posted
This was on the front page of the paper today. Very interesting, especially for people like me who are vaguely interested in history in general, and church history specifically. Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw a piece on this tonight on a national TV news show . . . I don't remember which--it's rare when I watch anything on TV, so I have no idea what I was watching. I have no opinion on this other than hey, that's interesting, but I was irritated by what I saw as the sensationalistic intro to the piece. The woman felt the need to mention that it was discovered on the site where the Bible states that the apocalypse will begin. erm, huh?!?!
The interpretation of Revelation is something people have been debating for two thousand years. There are people who believe it is not about the "end of days" at all, but an allegorical treatment of the current Roman regime.
I'm not debating the meaning of Revelation here, but its relevance to the news piece. Nowhere in the actual piece, after the introduction, did they mention this theory of the apocalypse beginning at this site. So why lead with it, and state it as though it were a universally agreed-upon fact? Just another reason I think TV news, with their focus on showmanship, and their lack of time for in-depth analysis, is nearly worthless.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are people who believe it is not about the "end of days" at all, but an allegorical treatment of the current Roman regime.
This view is usually held by people who actively disbelieve the veracity of everything in Scripture, and while I recognize the right of anyone to hold this opinion, you'll forgive me if I dismiss it out of hand.
But your point on media sensationalism is well-taken. I've just learned to live with it.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: This view is usually held by people who actively disbelieve the veracity of everything in Scripture, and while I recognize the right of anyone to hold this opinion, you'll forgive me if I dismiss it out of hand.
So, um, you're looking for the multi-headed dragon, then?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard it on a Christian radio station this morning. They DID mention something about it being the site of the Apocalypse, I remember being somewhat confused.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This view is usually held by people who actively disbelieve the veracity of everything in Scripture, and while I recognize the right of anyone to hold this opinion, you'll forgive me if I dismiss it out of hand.
That's not remotely true in my experience. The first person I heard that from was a priest. Since then, it's been largely accepted by most of the people I've talked to whose biblical knowledge I respect. I actually astonished to hear you say that, as I figured that you'd likely think the same.
edit: Oh, whew, that was silly. I thought that was dkw saying that, not dh. I was shocked until I checked back. Carry on.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The first person I heard that from was a priest.
You might be surprised how many priests I have known who actively disbelieve the veracity of Scripture.
Tom, I know you just like to be snarky to annoy me, and I really don't mind you doing that. In fact I would be disappointed if you didn't. But FYI, I'm not looking for a literal multi-headed dragon. However, I do believe the Book of Revelation is a (mostly) symbolic account of the end of days and has nothing to do with the Roman Empire of the time when it was written.
About the Apocalypse thing, I believe the church was said to be found near Megiddo, which some scholars believe is the Armageddon that the Bible speaks of. It may well just have been mentioned as a point of interest, rather than pure sensationalism.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe the church was said to be found near Megiddo, which some scholars believe is the Armageddon that the Bible speaks of.
If it had been phrased like this, sure. But it was not. The phrasing was more like, "The church was found near Megiddo, which is where the bible states Armageddon will begin."
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This view is usually held by people who don't have the exact same interpretation of Scripture as I do.
Fixed it for you.
As it happens, I do in fact accept that the gospel accounts are more or less accurate. But that doesn't mean I'm holding my breath for some giant battle at Megiddo, or looking for The Antichrist.
At any rate, I don't expect it would matter one way or the other what Revelation is referring to. It's not as if our track record on using Revelation to actually predict anything has been good, so it's not a useful source of information on what our lives will be like in the future. And it works fine as statement on the eventual victory of God either way. What's Rome associated with these days?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This view is usually held by people who actively disbelieve the veracity of everything in Scripture, and while I recognize the right of anyone to hold this opinion, you'll forgive me if I dismiss it out of hand.
I believe the veracity of scriptures, and many accuse me of being too literal, since I am a Young Earth Creationist, yet I don't think the book of Revelation depicts future events. I try to interpret the Bible as I believe it was meant to be read, and whereas the historical books of the Bible were meant to be historical accounts, the genre of apocalypse which Revelation is an example of, was meant to be interpreted symbolically for present events. As such, I think most of Revelation was fulfilled during the first century around the Jewish war period (66-73 AD). After all, when you read in Old Testament prophecy statements like God coming on clouds in judgement over a nation, where we know that this judgement happened in actual history, do you actually interpret this as being God coming in a physical presence on top of literal clouds?
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, I do believe the Book of Revelation is a (mostly) symbolic account of the end of days and has nothing to do with the Roman Empire of the time when it was written.
I think that part of the genius of Scripture is that it is universal; not confined to a single iteration or interpretation. Genesis, Isaiah, Daniel, Revelation are loaded with types that apply again and again throughout history. Scriptural prophecy exists less for its own sake, I think, than to draw our attention to the transcendent. This is why I'm rather impatient with spreadsheet style analysis of Revelation. (Though I have to admit that I think Clarence Larkin posters are kind of cool)
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
