cnorman18:
First, it's written in such horribly bad Greek that it's often almost impossible to make out the plain sense of the words, let alone what they might mean.
If this is the case, then why do most (if not all) translations of The Revelation render very similarly? Conspiracy?
Your point about style difference is well taken, but the alleged ambiguity doesn't follow.
Second, it's written in a kind of "code"--the people to whom it was written understood all the symbols and knew who was being talked about, but today we don't have a clue.
This seems an overstatement. Even though it's not all clear, quite a bit can be surmised from what we know of early Christian history. It's also true that much of the "code" was actually symbolically derived from Old Testament books. The book of Revelation therefore becomes unintelligible apart from a familiarity with certain books from the OT (Much from the Pentateuch, Prophets, and books like Daniel). Not saying that that makes it easy. Heck, the Old Testament is not easy. But to say that we "don't have a clue" is misleading. Does comparable ambiguity diminish the value, or our fascination with ancient art? What we know, we know. What we don't we don't. Its still a breathtaking picture.
Third, it was probably about contemporary events anyway; best guess on the identity of the Beast is Nero.
There's little doubt that the book of Revelation was about events contemporaneous to the author. The question is whether that precludes a collateral futuristic aspect, which happens to be uncannily prophetic. The story of despotic powers, the kinds of sorrows associated with their decline, and the persecution of godly people, has been an eternal theme. Malcolm Muggeridge once wrote that "The only way to be sane about history is to keep its end in view, as the only way to be sane about living is to keep death in view". The book of Revelation does a good job of vividly placing this kind of drama always before our minds, which is the hallmark of reality. I feel the book of Revelation is best interpreted as having a partial preteristic fulfillment as well as a consummate futuristic fulfillment. History has been known, if not to repeat itself exactly, to bear recurrent events and themes that are quite resemblant. Both / and ... not either / or.
Fourth, books like it were ten cents a hundred in the 1st and 2nd centuries. They were all over the place, all in the same gee-whiz style and all unintelligible.
Understandably don't you think? A culture who had been reared to expect the end of an age, and the advent of another, and were seeing their world shake and crumble around them? As far as your statement about the "gee-whiz" style and "unintelligibility" ... that seems like a whole lot of subjectivity and not a little exaggeration. There are some really good and scholarly commentaries to the Revelation which reveal quite a bit of understanding about it, and its style, without denying some historical haze.
It should be left in the Bible for tradition's sake (and who would have the authority to delete it?), but it ought to be carefully ignored. More people have gone nuts studying Revelation than all the other books in the Bible together.
I actually heard that statement way back in high-school as a kind of suburban legend. Its a fun thing to say. What kind of stats can you give to show that insanity is causally linked with reading the book of Revelation, or even other books of the Bible? Showing that insane people have had an interest in religious texts is not enough. Poets, philosophers, artists, and countless pastors and priests also have been preoccupied with it. Is this a real reason to "carefully ignore" the book?
The Rapture is major silliness. In fact, the whole "Premillenial Dispensationalism" thing is silly. It's a huge structure of the imagination, wishful thinking built up out of a word here and a verse there, that has nothing to do with the Bible at all. Why any Christian would think he can figure out the details of the "End Times" just beats me, because the NT itself says you can't do that.
Just short of of coming to the conclusion of eschatological agnosticism, I agree with you here. Though the rapture can be thought a term for the mystical union of believers with Christ at the end of the age (the physical dynamics of that reality being secondary); and for that reason is not without merit. I myself am not comfortable with pretribulational doctrine.
Hope I'm not being abrasive here. This is very interesting topic. Enjoying the discussion.
).
