has to be taken literally. When I ask this question to my fundalamentist friends I just get blank stares

one possibility was the fact that revelation was a vision of john. if you look back to daniel or ezekial (sp?) thier visions were just as weird. you got references to beasts with ten horns in daniel and a statue, then the chariot with the wheels that have eyes? i mean that is weird stuff. visions tend to be that way.

another thing to consider is that in alot of the visions, john was viewing heaven. if heaven is spiritual and not physical, then its possible we dont know what heaven looks like. for a human like john, he may have had to be explained things in a symbolic sense. example would be angels with wings (they can get where they need to go fast) or angels with eyes on thier wings (they can see all things), or god being described as a jewel.

also, there were a few times in revelations that it is said to be a sacred secret, to be revealed at the proper time, so maybe it is weird and hard to understand on purpose. just a thought

Revelations is one of the few symbolic texts... it is a Vision of St. John while he was exiled. It is his interpitation of what he said and him trying to describe it.

Rev 1:1-2 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by whaaa
Ever wonder why, literal, bible believing Christians feel the need to interpret the Revelations as symbolic and not literal, when the rest of the Bible has to be taken literally.

I think it is because the preachers they listen to were not taught at seminary school that both Revelation and the first part of Genesis, up until Abram's part starts, are not being told from the same vantage point that the middle part is--which is on the 'other side of reality' than ours, God's side--the non-material reality. Both start and end are symbolic because there is nothing to tell about from a non-material POV unless you have symbols. But, they are just as 'literal' but no one understands the bible's type of 'literal,' anyway.
All the figurative stuff is presented as 'literal' (but actually it's not a literal but 'factual' spin they are applying) and the 'literal' parts are ignored. Or something like that. It's a mess.

Quranic eschatology is actually quite different. Think: Muslims don't consider Christ the Messiah (just a "prophet"). Christ is the centerpiece of Revelations. Some of the Quran's writing style at first look's similar to that of the Book of Daniel or Revelations, but the actual doctrine, timelines,etc. vary tremendously. On a side note, the Quran claims that Christ will come up in Jerusalem and say he isn't God and then tread on a cross (!) not to mention the antisemitic stuff (actually it's pretty funny if it wasn't for people believing in it)

Originally posted by whaaa
Ever wonder why, literal, bible believing Christians feel the need to interpret the Revelations as symbolic and not literal, when the rest of the Bible has to be taken literally. When I ask this question to my fundalamentist friends I just get blank stares

Because the book says so itself?

You'll often get blank stares from polite people if you say things that leave people wondering whether you're trying to be clever.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[duplicate removed]

[edit on 22/12/2005 by roger_pearse]