Bible PROPHECY for the ENDtime

[John317]

Revelation 14:4 These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb.

5 And no lie was found in their mouth ; they are blameless.

The text speaks for itself. "The defiled with women" can also be translated as (defiled with the woman)see Revelation 2:20.

The phrase "defiled with women" has no definite article in the Greek, and the word "women" [Gk gunaikon] is a genitive plural noun. Therefore it couldn't possibly read "the woman."

If it was singular and had the definite article, "the woman," the Greek would read the same as it does in Rev. 12: 15, tees gunaikos [the woman].

The nominative singular form is gunee, so the stem of the word is gun. The suffix, aikon, shows that the word in Rev. 14: 4 is genitive feminine plural.

I'd be interested to know if you find a translation "the woman" in Rev. 14: 4. If you find one, could you tell the name of the translation and of the translator?

I believe you'll find that in Rev. 14: 4, it is consistently translated "with women," because that's the only correct way to translate it.

The preposition is meta, plus the genitive noun gunaikon= "with women." It can't be anything else.

To have the translation "the woman" requires the definite article and it is also a different spelling than for "women." It's like the difference in the spelling in English of "woman" and "women." The first is clearly singular and the latter clearly plural. This is the way it is in Greek, too, except that in Greek, the differences are even more pronounced and occur more often.

The word order in Greek is not really important, because the form, or spelling, tells us what part of speech it is and how each word relates to all the other words in the sentence. :-)

[Ron Lambert]

It seems obvious to me that the "women" with whom the 144,000 are NOT defiled are Babyon and her daughters (see Rev. 17:5). That is the context. In Rev. 18, the voice from heaven calls for all who remain faithful to "come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sins." The "her" refers to Babylon (vs. 2, 3).

[John317]

I agree with you.

There are some who think it refers to literal virgins, but of course that's foolishness.

The whole issue has to do with loyalty to Christ and the truth, not whether people are married or not.

So the 144,000 who are sealed don't partake of false doctrines and are loyal to God and His commandments.

[Lutz13]

Bleh...It seems my questions are missing. It must be due to the move to the other server or something.

I had a question for you Ron, because you say we're presently in the 4th seal.

In the Great Controversy EGW attributes the Earthquake in the 6th seal to the Lisbon earthquake. Also the sun going dark she mentioned the time when the eastern states were under darkness in the middle of the day, then the moon later turned blood red. She also mentions being a witness to the stars showering in the sky.

These things are also mentioned in the book Daniel and the Revelation written by Uriah Smith.

Just curious to hear your thoughts.

[wayfinder]

I agree with you whole heartedly about the movie 2012, it was a slap in the face of God, as far as I was concerned.

I have studied the time periods that God, according to His good pleasure, has given us. It is my understanding that if God did not want us to know the timeing of the end He would not have bothered to give us any time periods. If you would be interested in viewing the endtime chart I put together, you will find it on my website. web.mac.com/spiritoftruth Go down just under the pictures and there is a direct link to the chart and the document which explains how I put it together.

[John317]

There's no question that God has revealed enough in the Bible so we can know when it's close to Christ's coming. God wants us to know when Christ is "at the doors."

[wayfinder]

John317, you must be using a different lexicon than I am. In my lexicon, the greek word is Gune and is defined as follows.

Strong's Number: 1135 Transliterated Word Gune

Definition

a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow

a wife

of a betrothed woman

This is the same Greek word used in Revelation 2:20, speaking of the woman Jezebel. It is also the same word used in Revelation 17:18 and in both cases it is defining one woman.

The part of the verse of Revelation 14:4 which is in question reads as follows: they have not been defiled with woman(singular). This is an anarthrous noun (noun without an article). Greek language uses this when the noun has already been introduced, in this case the woman was introduced in Revelation 2:20. The article "the" then is inserted before woman and the verse reads have not been defiled with the woman (the one who calls herself a prophetess). This is not the same woman as is depected in Revelation 17, because that woman has not been introduced yet and we are told that that woman is the one John saw on the scarlet beast. It makes sense of verse 4, when we note that the woman of 2:20 is teaching and leading "My bondservants astray", the 144,000 are called bondservants, so it stands to reason that these bondservents have not been led astray by the "woman who calls herself a prophetess": be honest with yourself.

[teresaq]

while i have a different view regarding this subject i thought this was interesting from vines which would point out that Christ speaks tenderly to the fallen churches...what a God we have!!,

Woman

1. gune (G1135), for which see also WIFE, is used of a "woman" unmarried or married, e.g., Mat_11:11; Mat_14:21; Luk_4:26, of a "widow"; Rom_7:2; in the vocative case, used in addressing a "woman," it is a term not of reproof or severity, but of endearment or respect, Mat_15:28; Joh_2:4, where the Lord's words to His mother at the wedding in Cana, are neither rebuff nor rebuke. The question is, lit., "What to Me and to thee?" and the word "woman," the term of endearment, follows this. The meaning is "There is no obligation on Me or you, but love will supply the need." She confides in Him, He responds to her faith. There was lovingkindness in both hearts. His next words about "His hour" suit this; they were not unfamiliar to her. Cana is in the path to Calvary; Calvary was not yet, but it made the beginning of signs possible. See also Joh_4:21; Joh_19:26.

John317, you must be using a different lexicon than I am. In my lexicon, the greek word is Gune and is defined as follows.

Strong's Number: 1135 Transliterated Word Gune

Definition

a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow

a wife

of a betrothed woman

This is the same Greek word used in Revelation 2:20, speaking of the woman Jezebel. It is also the same word used in Revelation 17:18 and in both cases it is defining one woman.

The part of the verse of Revelation 14:4 which is in question reads as follows: they have not been defiled with woman (singular).

[wayfinder]

That is beautiful teresaq, thank you for your post.

[Ron Lambert]

Lutz13, we must not use Ellen G. White as the final word on the interpretation of Bible prophecy; that would in effect elevate her above the Bible. God did not prevent Ellen G. White from ever expressing a wrong view; that would have violated her free will. If we would truly exalt the Spirit of Prophecy manifested in Ellen G. White's writings, then let us obey it when Sister White insists that the Bible alone is to be the basis for our faith. To fail to study Scripture properly, and just go by what Sister White said in every case, is in fact betraying the Spirit of Prophecy with a kiss.

Here is a very pointed statement made by Sister White to a meeting of church leaders held in the Battle Creek College library at the 1901 General Conference. This statement is a fascinating one, because she was so emphatic about what she was saying that she even employed a double negative. She seemed to be speaking with true righteous indignation. The statement in its original form (a few later quotes in other publications cleaned up the grammar) is found in the Spaulding and Magan Collection, p. 167, par. 2:

"Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don't you give a rap any more what 'Sister White said' -- 'Sister White said this,' and 'Sister White said that,' and 'Sister White said the other thing.' But say, 'Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,' and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what He says."

One of the basic rules of interpreting Bible prophecy is that we must allow context to indicate to us what period of history the prophecy is to be compared to. In the case of the seven seals, it is inescapable (though some try) that the book with the seven seals is opened during the Judgment. Thus we must compare the seven seals prophecies to history after 1844.

[teresaq]

Bleh...It seems my questions are missing. It must be due to the move to the other server or something.

I had a question for you Ron, because you say we're presently in the 4th seal.

In the Great Controversy EGW attributes the Earthquake in the 6th seal to the Lisbon earthquake. Also the sun going dark she mentioned the time when the eastern states were under darkness in the middle of the day, then the moon later turned blood red. She also mentions being a witness to the stars showering in the sky.

These things are also mentioned in the book Daniel and the Revelation written by Uriah Smith.

Just curious to hear your thoughts.

yes, and we should take note that it was not "ellen whites" interpretation but that of our pioneers that came from their many, many, bible study sessions...

i dont think we realize that it was also the conclusion of others over the course of history-those who lived through it- with which our pioneers agreed as fulfilling the signs...The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Volume 3, chapter 11.

[Ron Lambert]

teresaq(sda), are you implying that we should regard the founders of our church as infallible, defining our faith, so that we can not go beyond them? That is how the Catholic Church regards its "Church Fathers." They regard the Church Fathers as being the last word in the interpretation of Scripture and in defining what the church believes. I have had Catholic theologians straight out tell me that they regard the Church Fathers as being above the Bible. Do you feel you have to maintain that all that our church pioneers believed must be adhered to? Or do you base your faith SOLELY upon the Bible? Do you think our church pioneers--any of those of Ellen G. White's generation--would stand for the virtual deification of themselves for one instant? They believed the Bible. They upheld the Bible alone as the only standard of our faith. Did they not teach that truth is something continually being unfolded, in the onward progression of "present truth" as the Lord leads us?

Look at the message of Jesus to the Laodiceans. When He rebukes them for thinking they are rich and increased with goods, He was not chiding them for materialism. He was addressing the spiritual thought leaders of the church--the ministers and teachers who constitute the "angel" of the church. The people who are the most spiritual. The true way inwhich Laodicea imagines itself to be rich and increased with goods, is in thinking it already knows most of the truth--except maybe for just a few more minor details yet to be filled in--and does not need to reconsider anything it has already decided is the settled truth. Was this not the spirit that led the leading brethren to resist the Message of Righteousness by faith that came in 1888? To their eternal shame, they opposed the leading of Jesus at Minneapolis with the cry, "Stand by the old waymarks!"

Truth, as Sister White said, will stand inspection. Let us never be afraid to investigate Scripture ever more closely, as may be required, so that we can be sure of what it truly says to us, and know all that its prophecies mean, when rightly interpreted.

Our faith is not Seventh-day Adventism, our faith is the faith of Jesus revealed in the Bible. Our Authority is not the traditions or founding fathers of our church, it is Jesus and His Word, and nothing and no one else, ever. If we cannot say this with whole-hearted conviction, then we are not in the faith. We are just following a religion.

The Lord will yet have a people who worship Him "in spirit and in truth."

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder: you must be using a different lexicon than I am. In my lexicon, the greek word is Gune and is defined as follows.

Strong's Number: 1135 Transliterated Word Gune

Definition

a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow

a wife

of a betrothed woman

That's not any different from what I said.

The stem is gun. The addition of the "e" (letter eta) makes it nominative singular fem. The nominative form is always the one that occurs in the lexicons.

The suffixes and prefixes tell us what part of speech it is, including whether it's plural or singular. Sometime when we meet I'll bring Greek grammars and show you from text books that are used to teach the language.

Anyway, the word is a plural, not a singular.

Why do you think all the translations show a plural? It is because it's a plural. You won't find a single translation of that verse where it is translated "the woman." Why? Because that's an incorrect translation.

If you haven't studied Greek, the best thing to do is study the translations, and if you see 100% of the translations showing a word is plural, chances are excellent that it's plural.

Your telling me that gunaikos is singular would be like me telling you that "women" is singular. Would that make sense for me to say "women" is a singular noun? Of course not. We all know "women" is plural and that the singular form is "woman." Even most children know this. Well, the Greek is as plain as that to anyone who's studied Greek. The words are spelled differently. That's the case with virtually all nouns, verbs, adjectives, pronouns, and even definite articles in Koine Greek. See the proof below.

Quote:

wayfinder: This is the same Greek word used in Revelation 2:20, speaking of the woman Jezebel. It is also the same word used in Revelation 17:18 and in both cases it is defining one woman.

The part of the verse of Revelation 14:4 which is in question reads as follows: they have not been defiled with woman(singular).

2: 20-- teen gunaika (accusative, singular)

17: 18-- ee gunee (nominative singular)

14: 4-- gunaikon (genitive plural) (notice it has no definite article, and it is preceded by a prepostion, meta [with])

Also see Rev. 12: 1, 4,6:

12: 1-- gunee (nominative singular)

12: 4-- tees gunaikos (genitive singular)

12: 6-- ee gunee (nominative singular)

Matt. 11: 11-- gunaikon (genitive plural) Compare with Rev. 14: 4.

If you insist that Rev. 14: 4 is singular, please notice that this is the identical word and same spelling. It would mean this word also must be singular. But is it? It is correctly translated "born of women."

NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 12:4 AND 14: 4. BOTH ARE GENITIVE BUT ONE IS PLURAL AND THE OTHER IS SINGULAR.

Quote:

Wayfinder: This is an anarthrous noun (noun without an article). Greek language uses this when the noun has already been introduced, in this case the woman was introduced in Revelation 2:20. The article "the" then is inserted before woman and the verse reads have not been defiled with the woman (the one who calls herself a prophetess).

But that is not what an anarthrous noun is. Colwell's rule doesn't have anything to do with the text we're looking at. Colwell's rule has to do with sentences in which the definite predicate nominative precedes the verb. In the case of Rev. 14: 4, the word gunaikon is a genitive and it does not precede the verb.

Here's the Greek rule governing the anarthrous:

http://www.ntresources.com/documents/colwell.pdf

[teresaq]

teresaq(sda), are you implying that we should regard the founders of our church as infallible, ...

[John317]

Wayfinder,

Should Matt. 11: 11 read "women" (plural) or "woman" (singular)?

Please notice that it's the same word as occurs in Rev. 14: 4. In both instances, also, please notice they do not take a definite article. They are both genitive plural.

Rev. 14: 4-- gunaikon (genitive plural) (notice it has no definite article, and it is preceded by a prepostion, meta [with])

Matt. 11: 11-- gunaikon (genitive plural) Compare with Rev. 14: 4.

Compare the above with the following, and notice the difference in spelling:

Rev. 12: 4-- tees gunaikos (genitive singular)

Your thoughts?

[wayfinder]

John317, I would like to get together and go over this with you sometime.

My thoughts our as follows. We do not have any original autographs of any New Testiment documents. It is very possible and quite probable that copyists supplied their own ideas of what the text should be saying. Read the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman, HarperSanFransisco, copywright 2005. I know how you feel about Bart Ehrman, but he has done extensive research on this subject and I find his findings accurate.

My connection of Revelation 2:20 and 14:4 comes from the context of both verses. In the first text the woman "Jezebel" calls herself a prophetess and teaches and leads "My bondservants" astray. Jesus is saying that this woman is successfully deceiving His bondservants, they believe she is a prophetess. The 144,000 are called bondservants "purchased from among men" and one of the characteristics of this special group is that they have not been deveived by the woman. The 144,000 will be men and women, so the quality of not defiled with women, in the literal sense, would not make sense unless Jesus is speaking in the context of homosexuality of the women and promiscuity on the part of the men. If Jesus is speaking symbolically, which would symbolize anything that is not true and of God.

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder: We do not have any original autographs of any New Testiment documents. It is very possible and quite probable that copyists supplied their own ideas of what the text should be saying. Read the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman, HarperSanFransisco, copywright 2005. I know how you feel about Bart Ehrman, but he has done extensive research on this subject and I find his findings accurate.

It's not a matter of how I feel about Bart Ehrman but of the fact that his beliefs have led him to give up his faith in God, in Christ, and in the Bible as God's word. That should say a lot to us about his beliefs.

I've read the book, Misquoting Jesus, twice. I don't contest the facts he speaks of; I contest some of his conclusions.

I doubt you believe everything Bart Ehrman says in his book. For instance, you will notice that he speaks of the "author of the Gospel of John." He doesn't believe the Gospel of John was written by an actual eye-witness. He doesn't believe the Apocalypse was written by the same author as the Gospel of John. Do you agree with him on these points?

But even assuming that everything Bart D. Ehrman says is 100% true, we still can't say that a word is different from what consistently appears in the ancient manuscripts.

For instance, if all the manuscripts say "In the beginning was the word," it would be foolish to argue that it should say, "In the beginning was God." Why? For the simple reason that not a single manuscript reads that way. There's absolutely no evidence that it should read any way other than the way we see it.

If we did that, we might as well make the words of the Bible anything we want them to be, without reference to the way they are actually written in the manuscripts.

There's not a single manuscript with the word in Rev. 14: 4 written as "the woman" [tees gunaikos].

Bart Ehrman himself never would say that this verse should read other than the way it reads in all the manuscripts, meta gunaikon ("with women"). He doesn't include Rev. 14: 4 among his comments on the changes in the NT for the simple reason that there's no reason to.

You'll notice that he bases his views on what the manuscripts say, not on what they don't say.

If we ignore what the manuscripts actually say, then we're simply conjecturing about what's in the Bible. That's what you're doing when you say it's "quite probable" that scribes supplied their own ideas in Rev. 14: 4. There's no evidence of this at all.

Even if one scribe made a mistake or made a change, that wouldn't affect ALL the ancient manuscripts and ALL the ancient translations and quotations by early Christians.

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder: I would like to get together and go over this with you sometime.

Yes, let's do that.

But are you saying you still believe the correct translation of Rev. 14: 4 is "the woman"?

In order to believe that, it seems to me you'd have to believe thousands of Greek scholars and translators are trying to play some trick on you, or have entered into some kind of huge conspiracy about Rev. 14: 4.

That would be like a Spanish-speaking person asking you whether "woman" is singular or plural, and when you tell him it is singular, he would keep insisting that it's really plural and that he doesn't believe the dictionaries and all the books disigned to teach English grammar.

I'm sure you'd agree that if someone did this, after seeing the evidence, it would be either insanity, ignorance, or a clear case of paranoia. The only other reason I can think of for doing it is that the person simply doesn't want to believe the evidence. This does happen.

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder: My connection of Revelation 2:20 and 14:4 comes from the context of both verses. In the first text the woman "Jezebel" calls herself a prophetess and teaches and leads "My bondservants" astray. Jesus is saying that this woman is successfully deceiving His bondservants, they believe she is a prophetess.

You are right about what you say insofar as Rev. 2: 20 is concerned. But that doesn't mean there's a connection between this woman "Jezebel" and the statement found in 14: 4.

"The symbol of a faithful woman in Revelation is used consistently with reference to God's people (Rev. 12: 1; 19: 7-8; 22: 17), while a prostitute symbolizes the apostate and unfaithful (Rev. 17-18). In the Old Testament, the apostasy of Israel from God is often described as adultery. In Revelation, the kings and all the nations of the earth have committed fornication with the great harlot Babylon (Rev. 14: 8; 17: 2, 4; 18: 3, 9; 19: 2); by contrast, the 144,000 have 'refused to defile themselves' by worshipping the beast but have 'kept themselves pure unto God.' The plural form 'woman' refers most likely to the great prostitute Babylon and her daughters (Revelation 17: 5)." (Revelation of Jesus Christ, Commentary on the Book of Revelation, Ranko Stefanovic, 2002, page 436)

Quote:

wayfinder: The 144,000 are called bondservants "purchased from among men" and one of the characteristics of this special group is that they have not been deveived by the woman. The 144,000 will be men and women, so the quality of not defiled with women, in the literal sense, would not make sense unless Jesus is speaking in the context of homosexuality of the women and promiscuity on the part of the men. If Jesus is speaking symbolically, which would symbolize anything that is not true and of God.

We're both in agreement that it is not to be understood in the literal sense. The Apocalypse is not telling us that only literal virgins will be among the 144, 000. There's nothing in the Bible indicating that being married and having sexual relations with one's spouse is sinful. In fact, God commanded humans to get married and have sexual relations. Without it, the whole human race would have ceased to exist.

So we both agree that Jesus is speaking symbolically, referring to the fact that the 144,000 remain loyal to God and to His truth. Not defiling themselves with women is symbolic for not committing spiritual adultery.

[jsm]

WF & Ron,

Jesus Himself in Revelation 4:1 makes a clear and distinct TIME SEPARATION between chapter 3 and what follows 4:1.

Revelation 4 shows the IJ as it is coming to a CLOSE.

[John said] After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me [Jesus, 1:10], saying, “Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after these things.”

Note again those words by Jesus: “Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after these things.”

Jesus was clearly referring to the same "things" John referred to when at the start of the verse he said, "After these things."

After what things? After the things described in chapters 2 & 3.

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus

meta tauta eidon kai idou qura hnewgmenh en tw ouranw kai h fwnh h prwth hn hkousa wV salpiggoV laloushV met emou legousa anaba wde kai deixw soi a dei genesqai meta tauta

"meta tauta" in Greek is "after these things" in English.

When John used the term in 4:1 it applied to the order in which events were shown to him.

When Jesus used the term in 4:1 it applied to THE ORDER IN WHICH EVENTS "MUST TAKE PLACE." Read His words in 4:1.

Now consider two of several other "meta tauta" statements that clearly apply to the order in which events MUST take place:

One woe is past. Behold, still two more woes are coming AFTER THESE THINGS [meta tauta]." Revelation 9:12.

"And cast him [satan] into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years should be fulfilled: and AFTER THESE THINGS [meta tauta] he must be released for a little while." Revelation 20:3.

Daniel 7:13-14 shows Christ coming to the Ancient of Days on His throne AT THE START of the IJ.

Revelation 4-5 shows Christ ALREADY "IN THE MIDST OF THE THRONE" as the IJ is coming to a close. 5:6.

As in Jeremiah 32, the "OPEN" deed can be reviewed by many in the Invetigative Judgment process. But THE SEALED "PURCHASE DEED" can ONLY be opened by Christ, who has "the right of redemption." Jeremiah 32:7, 14.

Daniel 7:10

The court was seated and the [unsealed] books were opened.

Revelation 5.1

And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, SEALED with seven seals.

5.2

And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the SEALS thereof?

5.3

And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

5.4

And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

5.5

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven SEALS thereof.

5.6

And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

5.7

And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

5.8

And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

5.9

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art WORTHY to take the book, and to open the SEALS thereof: for thou wast slain, and HAST REDEEMED US to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

5.10

And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

[John317]

Have you studied the commentary on the Apocalypse by Ranko Stefanovic? He understands Rev. 4 to 5 to refer to the coronation-- or enthronement ceremony--of Christ following His ascension. Stefanovic points out that there is no judgment language in Rev. 4-5.

How would you answer him?

[jsm]

Revelation 5:1-5 calls for a judgment decision: "Who is qualified to open the SEALED scroll?"

Jesus alone is qualified because:

1. He alone has fully overcome [nikao]. Revelation 5:4-5; Iaiah 59:16; Ezekiel 22:30-31; Jeremiah 5:1. We overcome through Him.

2. He is a near kinsman. Ruth 4:1-12; Jeremiah 32:8; John 5:27; Revelation 5:5.

3. He has paid the purchase price. Ruth 4:9-10; Jerermiah 32:10-11; Revelation 5:9.

Even if Revelation 4 is mistakenly considered to go back to the time of the first 'meta tauta' in Revelation 1:19, that is still long after the 31 AD enthronement of Christ.

EGW refers to the Revelation 4 SETTING in relation to that 31 AD enthronement event; but she specifically refers to, "The heavenly council before which Lucifer had accused God and His Son, the representatives of those sinless realms over which Satan had thought to establish his dominion,--all are there to welcome the Redeemer." DA 834.

So while the heavenly setting is similar, the events are not the same.

The 24 elders are wearing white robes of victory. Revelation 3:5; 19:8.

They are made white in the blood of the Lamb. Revelation 7:14.

This can only apply to redeemed sinners; and they would not be sitting in heaven with the Father at the coronation ceremony. As EGW said above, it was then "the representatives of...sinless realms."

At His 31 AD enthronement ceremony Christ "points to the tokens of His triumph; He presents to God the wave sheaf, those raised with Him as representatives of that great multitude who shall come forth from the grave at His second coming." DA 834.

More can be added, but this should be sufficient to show that Revelation 4-5 is not the 31 AD coronation event.

[John317]

Good thoughts.

Have you written anything further on this?

I'm working with another individual on a book on the Investigative Judgement and would be interested in more of what you say about Rev. 4-5. I haven't made up my mind about this question, but I think you bring up some relevant points.

[jsm]

Thanks John.

I have more background material and will try to get some together for you. It may take a few days.

[John317]

OK, thanks very much. Take your time.