Rev 4 & 5; Pentecost or 1844

[archierieus]

As promised, I shall now take a look at Rev. ch. 4 - 6, making an effort to stick to what the passage actually says. I shall make a diligent effort to avoid speculation. Here are some observations on what appears in the passage:

1) It is John's second vision.

2) The vision deals with events which will occur in the future ("hereafter").

3) The vision focuses on the opening and contents of a sealed scroll.

4) The Lamb is worthy to open the scroll, because He has redeemed His people.

5) Therefore, the scroll says something about the Lamb's people.

6) The scroll consists of seven chapters, each sealed with a seal.

7) The first chapter addresses events in John's day (the "alpha")

8) The seventh and last chapter addresses events surrounding the Second Coming of Christ.

9) The chapters appears to be sequential.

Based on the above, then:

1) Chapter one of the scroll, pertains in some way to the Lamb's people in John's day. The prophetic meaning of the "horses" in this prophecy, is unclear. Several symbols are mentioned in this description of the Lamb's people: white, bow, conquering, crown. Thus , purity, warfare, victory. Historically, those items were characteristic of the apostolic church. My own methodology when it comes to understanding Bible prophecy, includes testing a purported understanding against what actually happened historically. This is a good match, so far.

2) Chapter two of the scroll, describes the Lamb's people following John's day. Symbols and descriptions here include red, killing, great sword. Red is a symbol of iniquity, "killing one another" is done with the great sword. Following the apostolic church, compromise and impurity crept in, and there was great persecution by the Romans.

3) Chapter three describes the next phase in sequence. Symbols include 'black,' and scales. A voice comes from within the four living creatures. Thus, corruption (black)and compromise (scales). This description is consistent with the next phase of the Church. There was indeed corruption and compromise with the Greco-Roman world, referred to as "syncretism."

Ahh, the hour grows late, and I must stop here for now. So far, it appears that the testimony of history corroborates the prophetic description of the declension of the Church in the early ages. Also, thus far, we have not strayed very far away from the passage itself.

Regards, Dave

[jasd]

>>Ha! Summary judgment, is it?<<

Ha! indeed.

>>You must be a lawyer!<<

Nah, just sat at the defendant’s table a few times and acted in propria (pro per) on several occasions – to have picked up a couple of terms.

>>When the destiny of souls is at stake, the case must be heard on the merits, with the accused having his day in court!<<

That may ultimately be so; however, for Gd to have ‘summarily’ judged the antedivluvian unworthy to enter into the ark with Noah and his family – but rather to be destroyed… argues against an AD 1844-type surmise.

>>No, I see a different explanation.<<

I would be interested in that “different explanation” as I also have several ‘possible’ explanations…

>>God is not bound by space-time. God is simultaneously in the past, the present and the future. Difficult for us to comprehend, but encompassed in, "I AM THAT I AM."<<

Ahh…, Aristotle’s De Coelo… “Time is the number of movement, …”

>>And, there is the executive judgment, in which ALL the dead, including the antediluvians, will be raised at the end of the thousand years, and have the opportunity to present their defense, when the books are opened.<<

Umm, though not completely, I may be in --agreement. Can’t say, right off.

[jasd]

>>One thing I will say for this forum, lots of interesting and different ideas are presented!<<

Aha! noted, and admittedly, its best feature. In Theology, as in painting, music, and other art forms, there is the much greater reward of depth and richness -- without the limiting character of the monochromatic.

[Ron Lambert]

Gus, that was very helpful about the bow--thinking it means bow as in bow and arrow has long been a distraction, it seems. We have always overlooked the fact that no arrow was mentioned! Look how the Shepard's Rods took the idea of a bow and arrow and went way off into left field with it (the bow was Adam, and Eve was the arrow, I think they claimed), and that wasn't even what the symbol was, and the arrow was only assumed!

How were fabric bows used in New Testament times? Was it something to accompany the victor's crown or laurel wreath? Was it like the bunting bow we always see as a decoration at political rallies and conventions?

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

for God to have ‘summarily’ judged the antedivluvian unworthy to enter into the ark with Noah and his family – but rather to be destroyed… argues against an AD 1844-type surmise.

---

Hmmm . . . I am not aware of any judgment entered by God in that regard. The facts seem to be that ol' Noah gave the invitation for 120 years, and they laughed him to scorn. It was their decision, rather than God's.

Quote:

---

>>No, I see a different explanation.<<

I would be interested in that “different explanation” as I also have several ‘possible’ explanations…

>>God is not bound by space-time. God is simultaneously in the past, the present and the future. Difficult for us to comprehend, but encompassed in, "I AM THAT I AM."<<

---

That, indeed, is my explanation--although it would not seem to be on point in regard to the antediluvians. They decided their own fate.

The fascinating thing is that, IMO, each person decides his or her own fate in the final judgment. God merely ratifies the decision each has made. Nothing arbitrary or summary about it.

Regards, Dave

[jasd]

Gus Foster

First off, thanks for parsing, I appreciate the time invested. I’d never known that anyone considered the bow in Revelation 6 to be anything other than that which employed arrows. Who’d have thought the text ought to reference a bow such as “Those frills and flowers and buttons and bows” (Dinah Shore in 'Paleface')? or even a sash?

However… notice that the Greek uses the same word in the OT to represent, literally or figuratively, the bow of warfare and such.

LXX Zech 9:13 dioti eneteina se iouda emautw tocon eplhsa ton efraim kai epegerw ta tekna sou siwn epi ta tekna twn ellhnwn kai yhlafhsw se ws romfaian maxhtou

KJV Zech 9:13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow {7198} with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.

LXX Hos 7:16 apestrafhsan eis ouqen egenonto ws tocon entetamenon pesountai en romfaia oi arxontes autwn di apaideusian glwsshs autwn outos o faulismos autwn en gh aiguptw

KJV Hos 7:16 They return, [but] not to the most High: they are like a deceitful bow {7198}: their princes shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue: this [shall be] their derision in the land of Egypt.

Hebrew #7198 qesheth keh'-sheth

from 7185 in the original sense (of 6983) of bending: a bow, for shooting (hence, figuratively, strength) or the iris:--X arch(-er), + arrow, bow((-man, -shot)).

Lest one objects…

Wescott-Hort NT (CAPS)

Rev 6:2 KAI EIDON KAI IDOU IPPOS LEUKOS KAI O KAQHMENOS EP AUTON EXWN TOCON KAI EDOQH AUTW STEFANOS KAI ECHLQEN NIKWN KAI INA NIKHSH [ed.underlined]

Wescott-Hort NT

Rev 6:2 kai eidon kai idou ippoV leukoV kai o kaqhmenoV ep auton ecwn toxon kai edoqh autw stefanoV kai exhlqen nikwn kai ina nikhsh [ed.underlined]

One might also be interested to see (that is if it’ll post) the actual Greek… following,

(well, it didn't make the transition... guess the uncertainty of the Heisenberg Principle factored)

[jasd]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

for God to have ‘summarily’ judged the antedivluvian unworthy to enter into the ark with Noah and his family – but rather to be destroyed… argues against an AD 1844-type surmise.

---

>>Hmmm . . . I am not aware of any judgment entered by God in that regard.<<

Of course, I disagree…, unless you show me that Gd endeavoured to save or to otherwise encourage the antediluvians to enter the ark with Noah and his family. Somewhere much before the year AD 1844 Gd made a summary decision to destroy all flesh from the earth because “It repented Him that He had made man on the earth.” …no reference of resort to law, order, or canon, simply a summary judgement -- executed. Of course,

that is not to say that Gd was not within His rights.

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;

>>The facts seem to be that ol' Noah gave the invitation for 120 years,<<

As you say, “…seem to be…” However, there are no texts in Writ to sustain that thought.

>>…and they laughed him to scorn.<<

Nor are there texts attesting to this either.

>>It was their decision, rather than God's.<<

That might have been… but we are only given testimony to Gd’s agita, and per the antediluvians -- wickedness, violence, corruption, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage…

>>They decided their own fate.<<

Hypothetical: What if

Gen 6:9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations,

spoke to an undefiled bloodline, as the text seems to read, that is, Noah was but the current member in that familial descent? And, what if

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

actually addressed a ruination of flesh through an amalgamation by whatever cause or means, as spoken of by EGW? Would Gd have been justified and within His purview to have

sought to secure the Adamic bloodline through which the Redeemer would issue? Would the person of corrupted or ruinous flesh have been inherently at fault – that Gd should override the pertinences of that person – to opt for the welfare and greater good of the masses yet unborn? yet, to ultimately visit that corrupted and ruinous flesh under more favorable circumstances?

>>…each person decides his or her own fate in the final judgment. God merely ratifies the decision each has made. Nothing arbitrary or summary about it.<<

Perhaps, it is – in the final judgement as you say. Having said that,

yes, there may have been nothing more than necessity that would have defined “arbitrary”; and, per

“summary”…, well, we understand the definition of terms differently, it's not the end of the world

[archierieus]

Well, two premier lexical sources (BAGD and Louw-Nida) both identify the use of the word here as a bow used in warfare--the weapon. Also cited in BAGD is the use of the word in other Greek literature of the time, as a bow as used in warfare. Generally, I would say that if a student is going to disagree with lexical sources of that calibre, s/he would do well to have pretty solid documentation.

Reviewing this thread, I am reminded of a description of some efforts at prophetic interpretation as 'a crapshoot.' Fanciful flights of imagination being paraded as 'exegesis.'

BTW Monsieur Jasd, relying on Westcott & Hort as a text for Biblical Greek does raise some issues. Were you aware of that?

Regards, Dave

[Ron Lambert]

Jasd, it is possible to get Greek characters to post here. You have to change the typeface to "symbol."

Rev 6:2 kai eidon kai idou ippoV leukoV kai o kaqhmenoV ep auton ecwn toxon kai edoqh autw stefanoV kai exhlqen nikwn kai ina nikhsh

[Ron Lambert]

Interesting--playing with the above, I found that the html code to change the type font only works the first time you post the message. It does NOT work under the edit function! You have to delete the post then paste your revisions as a new post. I think this is a glitch in the software.

Now let me try to add a size command to make the greek text larger:

Rev 6:2 kai eidon kai idou ippoV leukoV kai o kaqhmenoV ep auton ecwn toxon kai edoqh autw stefanoV kai exhlqen nikwn kai ina nikhsh

That was done with this code: < font face=symbol size=4 >

[archierieus]

I should like to take another look at the concept of 'judgment' as it has been suggested in regard to Rev. ch. 5. The idea has been floated that ch. 5 describes the IJ. Other variations of that idea have also been proposed. What are the merits of this idea?

Firstly, we see that neither the word, 'judgment' nor any form thereof, occurs in the chapter. There are other passages which contain the word or forms thereof--for example, Rev. 20, Dan. 7, Corinthians, etc. These passages may properly be understood to pertain to God's judgment of people, because they so state. However, no such words appear in this passage.

What is stated in the passage? vv. 2,3: "Then I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open the scroll and to loose its seals?" And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll, or to look at it." Again, in v. 5: "But one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals." And, v. 9: "And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals."

What is the issue? Who is worthy to open the scroll. Is there a judgment? No process of judgment is described here. In the passages which DO describe judgment, the description is very clear: books are opened, people are judged by what is in the books, etc. Such would be in accord with principles of fundamental fairness.

However, in this passage, as to this issue, no such due process is suggested. The issue is limited to, who is worthy to open the scroll? The Lamb is stated to be worthy because He has redeemed people unto God by His blood. [As a point of interest, the text does not say "redeemed us" or "redeemed them". The Greek word is 'egorasas' which is second person singular aorist active indicative genitive, and quite literally means to buy in the marketplace ('agora'). Thus, there is no adjudication of a person's deeds or life. That is not the stated application. There is no 'judgment' of people, only the recognition that the Lamb has earned the right to open the scroll because He gave His life to redeem people.

Secondly, the scroll. This is singular: 'biblion' occuring without the article. That is distinguished from the books referred to in the judgment. We always find the plural used: "biblia," as well as the plural used in the OT. The idea of unrolling a scroll, described in ch. 5, is different from the due process of looking in the books of record. Nor are the books used in the judgment described as being written within and without. The description of the 'biblion' in ch. 5 would seem to indicate that it is unique.

Well, long posts can become tedious, so I will stop here for now.

Regards, Dave

[Ron Lambert]

Dave, how can you say that inquiring if anyone is worthy is not a judgment process? I have already dealt with your objection about the one book in Rev. 5 vs. the books (plural) of Daniel 7. Just because one particular book that has been sealed is the focus of attention in Rev. 5, that does not preclude the existence of other books. You still have not given any good reason for the book to be sealed, and I have presented a good explanation that makes perfect sense: The book contains the record of the faith and works of the saints, which can only be consulted if humanity has a Savior in whom we and our faith and works can be found worthy, because we are in Him. The record must be consulted so it can be officially determined who is to be included in the kingdom of Christ, and what rewards they are to receive (how many stars in their crowns, etc.). Thus while we are saved in Christ 2,000 years ago, we would still be lost if that book could not be opened.

You still miss the significance of the fact that seeing Rev. 5 as the Judgment shows us that indeed it is Christ who is judged worthy in our place in the Judgment. This shows us that the doctrine of the Pre-Advent, Investigative Judgment is fully in harmony with the gospel of justification by faith in Christ as our Substitute and Surety, by his imputed righteousness.

These days the doctrines of the Cleansing of the Sanctuary, Second Apartment ministry of Christ, and the Pre-Advent, Investigative Judgment are coming in for attack both from within and outside of the church. These doctrines are the crucial core of Seventh-day Adventism; if they go, then the church falls. We desperately need the positive verification and affirmation of these doctrines to be found in rightly interpreting Revelation 4-5 as depicting the Judgment. If we deny this, then our efforts to defend these doctrines truly vital to our church will continue to be weak and ineffectual. The doctrine of the judgment coming during the second apartment ministry of Christ, and especially during the finishing up of that second phase of His ministry, is affirmed in the vignette of the angel with the censer in Rev. 8:3-6.

If we realize the truth, interpreting the first half of Revelation the way it most naturally indicates, without trying to force it to fit traditional views that were never arrived at by sound methods of interpretation, then we will realize that the Judgment is indeed the central theme of most of Revelation. Thus we will have a most powerful reaffirmation of the central doctrines vital to our church of the cleansing of the sanctuary, second apartment ministry of Christ, and Pre-Advent, Investigative Judgment.

After the Ascension of Christ, the Judgment is the one thing remaining that must take place before Christ can return. So of course this must be the central theme of His final revelation to us.

[jasd]

>>Fanciful flights of imagination being paraded as 'exegesis.'<<

Whew! thank my lucky constellations that I’ve never put my sorry parsing and attempts at understanding forward – as being that/those of an exegete Now, “...flights of…” /gulp.

>>…relying on Westcott & Hort as a text for Biblical Greek does raise some issues. Were you aware of that?<<

Somewhat, though I’d hazard – not entirely. Though certainly cognizant as to their expertise, I often think of and refer to those hyphenated two as the ghostbustin’ spiritualists. Perhaps, it is unwarranted? That said,

I’d be happy to be apprised of that which I’m unaware.

[jasd]

Quote:

---

That was done with this code: < font face=symbol size=4 >

---

This gets my biggest thanks! well…, ‘cepting when I sit down to a formally dressed table, a very large Porterhouse or ribeye steak charred rare, and a passable bottle of Red (bein’s a great wine is now only a thing of memories for me… /sigh) – and lift my voice heavenwards…

(umm, I think it astute of you to enclose in parentheses the “…stars in their crowns, etc.”)

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

Dave, how can you say that inquiring if anyone is worthy is not a judgment process?

---

The issue is who has earned the right to unroll the scroll. That is not the issue of the Judgment, which addresses the eternal destiny of human beings. Secondly, the Lamb is deemed worthy to unroll the scroll. The Lamb's salvation is not an issue. The only stated issue is that of earning the right to unroll the scroll.

Quote:

---

I have already dealt with your objection about the one book in Rev. 5 vs. the books (plural) of Daniel 7. Just because one particular book that has been sealed is the focus of attention in Rev. 5, that does not preclude the existence of other books.

---

---

Nor does it require it. In fact, standing alone, it has absolutely no bearing. The only basis for a 'match' is the use of the English word "book," which is not necessarily a match as between Hebrew and Greek in these verses. The number of the books, the description of the book vs. that of the books where the judgment is discussed in Scripture, the purpose of opening the books, the content of the scroll in Rev. 6, all are different. Your statement is an assertion, for which you have provided absolutely no support beyond your assertion. Furthermore, the stated facts do not appear to support your assertion.

Quote:

---

You still have not given any good reason for the book to be sealed,

---

Nor is a reason required to be given. None is stated in the passage. Let's accept what God has chosen to reveal, and be careful not to speculate beyond that.

Quote:

---

and I have presented a good explanation that makes perfect sense: The book contains the record of the faith and works of the saints, which can only be consulted if humanity has a Savior in whom we and our faith and works can be found worthy, because we are in Him. The record must be consulted so it can be officially determined who is to be included in the kingdom of Christ, and what rewards they are to receive (how many stars in their crowns, etc.). Thus while we are saved in Christ 2,000 years ago, we would still be lost if that book could not be opened.

---

Ha! "Makes perfect sense?" According to who? You are reading into this passage, things that are not stated there. Sheer speculation which, in fact, is not supported by the record and contradicts the record. Not only is no such purpose or content stated, but the actual content of the scroll IS stated in ch. 6. It is nothing like you assert.

Quote:

---

You still miss the significance of the fact that seeing Rev. 5 as the Judgment shows us that indeed it is Christ who is judged worthy in our place in the Judgment. This shows us that the doctrine of the Pre-Advent, Investigative Judgment is fully in harmony with the gospel of justification by faith in Christ as our Substitute and Surety, by his imputed righteousness.

---

Ha! The worthiness of Christ to stand in our place is firmly and explicitly established elsewhere in the NT. Such is not stated here, nor does it need to be stated here. The IJ has plenty of support elsewhere in Scripture. There is no need to wrest Scripture here, in an attempt to show support for the IJ.

Quote:

---

If we realize the truth, interpreting the first half of Revelation the way it most naturally indicates, without trying to force it to fit traditional views that were never arrived at by sound methods of interpretation, then we will realize that the Judgment is indeed the central theme of most of Revelation. Thus we will have a most powerful reaffirmation of the central doctrines vital to our church of the cleansing of the sanctuary, second apartment ministry of Christ, and Pre-Advent, Investigative Judgment.

---

Interpreting the first half of Revelation the way it most naturally indicates is EXACTLY what I have done earlier in this thread. There is no need to attempt to read into the passage, what is not there, or to try to get it to say things that it simply does not say.

Quote:

---

After the Ascension of Christ, the Judgment is the one thing remaining that must take place before Christ can return. So of course this must be the central theme of His final revelation to us.

---

Actually, the Church was given time to see what it would do, and this is the theme of a good part of Revelation. the judgment of "the great whore" which the established Church became, is described later in the book.

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

Westcott and Hort? Their work product, hoary with age, and relying on manuscripts which are, in some cases, suspect? Westcott and Hort, on whose work product the Jehovah's Witnesses rely for their "New World" 'translation'? (Actually, not a true translation, nor even a paraphrase. A deliberate changing of what the text means. Even using W @ H in the JW interlinear Bible, one can see where they have changed it! Westcott and Hort? Indeed.

[jasd]

Indeed, indeed…, though I should be the one to censure! as I obstinately and prejudicially prefer the KJV – which use of the TR is also censured by the Modern Critic. That said,

doesn’t the more accepted and ‘standard’ of Nestle and the Nestle-Aland rely in part on the W-H text? as does that of the UBS?

Trivia: per the heavy reliance of W-H upon the Vaticanus::

“amaqestate kai kake, afeV ton palaion, mh metapoiei

(Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!)” --The complaint of a scribe, written in the margin of Codex Vaticanus at Heb. 1:3.

I keep the New World Translation together with the various translations I have and refer to it occasionally. In fact,

I am put to mind of it whenever I encounter threads questioning the Trinity doctrine.

[Ron Lambert]

Dave, what I said about the nature of the book that was sealed, why it was sealed, and why it is so vital to humanity that it be unsealed, was NOT assertion, but logical deduction that best accounts for all the specifications given in the text. There is a difference. If you cannot provide a better explanation for that book and its significance, then you are greatly handicapped when trying to deny my explanation. You need a better argument than mere name-calling, unfairly and arbitrarily calling my explanation an "assertion." That is an assertion.

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

Dave, what I said about the nature of the book that was sealed, why it was sealed, and why it is so vital to humanity that it be unsealed, was NOT assertion, but

logical deduction

that best accounts for all the specifications given in the text.

---

Well, that is the problem. Your position is not consistent with "all the specifications given in the text." I don't see a need to restate all those specifications. That has been addressed earlier on this thread. Your position has been to make assumptions and to read into the text things that are not stated there. As for an assertion, it is defined as "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason." (Webster's Unabridged) You have not provided textual support for your position. Your support consists of your deductions. That is NOT exegesis.

Quote:

---

If you cannot provide a better explanation for that book and its significance, then you are greatly handicapped when trying to deny my explanation. You need a better argument than mere name-calling, unfairly and arbitrarily calling my explanation an "assertion."

---

Perhaps you should reread my posts pertaining to the book. You will find there, statements and their textual and historical support. So far, you have provided no textual or critical basis for disputing the position I have taken in regard to the scroll and the scenes surrounding its unrolling. On the other hand, I have provided a textual and critical basis for disputing your position. Let's see what you have got, on the level of exegesis--NOT deductions.

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

Now, to the book, to the book . . . THAT is the issue! Or, as it is, the scroll, actually. Knowing the contents of the scroll should solve the question, one would think.

First, let's summarize what "the books" which are opened in Dan. 7, Rev. 20, and other similar passages, contain. There is the book of life, which apparently contains the NAMES of individuals there enrolled. There is the book of remembrance, described in Malachi. And, there is a book recording iniquities. Each of these is a separate 'book.' These three books are the only ones described in regard to the Judgment.

Very well. Now, we take a look at the 'book' described in Rev. 6. The contents of this scroll, written inside and out, are recorded in ch. 6--the white horse and rider, the red horse, black and pale, the record of those who were martyred (fifth seal), celestial signs, the return of Jesus, and silence in heaven.

The notion that this scroll is one of the three books described in regard to the judgment, is preposterous!!! This scroll does not record all the good deeds of each individual, nor does it record the sins of each, nor, clearly, is it the book of life. Quite obviously, it is not one of the 'books' used in the Judgment. The mere fact that it is a scroll, does not automatically mean that it is used in the Judgment. A number of scrolls are described in the Bible, which have nothing to do with the Judgment. This is one of them.

Well, enough on that. Moving right along . . .

Regards, Dave

[Ron Lambert]

Dave, as others have noted frequently, the seals are not the same as the scroll (book). All the seals must be removed before the scroll (book) can be read.

By the way, in reply to your assertions, my interpretation is in fact fully in harmony with every aspect of the text, while yours is not--you just skip over and disregard the things you cannot explain, and you draw invalid conclusions from artificially and arbitrarily constrained word studies. What you understand to be exegesis fails to include due regard for taking everything together in context. I will be content to allow my interpretation to stand up side-by-side with that of anyone else, and let those who truly respect the Word of God and have their hearts open to the leading of His Spirit decide for themselves if it is light.

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

Dave, as others have noted frequently, the seals are not the same as the scroll (book). All the seals must be removed before the scroll (book) can be read.

---

That is a misstatement of the facts. First of all, nowhere in the passage is there any suggestion that ALL the seals must be removed before ANY of the scroll may be read. Secondly, the passage DOES record the CONTENTS of the scroll. That is the purpose of opening the scroll, described in ch. 5. As EACH seal is removed, MORE of the scroll is read! The scroll describes events which occur all the way through the end of time, right up to silence in heaven. THAT is the last of the scroll.

Quote:

---

By the way, in reply to your assertions, my interpretation is in fact fully in harmony with every aspect of the text, while yours is not--you just skip over and disregard the things you cannot explain, and you draw invalid conclusions from artificially and arbitrarily constrained word studies. What you understand to be exegesis fails to include due regard for taking everything together in context. I will be content to allow my interpretation to stand up side-by-side with that of anyone else, and let those who truly respect the Word of God and have their hearts open to the leading of His Spirit decide for themselves if it is light.

---

Rhetoric, rhetoric, and of no factual value. It is easy to shoot rhetoric back and forth. But, doing so does not bring truth to light. No, your interpretation is NOt fully in harmony with every aspect of the text, for the reasons stated in my earlier posts on this thread. And, yes, I limit my work to what God has chosen to reveal, and will not conjecture as to what is not revealed. Artificially and arbitrarily constrained word studies? You will need to give specific examples of what you are saying here, if you expect your statement to have any weight. What are those specifics? Context? What I have seen of your work product, is not 'context,' but reading into the text your own ideas. Is your interpretation 'light'? I truly respect the Word of God, and my heart is open to the leading of His Spirit, and I conclude that your interpretation is not in harmony with the Scripture, hence not light.

Regards, Dave

[Ron Lambert]

Dave, how can you read the scroll/book while it still has any seals remaining? I have difficulty picturing that. Would you care to explain? You figure you are prying open the book, trying to peek under the remaining seal(s)? The text in Revelation six is talking about visions that are seen in association with the seals themselves. You most certainly do not see what is recorded in the scroll/book. You are the first person I have ever heard advocating the idea that the visions of the seven seals reveal what is recorded in the scroll/book itself.

You keep asserting that I am just reading my own ideas into the text. But I have explained my rationale, by means of which I make the deductions I do. When I say that the scroll/book contains the record of the faith and works of the people of God, I do so because that is the only logical possibility that explains why the book would be sealed, and why only our Saviour could unseal it--our faith and works only have validity and worth in Him, because we are in Him. There is no reason for the books of record of the events of history to be sealed, when the whole universe has been witness to them. Nor would the Law of God as the standard of Judgment be sealed. Nor would the record of all the sinful violations of the law committed by man be sealed, when again, all the universe has been witness to these things. Only if the book records the faith and works of God's people, which have no worth or validity in themselves apart from Our Representative Man who is worthy in our place, does it make sense that this book should be sealed until a Worthy Man is found capable of giving worth and validity to all our faith and works. This is a deduction.

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

Dave, how can you read the scroll/book while it still has any seals remaining? I have difficulty picturing that. Would you care to explain? You figure you are prying open the book, trying to peek under the remaining seal(s)? The text in Revelation six is talking about visions that are seen in association with the seals themselves. You most certainly do not see what is recorded in the scroll/book. You are the first person I have ever heard advocating the idea that the visions of the seven seals reveal what is recorded in the scroll/book itself.

---

[Rolls eyes] Ein schickelgruber!!! Ch. 5 describes the need to open the seals and read the scroll. Ch. 6 very clearly states: "Now I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals; and I heard one of the four living creatures saying with a voice like thunder, "Come and see." (v. 1) AFTER THE SEAL WAS OPENED, THEN JOHN COULD SEE WHAT WAS IN THE SCROLL!!!!! And so forth, throughout the scroll. The Scripture does not record precisely how the scroll was sealed, or indeed how the scroll might be read. Such would be speculation. Scripture DOES record the contents of the scroll UNDER EACH SEAL!!! As for WHY the scroll is sealed in that way? Such is not stated in the record. Therefore, we cannot speculate as to the reason. God did not choose to reveal it to us. That is the end of that. As for deductions . . . I am reminded of the active imaginations of some cosmologists. but, enough about that.

Cheers.

[Ron Lambert]

No Dave, that is not what it is saying. You are misreading it, jumping to conclusions. Where does it say John could read the scroll/book? Nowhere! What John saw was revealed in the seal itself as it was opened. The visions of the seals concern the events that must take place before the record in the scroll/book can be read.