Has the Book of Revelation been fulfilled?

[charlesj]

...from an ol' teacher of mine, Jim McGuiggan. (1976)

Has the book of Revelation been fulfilled?

This is a legitimate question but it leaves a false impression. It makes it appear as though the book of revelation is more than less a series of predictions. It gives the impression that it is essentially a book that foretells startling events that will unfold in the near future. It would be a mistake to deny that there are events predicted in the book (there are!) but that’s true of the Gospels, Acts and the epistles. The book of revelation is a prophetic call to loyalty to God who alone is worthy of service and praise. And it’s an assurance that victory belongs to the people of God no matter who the enemy is. But there are predictive elements in the book that are wrapped up in the truths just mentioned. Yes, but have the predictive elements been fulfilled? I’m certain the answer’s yes!

Bear in mind that John wrote the book almost two thousand years ago. When he wrote it he said it was "the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place." (1:1) What must soon take place. Then in 1:3 he urged his readers to take to heart what is written, "because the time is near." Because the time is near. What do you think those two phrases mean? He said that two thousand years ago at the opening of the book. My suspicion is that if we had no special interests that we’d take the words at face value.
And he didn’t change his mind as the book closes. In 22:6 the angel says, "The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place." Things that must soon take place and just to be sure that we get the message he says this in 22:10. "Don’t seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near." Because the time is near.

It looks like everyone knows what these words mean until they come to the book of Revelation. Certain teachers keep telling us that the end of the world is near or that Armageddon is to take place soon. They know what it means in their best-selling books and in their tapes, they know what it means everywhere else in the Bible but when it comes to Revelation the phrases becomes all mystery.

If John walked into your presence today, showed you a scroll and said to you, "This is about what must soon take place!" what would you think? If he repeated, "Take this to heart, because the time is near!" what would you think? If he read the whole thing and then said, "These things are true and must soon take place!" would you think they might be hundreds or thousands of years away? And then he hands you the scroll and as he turned to leave you he says, "Don’t seal that revelation up because the time is near!" would you even imagine that it related to centuries from now?

The truth is, the book of revelation deals with things that related to the Roman Empire, the fourth beast of Daniel 7, when it came into conflict with the New Testament church back in the first centuries. Revelation presents Rome as the tool and instrument of Satan in conflict with Christians who are the body of Christ, the army of the white-horsed rider whose name is The Word of God (Revelation 19:11-16). It comes to focus in a particular emperor (Domitian) who stands for all that the Roman Empire stood for.

If we can’t understand plain phrases that are like an envelope that encloses the whole of the book (scholars call phrases that function in that way an inclusio) how do we imagine we’ll understand symbols and images that are left without explicit explanation? Whatever the signs and images mean we are to understand this: Two thousand years ago John said the coming events were to happen soon. So when you hear popular writers assure you that they haven’t even begun yet you’ve just been warned.

I’ve had people tell me that with God time didn’t matter and that with him one day is like a thousand years so "at hand" or "soon to happen" may mean anything. It’s true, of course, that God isn’t bothered by time but his creatures are. If God had been talking to himself this man’s remark would have been relevant. But God was talking to puny little people. He takes our humanity into account as Ezekiel 12:21-28 and Daniel 8:26 shows us.
In Daniel 8:26 God says the vision there "concerns the distant future." There is no distant future for God but he wasn’t talking to himself. When he spoke to limited humans he spoke of "the distant future" so he knows what words like that mean. The ungodly mocked God’s message in Ezekiel chapter 12. At first they said, "These threats are empty. They won’t fulfilled." Then they said, "Well, maybe they’ll be fulfilled but the vision he sees is for many years from now, and he prophesies about the distant future." And how did God answer them? He answered them in the words we find in Revelation. "Say to them the days are near...it shall be fulfilled without delay..." They said, "Don’t worry it’s a long way off" and God said, "Worry, the time is near."

Finally on this point. Compare Daniel 8:26 with Revelation 22:10 and let common sense rule. Here’s what the two texts say.

Seal up the vision for, it concerns the distant future. (Daniel)
Don’t deal up the prophecy, because the time is near. (Revelation)

You can see they’re told to do opposite things. But notice why they were told to do opposite things. Daniel is told to seal up the vision because it deals with the distant future. John is told to leave it open because the time is near. God knows what a short time is.

Why do people argue against this? Well, for one reason or another they’ve drawn conclusions about what the images in Revelation mean and they settle for that. When you remind them of truths like the above don’t want to receive them because it makes a mess of their whole futuristic scheme. And when you go public, write a lot of books, construct a whole eschatological system based on your interpretation of these images it’s hard to back away. It isn’t easy to admit we’ve been wrong especially if a lot is riding on it. That isn’t a good thing but I suppose we’ve all had the experience and may yet have to face it.

The safest approach to revelation is to let John tell us what its time frame is rather than us telling John.

Your servant in Messiah, Yahshua
Charlesj

[FoC]

*IF* Revelatoin has been fulfilled...then WHERE are these that died for refusing the mark who reign with Him here for the millenium?


And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
(Rev 20:4)


There are far too many holes in this view that says all has occured in Revelation.
the book is about this whole age....from Jesus until the end....not just a short time 2 millenia ago.

[charlesj]

*IF* Revelatoin has been fulfilled...then WHERE are these that died for refusing the mark who reign with Him here for the millenium?


And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
(Rev 20:4)


There are far too many holes in this view that says all has occured in Revelation.
the book is about this whole age....from Jesus until the end....not just a short time 2 millenia ago.


Hello FoC:

My response was like yours some thirty years ago when someone told me Revelation was fulfilled.

I have put this together real fast. I am hoping I've covered your questions, but if I haven't then let me know. Also, I can't help it if my "keyboard" can't spell at times. lol

I am going to take the verse you gave me and comment on it. It’s really hard to do this as we are looking at something “out of context.”

Anyway, you need to ask yourself, “who are these?” (“I saw thrones…”) These to whom “judgment was given? They are the saints! There is no one else! They are on “thrones.” They have lived faithfully through the crisis and have been given the kingdom.
Yahshua (Jesus) promised the overcomers they would share with Him in the ruling over the nations (Rev 2:26f; 3:21).

This is what Daniel had prophesied so many years before. Go there and read chapter 7 all the way through. Then go back angain and rad from verse 17 to the end. Daniel is told of four kingdoms which would rise up but “the saints shall posses the kingdom,” he was tol. In verses 21,22 we hear of the little horn making war with them. I listed the kings during this period of time, take a look at: http://www.christianchatforum.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=17633#post17633 to see this information. Look at the kings during this period of time and you will see it will fit the revelation (chptrs 13 & 17).
He prevails until the Ancient of days came and “judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came fhat the saints possessed the kingdom.
That’s exactly what you’ve read here. Whoever these are that are sitting on thrones (thus having the kingdom), they are those to whom “judgment was given.” What judgment is this? The judgment on the Whore. God said in Rev 18:20: God hath judged your judgment on her. Back in Rev 11:15-18 we hear of God, having come in judgment on the great city, taking His great power and beginning to reign. At that time, we’re told He judged the enemy and gave “their” reward to the “saints.”
Notice how all this fits together. In chapter 2:26ff; 3:21, Yahshua promises the overcomer a share in the kingdom. In chapter 11:15, the “kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of our God and of His Christ.” This results in the saints getting “their” (the world’s kingdom) reward with Christ.

The same discussion is going on in Daniel 7. In verses 21,22, the saints get the kingdom at the destruction of the beast. In verses 26,27 we hear “but the judgment shall be set, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most high; His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.”

And when Rome went down in blood and fire and smoke, who received the kingdom? God, Christ and the saints! You’ll notice in the Daniel quote above, how, having said the kingdom would be given to the saints, he goes on to say and “his” kingdom is an everlasting kingdom?! Wile rome was burning (in a figure) whose judgement was being wroght on her? While the Whore burned, who were sharing the dominion with the Lord? Who were enthroned while the fire raged around the Harlot? DON’T TELL ME THE SAINTS DON’T RULE THE WORLD!!! Name the foe they didn’t meet and fracture. Name the foe their Lord can’t handle. And when the last day comes, we’ll hear then just how much the prayers of the saints have wroght in th earth!!

Let me deal with “I saw the souls of them beheaded for…” For what? For whom? Is a better question. What difference does it make? The dead are all dead. It’s one and the same. Ah, but this is forgetting that the Lord God said “write!” He said: “Write blessed are the dead who die in the Lord…” These died for the “testimony of Jesus” (Yahshua).
And how did John see them? Weeping? Moaning in despair and full of remorse that they had given their lives in service of Yahshua? Search for that man or woman if you will, but take a lunch, for you’ll be a long time in search. Search in the sea and the sea will say: Not in me. Then go to to the forest and they’ll say: Not in us. Go to the star and the stars will shine:” Not here. Ask the wind and the wind will blow: Not with me. Go to the very depths of hell and it’ll moan: No! Not in me. Then ascent to heaven and ask: Is there anyone here that rues their service to Yahshua? Then listen for the laughter at such foolishness. Wait for the multitude to come to you and tell you of how glad they are that they endured the fire and the sword, the rape and the arson, the shame and the deprivation. There is not defeat in death for the saint. Praise the Lord!

Your servant in Messiah, Yahshua
charlesj

[FoC]

Well, I have to admit I didnt see an answer to where these that were beheaded are.
They should be in this millenium reign with Christ here on earth from what I understand.

I think its VERY relevant to keep the fact in mind that these are those specifically killed for not taking the mark....those of the first 'resurrection'.

this is not an event one would think would go unnoticed.

DON’T TELL ME THE SAINTS DON’T RULE THE WORLD!!!
Ok, I wont tell you they dont....but Im not sure if 'ruling' the world is what Id call it.
Hell will never prevail against His church....what is going on in this world is a far cry from 'ruling' it.

Satan is alive and very much in control (in the capacity that God permits as we all know) of much of the world....even within much of the so called 'church' (the 'church' not including the true saints).

I know youre giving it your best shot, but Im not convinced by your evidence that Revelation is past tense based on what has been presented.

:)

[god'schild219]

If revelation has been fulfilled then we wouldn't be writing about it right now.

[charlesj]

Well, I have to admit I didnt see an answer to where these that were beheaded are.
They should be in this millenium reign with Christ here on earth from what I understand.

I think its VERY relevant to keep the fact in mind that these are those specifically killed for not taking the mark....those of the first 'resurrection'.

this is not an event one would think would go unnoticed.

Ok, I wont tell you they dont....but Im not sure if 'ruling' the world is what Id call it.
Hell will never prevail against His church....what is going on in this world is a far cry from 'ruling' it.

Satan is alive and very much in control (in the capacity that God permits as we all know) of much of the world....even within much of the so called 'church' (the 'church' not including the true saints).

I know youre giving it your best shot, but Im not convinced by your evidence that Revelation is past tense based on what has been presented.

:)

Hello FoC again:

You must remember that this forum only will let you write (post) 10k characters. I am limited to what I can write due to space. The whole time I write I am worried that I’ve gone over the limit. (My wife says I talk to much anyway…lol)

The verse you speak about (1000 yr reign) “and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years…” The translators used “lived” here showing the Greek word to be in the aorist. It undoubtedly ought to have been rendered “came to life.”
The RSV has “came to life again”
The NAS has “they came to life.”
The NEB has “came to life again.”
Goodspeed has “they were restored to life”
The NIV has “they came to life”
Barclay, Vincent, and a number of others agree with the above. A.T. Robertson admits the possibility of the above, but comes down firmly on no side.

The rendering as it stands in the ASV and others does not conflict with the above – it simply doesn’t decide the issue. They “live” after they were dead, clearly implies they “lived again.” This is in keeping with what John is told: This is the first resurrection.
Now whatever view one takes on the “resurrection” it HAS to be true that there can be no resurrection without the coming to life of that which was formerly “dead.” That’s “living again.”
John doesn’t say “souls” resurrected. He sees people resurrected. “I saw the souls of them… and they lived (again) and reigned with Christ a 1000 years… this is the first resurrection.”
I am saying here that John, in a vision, does see a bodily resurrection. But what that resurrection is intended to mean must be determined. To deny that John SEES a bodily resurrection is to deny what seems plainly to be said by the text.

In our present text, we are reading of the resurrection of people who have given their lives for Yahshua. In the vision, “they” come to life again. Not their “souls” but “them,” “they.” Now, whatever the truth be about the resurrection’s significance, we’ve got to admit with John, that a “resurrection” took place. There can be no “resurrection” of ANYTHING unless there first be the death (real or only in the vision) of the entity “resurrected.” There can be no “resurrection” envisioned of individuals without the rising of a body. John SAW, in the vision a bodily resurrection of martyred Christians.
Picture if you will, a battleground with slain scattered all over it. Some of them have the name of Yahshua written on them and the others have the mark of the beast on them. Imagine John surveying that battle scene then seeing them (those saints) live again. He saw them resurrected. They then take their places on thrones along with the other living saints. This, John is told, is the “first resurrection.”

Then John tells us that “the rest of the dead lived not until the 1,000 years (are) finished.--- the first part of this verse is parenthetical. To get the sequence between verse four and this, one must skip the phrase quoted above and read the end part of verse 5 immediately after verse 4. We’d get this: I saw the souls of them that have been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus … and they lived (again) and reigned with Christ a 1000 years… this is the first resurrection.

WHO ARE THE REST OF THE DEAD? They are the dead who died in the service of the beast! See the last verses of chapter 19. They are not inclusive of the faithful to Christ. There are two groups of faithful to Christ – the martyrs and the still-living.
The martyrs have just been dealt with and there is no other class but the living saings. So the “rest of the dead” does not address itself to saints. Living or dead.

We are told of them, i.e. the “rest of the dead,” that they “lived not AGAIN,” until the 1000 years were finished. We have the same aorist (past tense) and the same general unamity among the versions and the scholars that “living again” is the acceptable rendering. These ungodly dead (who served the beast) do not live again until the 1000 years are finished. Is it implied that they live again at the end of the 1000 years? OF COURSE!

Why don’t they live again until the 1000 years is finished? Because of what that 1000 years stands for. It speaks of triumph in Christ. It is the experience only of saints. These are not saints(after the 1000 yrs). They have neither part nor lot in a victory. They were living losers. They are dead losers and they will live again only to be losers!

Then, the scripture speaks of the “first resurrection.” …well, what is the first resurrection? The resurrection of the martyrs for Yahshua! Why is it the first? Because John is about to see a “second” resurrection. He has seen a “first” death (as it were). He will see a “second death.” Saints and sinners alike die under the first death (some serving the Beast and some Yahshua), but the saints are in the “first resurrection,” so the second death holds no fear for them. The “first” resurrection is to life, and reigning, but the “second” resurrection will be to a “second death.”

But what does the “first resurrection” mean? It we weren’t in a book such as Revelation such a question would be foolish (or at least seem foolish). What does the vision of a resurrected group of martyrs speak of?
Was Augustine (followed by many others) right when he said that was the sinner rising to life in Yahshua? (As, for example, Romans 6:3ff). When the question is asked in that fashion, its clear to see that Augustine was wrong. Those who experience the “first resurrection” are already saints. In fact, so faithful and steadfast in Christ have they been, that they were murdered for refusing to leave Him. Augustine’s ‘resurrection” would have the people involved leaving the Devil and going to Christ. These already belong to Yahshua and have sealed their faith by their death. They THEN are seen as resurrected.

What then? Is it the vindication of the cause of the martyrs? We….yes! But not in the sense that people now flock to their cause. (I’m not even sure if that happened after the fall of Rome. Farrar speaks of the Church being invaded by the world after the fall of Rome). What then? It’s the vindication of the martyrs (and thus their cause is vindicated). We are being told truths about what we cannot see. The assemblies of the saints after Rome was buried were visible proof that the saints whipped Rome and their judgment was judged on her. What of the dead? This visionary resurrection tells us that the dead in Christ share in the victory just as surely as do the living! THAT’S THE MESSAGE!

Well, what have I said so far? I didn’t say anything about the 1000 year binding, (you didn’t ask about the binding) The 1000 year reigning speak of the same thing (as the binding) from two different angles. The first (the binding) from Satan’s angle, speaks of utter and absolute defeat in using Rome against the Lord and His people. The second, (1000 yr reigning) from the standpoint of the saints, speaks of total victory and triumph in the battle against Rome!

I’m getting close to my 10000 characters allowed on the forum. (I’m at 8k now) so I will end this… I have much more to say. I am only sorry that
I can’t spell this out better and longer.
Remember, this vision was to take place shortly and the time was near during the writing. This book is shows the battle between Rome and the Lord’s people with the Lord’s people (Church) having victory. This all happened in the first century.

Your servaint in Messiah,
charlesj

[charlesj]

Hello FoC again:

You must remember that this forum only will let you write (post) 10k characters. I am limited to what I can write due to space. The whole time I write I am worried that I’ve gone over the limit. (My wife says I talk to much anyway…lol)

The verse you speak about (1000 yr reign) “and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years…” The translators used “lived” here showing the Greek word to be in the aorist. It undoubtedly ought to have been rendered “came to life.”
The RSV has “came to life again”
The NAS has “they came to life.”
The NEB has “came to life again.”
Goodspeed has “they were restored to life”
The NIV has “they came to life”
Barclay, Vincent, and a number of others agree with the above. A.T. Robertson admits the possibility of the above, but comes down firmly on no side.

The rendering as it stands in the ASV and others does not conflict with the above – it simply doesn’t decide the issue. They “live” after they were dead, clearly implies they “lived again.” This is in keeping with what John is told: This is the first resurrection.
Now whatever view one takes on the “resurrection” it HAS to be true that there can be no resurrection without the coming to life of that which was formerly “dead.” That’s “living again.”
John doesn’t say “souls” resurrected. He sees people resurrected. “I saw the souls of them… and they lived (again) and reigned with Christ a 1000 years… this is the first resurrection.”
I am saying here that John, in a vision, does see a bodily resurrection. But what that resurrection is intended to mean must be determined. To deny that John SEES a bodily resurrection is to deny what seems plainly to be said by the text.

In our present text, we are reading of the resurrection of people who have given their lives for Yahshua. In the vision, “they” come to life again. Not their “souls” but “them,” “they.” Now, whatever the truth be about the resurrection’s significance, we’ve got to admit with John, that a “resurrection” took place. There can be no “resurrection” of ANYTHING unless there first be the death (real or only in the vision) of the entity “resurrected.” There can be no “resurrection” envisioned of individuals without the rising of a body. John SAW, in the vision a bodily resurrection of martyred Christians.
Picture if you will, a battleground with slain scattered all over it. Some of them have the name of Yahshua written on them and the others have the mark of the beast on them. Imagine John surveying that battle scene then seeing them (those saints) live again. He saw them resurrected. They then take their places on thrones along with the other living saints. This, John is told, is the “first resurrection.”

Then John tells us that “the rest of the dead lived not until the 1,000 years (are) finished.--- the first part of this verse is parenthetical. To get the sequence between verse four and this, one must skip the phrase quoted above and read the end part of verse 5 immediately after verse 4. We’d get this: I saw the souls of them that have been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus … and they lived (again) and reigned with Christ a 1000 years… this is the first resurrection.

WHO ARE THE REST OF THE DEAD? They are the dead who died in the service of the beast! See the last verses of chapter 19. They are not inclusive of the faithful to Christ. There are two groups of faithful to Christ – the martyrs and the still-living.
The martyrs have just been dealt with and there is no other class but the living saings. So the “rest of the dead” does not address itself to saints. Living or dead.

We are told of them, i.e. the “rest of the dead,” that they “lived not AGAIN,” until the 1000 years were finished. We have the same aorist (past tense) and the same general unamity among the versions and the scholars that “living again” is the acceptable rendering. These ungodly dead (who served the beast) do not live again until the 1000 years are finished. Is it implied that they live again at the end of the 1000 years? OF COURSE!

Why don’t they live again until the 1000 years is finished? Because of what that 1000 years stands for. It speaks of triumph in Christ. It is the experience only of saints. These are not saints(after the 1000 yrs). They have neither part nor lot in a victory. They were living losers. They are dead losers and they will live again only to be losers!

Then, the scripture speaks of the “first resurrection.” …well, what is the first resurrection? The resurrection of the martyrs for Yahshua! Why is it the first? Because John is about to see a “second” resurrection. He has seen a “first” death (as it were). He will see a “second death.” Saints and sinners alike die under the first death (some serving the Beast and some Yahshua), but the saints are in the “first resurrection,” so the second death holds no fear for them. The “first” resurrection is to life, and reigning, but the “second” resurrection will be to a “second death.”

But what does the “first resurrection” mean? It we weren’t in a book such as Revelation such a question would be foolish (or at least seem foolish). What does the vision of a resurrected group of martyrs speak of?
Was Augustine (followed by many others) right when he said that was the sinner rising to life in Yahshua? (As, for example, Romans 6:3ff). When the question is asked in that fashion, its clear to see that Augustine was wrong. Those who experience the “first resurrection” are already saints. In fact, so faithful and steadfast in Christ have they been, that they were murdered for refusing to leave Him. Augustine’s ‘resurrection” would have the people involved leaving the Devil and going to Christ. These already belong to Yahshua and have sealed their faith by their death. They THEN are seen as resurrected.

What then? Is it the vindication of the cause of the martyrs? We….yes! But not in the sense that people now flock to their cause. (I’m not even sure if that happened after the fall of Rome. Farrar speaks of the Church being invaded by the world after the fall of Rome). What then? It’s the vindication of the martyrs (and thus their cause is vindicated). We are being told truths about what we cannot see. The assemblies of the saints after Rome was buried were visible proof that the saints whipped Rome and their judgment was judged on her. What of the dead? This visionary resurrection tells us that the dead in Christ share in the victory just as surely as do the living! THAT’S THE MESSAGE!

Well, what have I said so far? I didn’t say anything about the 1000 year binding, (you didn’t ask about the binding) The 1000 year reigning speak of the same thing (as the binding) from two different angles. The first (the binding) from Satan’s angle, speaks of utter and absolute defeat in using Rome against the Lord and His people. The second, (1000 yr reigning) from the standpoint of the saints, speaks of total victory and triumph in the battle against Rome!

I’m getting close to my 10000 characters allowed on the forum. (I’m at 8k now) so I will end this… I have much more to say. I am only sorry that
I can’t spell this out better and longer.
Remember, this vision was to take place shortly and the time was near during the writing. This book is shows the battle between Rome and the Lord’s people with the Lord’s people (Church) having victory. This all happened in the first century.

Your servaint in Messiah,
charlesj

Some afterthoughts:
I believe the Book of Revelation to have been written in the later years of Vespasian, the ninth Roman emperor (see the list of emperors on my post:
http://www.christianchatforum.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=17633#post17633)
It was written to give comfort andd assurance to the Church of God in the face of impending persecution. It deals with the triumph of the Church over Rome as manifested in two areas:
1. The destruction of Domitian in whose person the beast came back up "out of the abyss"
2. The ultimate and complete destruction of the Roman empire.

The contents of the book related to things close to John's day.
But what is more interesting is this: Daniel received a vision in the yar 550 B.C. (Dan 8:1) which was fulfilled in 164/5 B.C. (Dan 8:13,14), and, now get this, he was told "shut up the vision; for it belongeth to many days to come" (Dan 8:26). Well? here is a vision fulfilled in less than 400 years after it was received and God said, "seal it up for its fulfillemnt is a long way away."
John is told exactly the oppisite of Daniel "Don't seal it up for the time is at hand!" Why was John told the very opposite of DAniel? Well? COME ON, DON'T BE AFRAID. SAY IT TO YOURSELF. lol

your servant in Messiah,
charlesj

[Rufus]

Hello FoC again:

The verse you speak about (1000 yr reign) “and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years…” The translators used “lived” here showing the Greek word to be in the aorist. It undoubtedly ought to have been rendered “came to life.”
The RSV has “came to life again”
The NAS has “they came to life.”
The NEB has “came to life again.”
Goodspeed has “they were restored to life”
The NIV has “they came to life”
Barclay, Vincent, and a number of others agree with the above. A.T. Robertson admits the possibility of the above, but comes down firmly on no side.

The rendering as it stands in the ASV and others does not conflict with the above – it simply doesn’t decide the issue. They “live” after they were dead, clearly implies they “lived again.” This is in keeping with what John is told: This is the first resurrection.

Do you know of any that hold your eschatological view who believe in the King James Bible?

[charlesj]

Do you know of any that hold your eschatological view who believe in the King James Bible?


Hello Rufus:

I am not sure what you are asking Rufus. I used the KJV and many other Christians use the KJV. If you were standing at the door of our church building on Wednesdays or Sundays, you would see me with two books in my hand. I use the Greek New Testament and a KJV Bible. As you know, the manuscripts of the New Testament are all written in Greek.

The bibles such as the KJV, NIV, ASV, etc. etc. have ALL been TRANSLATED from the Greek to English. They are ALL translations. If it's NOT in Greek, then it's a translation and not a manuscript.. (I'm only speaking of the New Testament being in Greek.)

I like the KJV, but what does this have to do with our thread on Revelation?

You said you were going to answer my questions/statements a few days go, but have not responded. Do you plan on responding?

Your servant in Messiah,
Charlesj

[Rufus]

Hi Charles,


I am not sure what you are asking Rufus. I used the KJV and many other Christians use the KJV.

"Using" the Bible and "believing" the Bible are two distinctly different approaches. When you say the Bible doesn't really say "lived" and go about retranslating it to fit your worldview, do you believe the Bible or are you just using it?


I like the KJV, but what does this have to do with our thread on Revelation?

What this has to do with Revelation is our difference in eschatology is rooted in our difference in Bibles. Thus, debating doctrine becomes problematic as we are not working out of the same manuals.

You said you were going to answer my questions/statements a few days go, but have not responded. Do you plan on responding?

I posted about three or four messages on that thread early this afternoon.

[Brad]

the theory (and that is all it is) that revelations was referring to the Roman Empire and the roman emporer (beast) is one theological outlook at revelation. Many early Christians thought the same thing. However, their outlook at the world was very small. The Word still had a lot of people to reach. The peoples of the Mediterrean Sea countries had no idea how large the world actually was. Has Revelation come and gone. No, because Christ has not returned. We have not had a thousand years of peace. And there is no new heaven and earth. There are other opinions out there. I wouldn't let one book and one author be your only source.

[bettyj]

NOPE Revelation has not been completely fulfilled if it were then Christians would not still be on this earth at this time.

[jeetkunejimi]

Greetings charlesj,
The book of the revelation of Jesus Christ is exactly that, it is Jesus revealing what must happen to all men spiritually to finally be saved and made spirit. Only the chosen elect who have had the hidden gospel revealed to them by the holy spirit of God making itself known to them by indwelling in them (in there flesh) which begins by giving up their phantom free-wills. All that John reveals is what will happen to the chosen elect while they are alive, that is being burnt out in the lake of fire now rather than later. Those not chosen will be purified in the spiritual lake of fire later.
So the book of revelation only means something to those going through it right now and to those who have been through it but are now dead awaiting the judgement in sheol. It is NOT an escatological book.
If you want to know more feel free to nudge me. Happy hunting dude. Amen.