Christians: How do you interpret Revelation 21:8?

Not sure how many real Christian answered your question.

Do you want a real truthful answer?

Maybe you should ask those who say the Bible is mostly Allegorical to give you understanding obvious it is not literal Right?

a reply to: Klassified

As usual you bring in a comment that I will Starr , only because I cant give you a 1/2 of one . :>) I think the OP's post carries with it," in the title "a Christian fallacy . of "how would you interpret " You yourself have read " 2 Timothy 3:16-17New King James Version (NKJV)

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

as well as " Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things.


New Living Translation
Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet's own understanding,

English Standard Version
knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.

Berean Study Bible
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from the prophet's own interpretation.

Berean Literal Bible
knowing this first, that any prophecy of Scripture is not of its own interpretation.

New American Standard Bible
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

King James Bible
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
First of all, you should know this: No prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation,

International Standard Version
First of all, you must understand this: No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

NET Bible
Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet's own imagination,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
While you first know this: No prophecy is its own exposition of the Scriptures.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
First, you must understand this: No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.

New American Standard 1977
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

Jubilee Bible 2000
understanding this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

King James 2000 Bible
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of one's own interpretation.

American King James Version
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

American Standard Version
knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

Darby Bible Translation
knowing this first, that [the scope of] no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation,

English Revised Version
knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.

Webster's Bible Translation
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Weymouth New Testament
But, above all, remember that no prophecy in Scripture will be found to have come from the prophet's own prompting;

World English Bible
knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation.

Young's Literal Translation
this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition, biblehub.com...


These verses alone must tell the Christian that what the op is asking is outside of what the bible teaches . Is OP baiting ? dont know but I can say for sure if you are into interpeting the bible then you will have many opinions . Whats that saying ? if you have 3 Jews in a room talking about something you might get several opinions ... My suggestion to op is there is a answer to the question you may want to re-phrase personally ,but neither mine nor any others opinion matters much .What matters is what God says .....peace

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Did you notice that some of those versions are of private interpretation?

Find the one that is preserved and throw the rest out in the trash.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Maybe you should ask those who say the Bible is mostly Allegorical to give you understanding obvious it is not literal Right?

We mostly all know that the Bible uses all forms of literature . allegory included but is not completely . Its not only a reading exercise but a understanding exercise one too . Pick a pun or a sarcastic remark and try to understand it as such . If you dare ,I promise you that the bible will become a living thing .

a reply to: the2ofusr1
I think he may be referring to the KJV only crowd, who believe that all other versions are the devil's handiwork. If not, I'm sure he will correct me.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

And of course we all know Paul wasn't talking about anything in the NT... which didn't exist when and IF he wrote such words

a reply to: Akragon

Please do try to put a coherent statement together without your obvious innuendo . also merry Xmas .

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I am not afraid to consider what others may or may not think about what a text might say .I think that is why the JW have become so dogmatic about their bible . Has a very cultist ring ,don't you think ?

a reply to: Klassified

If he dare correct you then I think the both of us could point out some very ambiguous KJ verses that are incoherent with the rest of the Bible . But yea Chester bring it on ....:>)

a reply to: Profusion

A classic case of taking the bible too literally. If one reads the rest of the bible, then they know that there is a day, judgement day where all men are supposedly resurrected and stand before God to be judged for their life and how they lived it before they are sent to heaven, or the lake of fire (hell)

Those conditions listed are just some of the things one can be condemned for and God will be the one who makes the call. So trying to narrow it down to that list and a literal 'if you tell one lie, you are going there' sort of interpretation is erroneous.

a reply to: Klassified
No I don't mean king James only crowd.

But I believe the AV/KJV is the preserved word of God as promised in Psalm 12:6, 7. So I need no other version just the Holy Ghost and some simple basic inductive questions to understand the seven questions of who, what, when, where, why, which and how.

a reply to: the2ofusr1
I agree they are a cult and that their private interpreted bible version is more than flawed.

Again

You can't take one verse from the bible and ask for an understanding, it needs to be read in context with other verses

The Sermon on the Mount explains sin, it explains murder, it explains sexuality and sin, the sermon goes in to great detail very simply.

It amazes me the atheists around here who tell everyone how much biblical knowledge they have but don't seem to understand the basics
It amazes me the Christians the same

a reply to: Raggedyman
context is of upmost importance without it you can't inductively study the scriptures to answer the Seven basic W's and the H questions.

But nothing is more important than having the Holy Ghost residing in you.

a reply to: Raggedyman
I often see these posed questions about Bible verses as nothing more than a way to bash and belittle the text and those who believe it, and it opens ground for unbelievers, agnostics and even atheist to draw lines in the sands of confusion.

If the OP and others like them were really wanting an answer they would be grateful for honest answers and like the Bereans of old would search the scriptures to see if things were so.

a reply to: Profusion

Check out Romans 3:5 and Psalm 116:11 below. Does the Bible say all men are liars? I believe it does. Revelation 21:8 says all liars are going to "have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." The Bible is not well thought-out. That's not really surprising when you consider how it was written. Somehow believers tap dance around every conceivable problem though. Here's another related problem:

Apparently you are still very confused in realizing that there is no Jesus in Rev 21:8 to forgive ones sins. Go back and read the entire chapter to understand that Rev. 21:8 is talking about a celestial New Jerusalem and not this earth. In Rev. 21:8 the universe and all in this universe has been dissolved. There is no more Jesus to forgive sins. All sins in the last two chapters of Revelation are not forgiven by Jesus and the sinners are under law once more. They must obey the commandments of God as it was before Jesus was upon this earth. They are compelled to overcome sin because Faith is no longer on the table.

They now have celestial people and a celestial city and new heaven and earth within their sight. They have no need for faith in order to believe. Their care givers are celestial people whom Isaiah tells us have raised them from new born till self supporting upon the new earth. They are given one hundred years to become saved by obedience to the commandments of God.

Now if you continue to pick a verse and then build an interpretation from a verse that shows that you are disingenuous to say the least. It shows that your intent was to bash and not build. A liar in the Psalms had no Jesus to forgive that lie and a liar in Romans did have a Jesus to forgive that lie. A liar in Revelation 21-22 does not have a Jesus to forgive that lie simply because faith is no longer evidence of the unseen.

In plain language Revelation 21 and 22 does not apply to this universe whatsoever. Jesus is long gone and has returned to His first celestial estate as the image of God. All of the people outside of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 and 22 see and experience God as they live. They no longer do as we do today. We live in blind faith and are saved by that faith whereas they live with God in their sight and are saved by law.

You have to read the scriptures in context as the authors intended. What you are doing is trying to convince people that the authors of the Hebrew and Greek bibles are all confused and that you are somehow a qualified translator and interpreter of their intent.

a reply to: Seede


I love people who know how to rightly divide the scriptures.

now my only prayer is that he seeks the scriptures and verifies the truths you just laid out.

a reply to: SBargisen

The first book which the bible comes from is the Masoretic Text, which comes from the year 900 +-. What happened in 900 years? lol. Tales from generation to generation might alter everything.

But then the dead sea Isaiah scroll tells us that it is almost word for word the same as the Leningrad Codex (Masoretic text). In fact almost 1,000 years older than your 900 CE Codex. The Dead sea Isaiah scroll was dated four times and is verified as from about 200 to 300 BCE. Tales were not altered from 300 BCE to 900 CE. A thousand years record proves you wrong so far. Not bad for goat herders is it?

a reply to: Profusion

Compare Rev 21:8 to Rev 22:14. The answer is in the contrast.

Rev 21:8“But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Rev 22:14Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

Rev 21:8 says the cowardly, UNBELIEVING, abominable, etc. Those will go to the Lake of Fire.

Rev 22:14 says the scorcers, immoral, murderers, etc will not be allowed into New Jerusalem. Notice how it doesn't mention UNBELIEVERS.

So, UNBELIEVERS go to the Lake of Fire, but BELIEVERS who are wicked stay outside of New Jerusalem.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Akragon

Please do try to put a coherent statement together without your obvious innuendo . also merry Xmas .

Merry Xmas to you as well...

what exactly didn't you understand about my very coherent and factual statement?

there was no innuendo either... do you know these words?

lets not be thick here... shall we?