I must pick a nit - the book is "Revelation", singular, not "Revelations"

Sorry, it's just been really bugging me, and people having been talking about this book a lot lately.

It's singular.

It was one, long, revelation to John. Not a series of revelations later put together in book form. It's just the one revelation, by Christ, to John, at one time.

Singular.

No "s" at the end.

Revelation.

Say it with me: "Revelation". Notice that it ends with "n"?

Sounds better without that "s", doesn't it? Yes, precious, it does.

Re - ve - la - tion.

Rev 1:1 - "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants* what must soon take place; he made** it known by sending his angel to his servant*** John." (NRSV)

* Greek slaves
** Greek and he made
*** Greek slave

(nothing like a scientist if you need some serious nits picked)..
Was the book written in Englsih originally? (asked in innocent tone of voice). No? Gosh, what did they call it in Greek or Aramaic or whatever?

(it was originally written in Greek)

Singular, meaning 'revelation'. Or one could even say it means "apocalypse".

The plural would be apokalypses.

But you can check here - I just found this amazing resource for interlinear Bible study on the web (sadly, it's KJV in English, but still,pretty darn impressive! http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1074283162-9008.html#1 I'm hoping that link will take you right to the first verse of Revelation. If it doesn't, you'll need to hunt around)

(careful when trying to out-scientist the scientist cum bible scholar :-) :hi: )

on edit: figured out how to make the greek appear - thought it was text, but they actually used images.

we'll accept your paper for publication; fund your grant proposal......

I'd like really a rather large grant, if you don't mind...

Just wondering?

You can hear it here as an mp3:

http://www.helding.net/greeklatinaudio/greek/revelation/

(just found this site!)

And the main site with lots of other goodies: http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/index.html

(wow - I've found some cool sites today)

click the blue "C"

to show up on the DU page. I had assumed they were usinga greek font, but they are using gifs for each letter, so that's what I used.

...The Acts of the Apostles.

:shrug:

Right after the Gospels.

Acts is a continuation of the book of Luke.

:hi: Greatauntoftriplets!

"Mystical Hallucinations"?

It's really out there.

Yeah, it is pretty out there. :smoke:

I mean, I certainly believe John believed it. But wow! Revelation rivals the best drug liturature of any time period. :crazy: I don't think HST wrote anything that strange.

and the actual names of the Revelation. But to say, even in jest that it was drug induced makes me wonder why someone would be as knowledgeable, yet seem not to have an appreciation for the book?

Why cannot one poke a little fun at something that one appreciates?

Heck, I make Jesus jokes and Philip Glass jokes, too. Doesn't mean I don't like 'em. :-)

I've even made jokes about - gasp - my mother's death. eeeeerie.

No, I appreciate the Bible a lot - wholeheartedly, one could say, and find much comfort and solace and wisdom and life direction therein. But it doesn't discount the fact that Revelation is like being on acid. As is Daniel. And Deuteronomy is like listening to a boring geometry teacher go on and on and on about axioms . . .

Just having a little humor, dude. Chill.

I don't find many people with the in-depth knowledge (gnosko) that you seem to have. I study the paideia of God, and it seemed that you may be a student yourself.

I wasn't being critical, just trying to see which end you were coming from.

I studied Hebrew, not Greek, though one cannot get away from at least some encounters with Greek, eh? I know enough about how to go in and take a look and read the words, and check 'em in a lexicon, etc., but don't ask me to parse anything. :-)

But thanks for the compliments - and I'm glad you weren't being critical.

Oswald Chambers material?

Who are they?

"Principles of Spiritual Growth" which is one of my study guides, and
"None But the Hungry Heart" which is written in the style of devotionals but very rich and deep.

Oswald Chambers wrote, among others "My Utmost for Highest". This goes deeper into sanctification and is a hard read for the casual mind.

Oh, and I couldn't forget Buyans "Pilgrims Progress" written back in the 1400's.

I checked them out on Amazon, and realize that I do know the name of Chambers, though I've read nothing by him. Both he and Stanford are a bit more toward to the Evangelical side of where I lean (Chambers having studied under Spurgeon), and so I've not really been confronted with their stuff at the bookstores I'd go to.

Zondervan and Moody publishing are not in my A-list of publishers to go with, though I will say that I don't think I've hit anything actually bad from Zondervan. In fact, I've read and used a number of Mike Yaconelli's books on youth ministry, and I think Yancey is absolutely worth reading (What's So Amazing About Grace? and The Jesus I Never Knew are wonderful). But much of what I see from Zondervan is not stuff that appeals to me, since there's a tendancy to be less academic and intellectual in the writer's methodology.

But, so as to spread out the condemnation equally, I will also say that my church and the more liberal and intellectual side of Christianity puts very little product that's actually useful beyond the intellectually stimulating food for thought. I wish that my people would put out theologically sound well-researched PRACTICAL aids. (Hence my usage of so much of Zondervan's and other Evangelical publisher's stuff)

Hopefully I can change that. :-)

And I would like to read Chambers' stuff. I really shouldn't have ignored it this long.

My church, although I love the body, isn't very interested in going beyond substition theology. I, and two others in my congretation have been blessed with the hunger for "identification" (sanctification) theology. I relate this to going to Disney World and walking in the gate, but not seeing what is beyond (substitution theology), whereas the sanctification step opens your eyes to what is really inside the gates in all it's glory.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1074294520-3972.html#24

Romans 1:24?

I'm particularly interested in the word that translates as "wherefore"

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1074294582-4750.html

In this particular usage, is that the start of the thought or are we continuing on from above? Is this some sort of run-on sentence?

The word Wherefore, correctly translates to "Therefore" in the NASB and the NIV. In this context it means that everything that you gleaned from the scripture before it now applies.

stay away from the King Jimmy. It's not evil, but uses really old words. I prefer the RSV, but NASB is just fine.

Wherefore is therefore.

And yes, it is a run on sentence because in greek of that time there was no punctuation. Nor was there in Hebrew. So translation isn't just about translating, it's also about trying to figure out where sentences end and new thoughts appear. :-) But thankfully, really dedicated scholars, who had all their expenses by the Church, spent a lot of time hashing out pretty much all the punctuation problems, so for the most part, while translations will differ, there's a fairly standard agreement on punctuation.

In my NRSV Bible (I know, I said I prefer RSV, but try to find one in my apartment - ain't gonna happen), verse 24 starts a new paragraph.

I think it's cool that Dio is mentioned so often in the Bible. Holy Diver baby!!

that "therefore" God caused everything in verses 26 and 27 to happen?

Depends on how you want to read it - either God caused them to have those feelings, or God abandoned them and therefore they had those feelings, or possibly the phrase "God gave them up" was being used metaphorically by the writer so it was neither a literal giving, nor a literal abandoning, but Paul saying that the people gave themselves up to the feelings.

I could never parse these in Greek, since I don't know it, so I have to go with English translations; plus I'm reading the notes in my Oxford NRSV Annotated Study Bible, whcih everyone should own, and the sense of abandoned is offered as a possiblity. (esp. after reading v. 28).

The idea of being abandoned is most likely the idea Paul is trying to get across. Which would still leave room to say that God caused the problem - not directly, but by leaving.

But can WE say that God caused it? See - that's the other tough issue. We can attempt to figure out what PAUL is saying, but just because he's saying it, doesn't make it true, assuming that we even really know what he IS saying to begin with.

I especially love how, after this long tirade agaisnt these people naming their every sin until the end of the chapter, the next chapter starts with "Therefore you have no excuse when you judge others." :-) (Though please note I'm being a bit facetious and taking his words slightly out of context)

I think I know where your going with this though.

..The Message. Parts of it read like Dashiell Hammet!

Not to be used for serious study, since it changes a lot of words, but wow does it read easier and help get the meanings of passages across much better than stilted Bible speak (and it's not a dumbed down version like the Good News Bible).

I totally endorse it.

And I'm glad you mentioned, because you jsut reminded me that I acquired the computer version of it over Christmas, and obviously forgot about it, since I haven't installed it yet. :-)

Gnosko would be the verb, "I know." I think.

Bake

Try delving into Isaiah sometime. Halfway through you want to open a vein... seriously.

eh?

Try to think of it as three separate books shoved together, written by different people (but of the Isaiah school prophetic thought) over the course of a few hundreds years. The breaks are evident - that might help you some.

Though I still find it long-winded.

Imagine how he felt, having to be the constant bearer of bad news of an unrepentant nation. But the message of the Messiah that comes through from that book is amazing. A bad end for him though. He was sawn in half as a reward for his message.

I've got an online Koinic Greek course and an interlinear Greek New Testament but the grammar and the diacritical marks are throwing me.

I study it only in the context of clarication of scripture. I just study certain words and not the language as a whole - yet. The accents do get a little confusing. The accent's to me, mean little until I learn the meaning of the word and it's usage.

The Revelation to St. John on the island of Patmos is part of a well-established and well-known (for its time) literary genre and tradition. Like the apocalyptic book of Daniel in the Hebrew scriptures and the mini-apocalypse in the gospel of Mark, along with other apocalyptic literature of the times, Revelation uses amazing symbology to sound a call of warning to a people under siege.

When it is dangerous to critique the empire in a straightforward manner, one can warn about a coming battle symbolically. Such was the case of the first-century church vis a vis Rome.

John's Revelation is not intended to predict a far-off future, but rather to call the people in the seven communities to which it is addressed to renewed faithfulness in light of cultural and political forces which threatened their existence. The battles were potential dangers of their own time, not necessarily some cataclysmic battle for the end of all time.

Having taken a seminar on the book of Revelation and led two study groups through it, I find it a powerful piece of writing that need not be avoided simply because it's "weird" or too "out there."

of who actually wrote the book of Revelation? Some say it was John the Elder, some say John the apostle, what does your sources say?

Well said. :-)

But let me ask, what do you with the eschatalogical component, the coming of the new Jerusalem, and the Alpha and the Omega, and the teleology inherent therein?

Rabrrrrrr asks: But let me ask, what do you with the eschatalogical component, the coming of the new Jerusalem, and the Alpha and the Omega, and the teleology inherent therein?

In 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Galatians 6:15, Paul speaks of the new creation in Christ. This idea, which would have made the rounds of developing Christian communities as Paul's letters were passed around, finds its echoes in the description of the New Jerusalem, a new creation in which the radical brother- and sisterhood in Christ typify the community of shalom which has been prophesied for centuries. Again, the New Jerusalem is drawn symbolically in Revelation, much as it is drawn symbolically in Isaiah 11 and 65, where we see the vision of the Kingdom of God, Reign of God, community of shalom (whatever you want to call it).

The Alpha and Omega symbolism, that Christ is the beginning and the end, all that ever was and will be, is echoed in the prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1:1-15).

My eschatalogical understanding is "already, but not yet." I don't see anything in Revelation that counteracts that. I do see a lot of symbolism that underlines that understanding.

II Corinthians 5:17 say: "Therfore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature;..." Galatoams 6:15 says "For neither is circumcision, nor uncircumcision bat a new creation."

This two passages are the differents between temporal and eternal. When you become a new "creature" in Christ, you are becoming a new being. He is pouring Himself into you, and the old is being place where it always has been on the cross. This points to the eternal being of your new creation in Christ.

The scripture in Galations is more of a temporal nature. Meaning the only diffence between circumcised or not is a new physical change. Thus a new creation.

I believe Revelation is of what is too come. The New Jerusalem will be a physical place for us.

I believe Revelation is of what is too come. The New Jerusalem will be a physical place for us.

That's certainly an opinion shared by many, many Christians. The power of symbol is such that there is a wide variety of ways to interpret the symbols.

I've never been a literalist.

And there are those parts of Revelation that deal with the
teleological ushering in by God (because we can't) of the true and
final Kingdom (or New Jerusalem, or whatever you want to call it) -
the true eschaton.

I am utterly in agreement with the "already, but not yet" idea. As
someone - can't remember who right now - once said, "Your eschatology
shapes your ethics", and I believe that entirely. And I think that,
contrary to those who look to Revelation to provide them with a
definitive answer as to an exact date of the eschatalogical ushering
in of the new realm of God's rein, Revelation, like Jesus, very much
tells us to live today, as fully as possible, because we don't know
when the end will be. So it's both a call to severely ethical living
in grace and love for neighbor and enemy because it could be another
million years before it happens and so we should provide mercy and
justice and love to those we encounter, and also a call to live fully
and in the moment because God created us to enjoy and revel in
Creation and encounter it fully with mouth agape in awe at God's
majestic creative power, because tomorrow we might die, and then it's
too late to have realized the full potential of the life given us,
which potential is defined, as I see it, by the relationship we allow
ourselves to have with our Creator.

Even Jesus said that he doesn't know when the end will be. I take that
as a healthy counterpoint to anyone who attempts to convince people
that the end is truly near, and especially those who think they can
offer a specific date for the eschaton. I remember back in fall of '92
when somehow the meme - sorry to use that word - that the world was
ending at some point in October (must have mid-October because I
remember thinking to myself, "Well, at least I'll get to see Philip
Glass' new opera 'The Voyage' at the Met before we're all destroyed",
and opening night was Columbus Day) somehow made its way into the
American consciousness, if not the consciousness of the entire Western
world. I was appalled at how much media time these fershlugginer
people received, because we all should have known that they were
wrong, because no one will know. And as we can tell, it never
happened. Unless it did happen, and even the Jehova's Witnesses' figure
of 144,000 destined for heaven was WAY WAY high, because certainly no
reports of missing people ever came into the realm of our awareness.

The end will come as a surprise to everyone. And as you said, and as I
re-iterate, the book of Revelation was contextual for its time, and is
not a so-called blueprint of the future. IMO.

I hope. :-)

Although a few minor points in there I may take issue with, I do agree with the whole context of your message. :thumbsup:

are a danger to rational religious expression.

But note also that I'm saying that without having actually read them, though I have a number of jacket covers, and am familiar with the idea he's trying to get across. :-)

At the time I read them, I was into the whole "rapture" concept. The books are fantastic and a great peice of literary work. But I have found that the "rapture" is a deception of sorts to distract Christians from the true goal. Many Christians are just sitting around waiting for the "magic bus" to take them home. What a pity! If you go to any Christian book store today you will find at least 20% of the books dealing with "end times". Eschatology is a fasinating study that has it's place, but one must deal with how they should lose the "old man" to the Cross first.

Not sure what you mean - is "old man" the sort of stereotypical george Burns in the sky image people have of God?

But otherwise, yes - it harkens back to "your eschatology shapes your ethics".

There are people sitting around waiting for the end, and not doing (as I interpret Jesus' call anyway) any ministry while here, except perhaps trying to convince others to be Christian.

And there are people who feel that we need not worry about the environment, because hey, the rapture is coming soon anyway. Thankfully now many, but sadly, I think we have some of those (and some of the former class) in our administration.

And also some with odd senses of hope - I lived next to a woman when I was a child, an amazing woman who I loved very much and one of the most loving and ethical people I've ever known, but she said to me once, and this was in the fuel scares of the 70s, that we don't need to worry about pumping oil, because God will just make more. I think that's the only thing she ever said that I disagreed with. (when she died, I preached a sermon about her 1,500 miles away because I felt she deserved more than one eulogy)

Are you familiar with "identification" theology? Romans 6 is a great place to start, vs3:"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized into His death..." vs5:"If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in His resurrection."

I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but when Christ was on the Cross He took our sins in Him and hung them there to die. This has already been done for us by Him. But as He becomes our life, the old man (nature) has to die on the Cross so that Christ might be made complete in him. This is what the Spirit is always doing. Making you into a new creation but putting your "old self" on the Cross where it belongs and filling you with Christ Himself.

This may be a little over-simplified but from the discussion I've had with you in this thread, you seem as one who would understand it - if not only from the theological perspective.

is more like it.

Yet people base their entire lives on it.

If you don't mind geniph... I'm stealing that! LOL! :thumbsup:

I might not have known about the DU Johnny Depp Fan Club if not for you! :D

I will now.... (and I certainly will not repeat it).

from a man who puts 6 r's at the back of his screen name.

:shrug:

:spank:

And another

:spank:

Because it wasn't the apostle that wrote Revelation.

I don't understand your point. I didn't say it was the apostle, nor did I say it was John the Elder, whoever that is.

Most see John and think the Apostle, in fact it was some guy they now call John the Elder in a cave on some greek isle. Jesus spoke to the Apostles, he probably didn't talk to John the Elder. I'm pretty sure that's why the book of Revelation is so contraversial and there as been much talk of excising it from the Bible.

I believe your refering to John the Presbyter. He wasn't claimed to be the author until the third century by the African bishop, Dionysius. Many today still support his views, but the mainstream theologians accredits the writing to the Apostle John. John actually identifies himself 4 times in the Apocolypse. In 1:1, 4, 9, and 22:8.

Never says he's the apostle; in 21:14 he mentions the twelve apostles, but doesn't mention that he was one of them. It's a nebulous verse, but I think if he were the apostle, he'd mention it:

"And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the of the twelve apostles of the lamb."

I'd think - and real scholars think (by 'real', I mean truly trained ones, as up and against my qualifications to have an opinion) - that he'd say he was in there, like "the names of us twelve apostles" or something. Not necessarily, but even beyond that, scholars don't think that this John could be the apostle John.

...the book to being that of the Apostle John. As early as the second century Justin Martyr held that it was John the apostle, son of Zebedee that wrote the Apocalypse of John. Of course we know that John was a special apostle to Christ, being called the "disciple that I love." In my personal belief, this is why the revelation was given to him. He had a special relationship to Christ. I can't see any person coming along afterwards being given such a prominent vision. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but don't see it being so.

the beauty of it all is that ultiamately it doesn't matter who wrote it - though for some historical criticism, it would be helpful - but we'll never actually know (until we're dead, and can ask around in Heaven, which kind of asking around I expect that I will be doing an AWFUL lot of once i get there...), and the reality is, the book is there, it is in front of us, it is part of our tradition and our heritage.

Though I will continue to argue that it is likely not John the apostle, as there are other internal inconsistencies.

But there's nothing that says that it absolutely cannot be the Apostle, so the jury will be forever out, and the arguing will go on. :-)

O8)

We just called him John, knowing it wasn't the Apostle; but then also in seminary, I only hit on Revelation for maybe one lecture, since I concentrated on Paul and the Gospels (and spent my elective time over in the Old Testament department).

is what they say AFTER "In the book of revelation(s)..."

they follow that phrase with a weird cockamamie interpretation of world events or "moral behavior" that somehow is "predicted" (or condemned) in the book of Revelation.

And usually the people who would say that are not necessarily educated in these things; or are educated at a place like Liberty Bible College or Southern Baptist Seminary.

So they end up with things like, "Well, in the book of Revelation it says that the sign of the end will be a series of floods and earthquakes". We get that one trotted out every summer, don't we?

Etc. etc. etc.

I can't claim to know what he meant, but I think that's what he meant by saying "the stuff after 'in the book of revelation'".

thanks for explaining. Specifically coming to mind: early morning televangelesits predicting imminent apocolypse, armaggedon, rapture and the like.

Instead of keeping their eye on the goal, they are watching for the end game. Many, or most aren't willing to practice Christianity, they are just waiting for the "rapture bus" to take them home. This is a shame for them and the world for so much is lost.

Don't let the KJV title fool you. Nobody thinks it was written by John the Disciple/Apostle.

Apocalyptic literature, and there was TONS of it -- a very popular genre, had the common trait of being pseudepigraphical, i.e., the author would attribute the writing to some great historical figure.

This one is a little different, in that it doesn't claim on its face to be written by John the Apostle. Just John. Pretty common name.

Bake

And yes also to the abundance of apocryphal writing at the time, and for the 300 or so years before it. Some of it is in, not to make a pun and keep using the same word, the Apocrypha (as I'm sure you know, but I'm just spelling it out for the people who might not know).

But we've been covering the topic of who may or may not have written it already. See some of the previous posts.

Most scholars believe the "apokalupsis" was written by the apostle John.

Frankly, the jury is out on who, exactly, the author of the Fourth Gospel was. Then there's the discussion of whether the author of the Fourth Gospel is also the author of the Revelation.

Some believe that both are the work of one person. Some of those people also believe that that person was the person who is named "the disciple that Jesus loved" in the Fourth Gospel. Others believe that the author of the Fourth Gospel is not the same person as the author of the Revelation.

No one believes that either book was the work of John the Baptist, who was executed long before either of the books was written.

The Gospel of John dates to about 90 or 100 CE. The Revelation is often dated at about 95, during the reign of the emperor Domitian, though it is dated much earlier, about 68, by some other people.

The late dating of these two books and the shorter lifespan of people in the first century CE tend to preclude either of them having been written by one of the disciples, though, of course, it's not impossible.

This is the most thoughtful, intelligent religios thread EVER on DU. Congrats to all involved for keeping their flamethrowers holstered and engaging their brains before using their keyboards!

I agree, I love having tasteful discussions. Rabrrrrrrr and Wyomee have been a delight to discuss with. I love discussing religion when no offense is being taken.

...Jesus was supposed to have hidden himself from the Romans with these exiled cultist monks who were extremely religious about how God was to smite the Romans for their evil ways by destroying the world...I don't believe for a second it was divine dictation of the end o'times....not one word of the bible was DIVINE...and it never fails to amaze me that people acutally think it IS..and want that shit to happen..they the *good* ones will be exaulted into heaven... and all the **bad* folks get tortured by *THE* evil ONE....YEEEEAH RIIIIIGHT! :eyes:

I find your hostility to the Bible interesting. You should to. It's an offense to you as it should be. No other book can have the effect on a person can it?

....it closes the majority of peoples minds to LOGIC and COMMON SENSE...THE KORAN...THE TORRA...etc...all of humanity uses their religions as an excuse to ignore their responsiblily to be caretaker of this planet...they continue to dwell on the AFTERLIFE intead of what needs to be taken care of in the HERE AND NOW..those books are a WASTE of time....to argue on and on and on about the real meaning of bullshit...instead of doing what HAS to be done to ensure any future generations from the destruction of the EARTH that we KNOW gives us life..NAHHHHH...lets just sit back and discuss GODS WILL...instead of our OWN :eyes:

Don't blame Christian religion for the ecology of the world. Over zealous Christians may be blamed for quite a bit, but not the enviroment, or the ecology.

I guess I've been a Christian too long to remember what it feels like to be hopeless. Thinking this short span of eternity is all you will ever have then be winked out of existence forever must be terribly depressing. I really mean this in the kindess of ways, but I wish for an instant you could share my peace. Christians are not without tribulation, but they do know the end result and it gives them an unimaginable rest.

....it's much more depressing to me that people choose to limit their seeking of knowledge by just taking everything on FAITH that GOD's gonna take care of EVERYTHING...instead of wanting to learn exactly how and why we exist through math and physics...if everyone understood completely those things instead of memorizing bible verses that hope and rest could be achieved....instead the powers that be are hell bent on makin' revelation a reality through their ignorance and greed...doing the exact opposite of what their precious bibles tells them to do..destroying the only life support system they have...religion suppresses knowledge...ignorance is bliss....original sin IS knowledge :eyes:

If you're truly interested in seeing where religious people are trying to change the world, save the planet, bring justice to the oppressed, etc., you can find it in mass quantities everywhere.

In Central and South American, churches have been the major promoters of social reform and justice. In the former East Germany, churches played a major role in breaking down the wall. In this country, denominations like the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, Church of the Brethren, Mennonites, Episcopal Church, Roman Catholic church, etc have been strong voices for social change, peace, and justice. Not everyone holds a pure leftist position on every issue, but each is doing something in its own way.

I am most familiar with these things within the Christian tradition, but I know there are similar movements within Judaism and other religious traditions.

Sure, there are instances where people look only to the afterlife, but that is by no means the predominant position within Christianity (again, the one I know best). Perhaps if you bent your own head toward the sunlight, you'd find a different reality than the one you have created from stereotypes.

....to even begin to comprehend what I choose to believe and why...goddammit talk about 'stereotyping'! :eyes: