It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Possible interpretations of the book of revelations

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I started this thread, because I thought everybody needed a thread where people can post their interpretations. IMO sometimes, someone might interpret better than a priest/scholar/etc. I'm not religious, but this book of revelation caught my eye. As some are coming true (if it was interpreted right
), I have a possibility of my own, tell me what you people think.

in Revelation 17:12 "The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast."

Like I read in another thread (don't know which or whom said it), I looked at it how the prophets saw it back then.

Look at the "horns", what are horns used for? Self-defence, then I eventually came up with this... what is a countries self-defence "weapon" that looks like a horn? missiles... and I came up with there is 9 countries that has nuclear arms, which the tenth country is Iran...

"The ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but ..." might be the next elections, which might go awry. The beginning of a police state and reinstating themselves as "kings", with authority over everyone, and eventually there will be a riot against this act (therefore the "for one hour as kings with the beast").

How does one appease the "beast", by slaughtering millions. The beast hates Man, for "Man is in God's image".

What do you people think? Or maybe I'm a nutcase
?

I'll post more of these if I find any.




posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Well, without getting into my diatribe again,
let me just state that the book of Revelation needs to be considered in the context of the ancient mind, not the present.

Now, if one looks at this phrase, "The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast," it would certainly seem that these kings are either killed or dethroned relatively quickly.

However, this "one hour" statement could be literal or it could mean for a period of one year. Now, it would seem that any uprising, assuming it to be civilian, would take longer than one hour to overthrow ten governments.

I suspect that this election, in preclude to the coming 2012 election, will be very important.. We don't need someone who is going to be overpowering, but we also don't need an individual that is a weak, whimpering gratuitous individual either.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, without getting into my diatribe again,
let me just state that the book of Revelation needs to be considered in the context of the ancient mind, not the present.


So should the Bible in General be considered in the context of the ancient mind. I am always amazed by those that say they take the Bible literally, but when the Book of Revelations is discussed, they change their tune and say it is symbolic.

And The_unravelled, you are not a nutcase and your interpretation has as much validity as the so called "Bible Scholars" when it comes to the book of Revelations.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Concerning literal vs. symbolic interpretation of the Bible: I often see people divide into 2 camps, much like the 'alien/ufo vs. God' thing.

My faith tells me the Bible is both symbolic in some parts, and literal in other parts. Many of the things Jesus said, giving to the poor/loving your neighbor as yourself for instance, are quite literal, whereas the 4 beasts of Daniel and the Beast of Revelation are rich in symbolism.

The Bible is indeed a living word; as I change in my spiritual growth, its meaning to me changes as well, even a chapter (or chapters) I've read a zillion times, the Book of Revelation being one of them. That being said, one should approach studying The Revelation, indeed the entire Bible, with an open HEART and SPIRIT, as well as an open mind, and earnestly petition God to set you on a path towards true knowledge. I can't sit here and try to convince anyone that my beliefs are indeed right and true, and I can't post links to back up my claims (my Faith has no URL address at the moment, haha) but this website is a platform for ideas and discussion and I figured I'd toss my two cents out there. God Bless!
eyes2see



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
So should the Bible in General be considered in the context of the ancient mind. I am always amazed by those that say they take the Bible literally, but when the Book of Revelations is discussed, they change their tune and say it is symbolic.

And The_unravelled, you are not a nutcase and your interpretation has as much validity as the so called "Bible Scholars" when it comes to the book of Revelations.


Well, firstly, I by no means take much out of the bible literally. Even the whole "made in God's image" has a different meaning to me than it does to most. I view the whole "made in God's image" as meaning made in God's spiritual image, not physically made in his image.

I'd say a large portion of the bible should be taken with the ancient mindset in mind. You cannot compare our idealization of "horrific" with those of the ancient mind. Would the extinction of various animals, even if it's a process of several thousands of years, be considered horrific to the ancient mind? Certainly... However, to the modern mind, it's just a natural process that eventually happens to all species.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Eye2See, I'd certainly agree with you... Ummm, at least to me, the things that should be taken literal are quite obvious. Things such as love God, your neighbor, yourself, et cetera... is quite literal. However, when we get into the imagery that the bible uses, it, at least in my opinion, is almost exclusively symbolic.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, without getting into my diatribe again,
let me just state that the book of Revelation needs to be considered in the context of the ancient mind, not the present.


I understand that. I try to "see through their eyes" (sort of like condescending, but not in a insulting way, can't think of a better word now), if you understand the meaning. Example... the 200 million horse riders from the far east that's supposed to "move" over the Euphrates river when its dried up. In the present, no-one uses horses... the only explanation is, they (prophets of the past), didn't know what he/they saw (which probably was tanks, cars, APCs,etc.), and in their time, the only thing you can control (or drive) are horses. I think the 200 million might be a exaggeration.


Now, if one looks at this phrase, "The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast," it would certainly seem that these kings are either killed or dethroned relatively quickly.


(to me) It sounds like the presidents we have now (I can name 1, Bush, everyone want him off the "throne"). But we unfortunately don't know how the presidents in the future are going to be. I Agree wuth you interpretation


However, this "one hour" statement could be literal or it could mean for a period of one year. Now, it would seem that any uprising, assuming it to be civilian, would take longer than one hour to overthrow ten governments.


I also wonder how long actually... I wondered about durations vs. time in a dream/vision,, in a dream it feels like hours (or even days) go by (and sometimes vice versa, a dream that felt like it only felt like it took a hour, but the dream spanned a year), but when you wake up... you just had your average 6-8 hour sleep. And ussually people only remember the dream(s), about 1-2 hours before you wake up. So the hour can be a day, a week, a month, year, decade... ect.


I suspect that this election, in preclude to the coming 2012 election, will be very important.. We don't need someone who is going to be overpowering, but we also don't need an individual that is a weak, whimpering gratuitous individual either.


I see it as a group of people... everybody says it'll be 1 person who rules the world. I might be wrong, yet I might be right, there can be a mistake in the interpretation, or it was right. It just doesn't sound right: 1 person rules the world... I think he (the anti-christ, or whomever) would die of a heart-attack. If he makes a mistake... its him vs. the world.

Don't take this post the wrong way.


[edit on 31-1-2007 by The_unraveller]

[edit on 31-1-2007 by The_unraveller]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_unraveller
I think the 200 million might be a exaggeration.



It may very well be...But a country such as China or India could march such an army very easily... Both countries are quickly reaching the 2 billion mark in population. I think India has actually surpassed China in population but I am not sure.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_unraveller
I see it as a group of people... everybody says it'll be 1 person who rules the world. I might be wrong, yet I might be right, there can be a mistake in the interpretation, or it was right. It just doesn't sound right: 1 person rules the world... I think he (the anti-christ, or whomever) would die of a heart-attack. If he makes a mistake... its him vs. the world.



[edit on 31-1-2007 by The_unraveller]


Well, it could be a group of people. However, let me run something by you... If the globalization process continues as it is, a one world dictator won't only be possible,it will be likely... That is the main problem that I have with globalism, it leaves the doors wide open for a one world dictator i.s "anti-Christ." Globalism in and of itself is not a bad idea until one considers the consequences of it.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyes2see


My faith tells me the Bible is both symbolic in some parts, and literal in other parts. Many of the things Jesus said, giving to the poor/loving your neighbor as yourself for instance, are quite literal, whereas the 4 beasts of Daniel and the Beast of Revelation are rich in symbolism.


Exactly.. Thats why people have such a difficult time deciphering the bible. They dont know when it switches from literal into symbolic and vice versa. Revelations is a VERY difficult book to decipher and has many different interpretations. Some view the revival of the roman empire as petaining to the european union. Some veiw the coming false prophets and messaiahs as refering to the dangers of islam. Some think that the prophecy of Revelations has already been fulfilled by the fall of rome and the esatblishment of christendom for 2,000 years. No one really knows.

I tend not to worry about it because it is probably only meant to be deciphered right when the things it describes take shape. Thats the thing with bible prophecy, it is only meant to make sense to believers and even then it only comes together on the eve of such events.

Personally, I believe that it is a prophecy that has yet to be fulfilled. It is coming close, no doubt. The re-establishment of the jewish state, etc. tells us this much. A really good roadsign will be the destruction of the al-aqsa mosque or of lasting peace in Israel. In any case, a third jewish temple has to be erected on the temple mount before any of these things come to pass.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_unraveller


in Revelation 17:12 "The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast."





the next verse;


These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.


so those 'horns' already identified as 'Kings' (or national leadership like President or PrimeMinister...)
are aligned or in the same 'camp': (such a a NAU, or Atlantic NATO, G-10, even a Shanghi 10, or a new OGPC [Org. Gas Producing Countries], WesternAlignedCivilization=WAC, ...the list grows on)

and this group of kings/leaders Gives their power (armies, missiles?) and authority (vote, world prestige?) to the 7th king/beast
of the powerful endtime ?co-alition of the willing? empire.

here's the act played out;

10 nations join in a combined union, as it takes such a united effort & resources to remedy or confront the peril before them.
As soon as the 10 nations signatories finalize the Treaty/Union
, a faction springs into action, 7 of the 10 heads of state submit to the Junta takeover,
but 3 leaders refuse to submit, so the Coup by the militant faction kills them and forceably takes the reigns of that countries leadership.
and within an hour a 10 nation coalition was formed, then overthrown by the faction led by the future anti-christ man.

since the media was already a mouthpiece for all 10 of those 'kingdoms'
the takeover, assassinations, were only reported as a 'transition' and the combined union was now a single cohesive 'body' under the power & authority of blaa & Blahh, who we recognize as the AC & the False Prophet. no one's the wiser,
and Everyone Wondered after Beast...according to revelations



[edit on 31-1-2007 by St Udio]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by The_unraveller
I think the 200 million might be a exaggeration.



It may very well be...But a country such as China or India could march such an army very easily... Both countries are quickly reaching the 2 billion mark in population. I think India has actually surpassed China in population but I am not sure.


I know they can easily muster a force like that (in numbers), but not all of them will want to fight. If I remember right, China had almaost 3 million soldiers. I don't know much about india, though.

And to look at it logically a 200 million man army, will be the most expensive army ever... or most under equiped army ever,



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
That might also be a possibility, St Udio.

but what you mentioned:


3 leaders refuse to submit


it got me thinking...

Maybe, 2 of the 3 leaders are the so called "witnesses" who gets killed and the last one will come back as the hero/"messiah". Or maybe I'm wrong. What do you think?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_unraveller
I know they can easily muster a force like that (in numbers), but not all of them will want to fight. If I remember right, China had almaost 3 million soldiers. I don't know much about india, though.

And to look at it logically a 200 million man army, will be the most expensive army ever... or most under equiped army ever,


Well, I think a lot of it is going to depend on exactly what is going on. I f there is a cause that is severe enough, and important enough, you'd be surprised by the reaction you'd get.

Let's say that someone came to the forefront that convinced the people of the world, namely Europe and Asia, that the Middle East including Israel was the root of the problems in the world,uh, it wouldn't be surprising to see 10s of millions of people lining up to fight.

Also, it needs to be kept in mind what kind of government China has... I don't know if they have conscription over there, but I would be surprised to see them instate it in such a scenario...

Like I said, the whole 200 million figure may and probably is inflated... When one considers that an Army of a million men would seem rather humongous to the ancient mind, it's not much of a stretch to assume that 200 million is indeed an inflated figure.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Personally, I don't think a lot of soldiers will enlist, if another story/problem is pinned to the middle-east. All the countries will first take it with a pinch of salt.

Your right about the 200 million... but not from China alone. The whole world maybe.

As for China, I don't think they will want to go to war. Their Economy is rising, a war would bring them down, and I don't think they would want that.

Edited to add: If they (the prophets think 200 million was a gigantic army... then why is only 144 000 people going to "raptured"? 100 000 was already a huge population for them at that time... but 200 million sounds a bit like overkill (excuse the pun)

[edit on 31-1-2007 by The_unraveller]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Like a lot poetic, non-literal literature, the meaning of the Book of Revelation has as much to do with what you bring to the interpretation as the work itself. That's why those who go looking for seals and signs are almost guaranteed to find them. Likewise, those hoping for a "Rapture" find all kinds of justifications why they will be selected, while overlooking the most plain and obvious description in the book of those raptured as limited specifically to 144,000 Jewish male virgins - which leaves out a lot of us.

Of course, there's the historical context in which the Book was even included in the Bible. Is it just a coincidence that a scary book about a warrior king is included in the Bible under the direction of the scary warrior Emperor Constantine?

In my humble opinion, it's important to compare the text to others from the same social environment and historical period. I recommend this as a good, enlightening source for other documents:

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

[edit on 31-1-2007 by SuicideVirus]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_unraveller
Personally, I don't think a lot of soldiers will enlist, if another story/problem is pinned to the middle-east. All the countries will first take it with a pinch of salt.


[edit on 31-1-2007 by The_unraveller]


They won't have to enlist if there is conscription. They will be forced to be in the military. I personally think China is one of the biggest threats this wolrd will face in the future...So...
you really can't convince me that China is just trying to "make it" like many try to say.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
Likewise, those hoping for a "Rapture" find all kinds of justifications why they will be selected, while overlooking the most plain and obvious description in the book of those raptured as limited specifically to 144,000 Jewish male virgins - which leaves out a lot of us.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by SuicideVirus]


If that is literal, then what of the gentile virgins? Also, that is not a reference to a "rapture" type event, but a reference to those that will be granted a "leadership" role in God's coming kingdom.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by The_unraveller
Personally, I don't think a lot of soldiers will enlist, if another story/problem is pinned to the middle-east. All the countries will first take it with a pinch of salt.


[edit on 31-1-2007 by The_unraveller]


They won't have to enlist if there is conscription. They will be forced to be in the military. I personally think China is one of the biggest threats this wolrd will face in the future...So...
you really can't convince me that China is just trying to "make it" like many try to say.


I won't try to convince you of anything of that sort. Yes, China can be a great threat.

Remember WW2, Russia forcing their people to fight. "Not 1 step back" or you get shot policy didn't help them much. Helped them a little during the war, Stalin's fame didn't go all too well, and the country was a wreck for a while (until the cold war, which made it worse). China won't make that mistake, if they were to wage war... they won't come alone. N. Korea (they have the 4th largest army in the world), Japan, and Russia (the ones I could think of).

Hmm, since after WW2 everybody started making allegiances before going to war... Looks like people has become afraid of fighting alone (1-country vs 1-country)...



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
Likewise, those hoping for a "Rapture" find all kinds of justifications why they will be selected, while overlooking the most plain and obvious description in the book of those raptured as limited specifically to 144,000 Jewish male virgins - which leaves out a lot of us.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by SuicideVirus]


If that is literal, then what of the gentile virgins? Also, that is not a reference to a "rapture" type event, but a reference to those that will be granted a "leadership" role in God's coming kingdom.


Gentile virgins are out of luck, since the 144,000 are a reference to the 12,000 men chosen from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. Which tribe are you from? And "Baptist" ain't one of them.

But that's just what I was talking about. The interpretation everyone brings to the discussion from their own personal perspective. It's not even that it's "wrong" or "right." Because it's symbolic imagery and poetry, the meaning exists because of the person giving it meaning. I guess you could compare it to the collapse of a quantum wave function. Without an observer (or in this case, a reader), the text itself has multiple potential virtual meanings, but then a person reads it, bringing their experiences, and it becomes real. Funny how that works.

It's not like talking about a "chair," for instance, which we can all pretty much agree on. But we could debate a long time about what the Book means by "king." Does it mean a literal king, an elected President, anyone who rises to a ruling position? It's a tough one. Did Jesus consider himself a "king," as such? And so on.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join