A revelation for me: the revelation of Revelation

by Eyes Open 44 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Awakened at Gilead

  This has come up before, so I thought I'd mention that the Society misinterprets Revelation 1:10 as referring to the eschatological "Day of the Lord". The phrase that appears therein is kuriaké hémera, not hémera tou kuriou which is the expression that has eschatological scope in the Greek Bible (cf. Isaiah 13:6 LXX, Ezekiel 13:5 LXX, Amos 5:18 LXX, Acts 2:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3:10). The quite different term kuriaké rather was used to refer to the day of the week on which Jesus was resurrected (and the Eucharist was celebrated), i.e. Sunday (cf. Ignatius, Magnesians 9:1, Didache 14:1, Gospel of Peter 12:50, Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 17.12, Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 10.72, etc.; cf. kuriakon deipon in 1 Corinthians 11:20 to refer to the Eucharist, and Barnabas 15:9 which refers to the "eighth day" of the week, i.e. the day after the sabbath, as the one that Christians keep "for rejoicing, in which also Jesus rose from the dead"). The author was saying that he received the vision on a Sunday; compare Daniel 10:4 which states that Daniel received his vision "on the twenty-fourth day of the first month". That the author of Revelation construed his visions and admonitions as pertaining to the time he lived in, and not some distant future time, is patent from their immediacy (cf. 1:1, 2:16, 3:11, 3:20, 17:10, 22:10, 12, 20), as well as the allusions to political and cultural elements from the time (cf. especially the parody of the goddess Roma in ch. 17 and the detailed description of the Roman trade network in ch. 18).

  I'm sorry, Leolaia, but I went through Gilead and was a JW for 24 years, so my "perceptive powers" are not as well trained as yours. In fact that's all greek to me.

  Can you write that again in plain English so that even a recent xJW like myself can understand? (You know we JW's never went to college, so please be patient...)
• 

  Leolaia

  In short, I was explaining that the phrase "Lord's day" in Revelation 1:10 was indeed a reference to the day of Sunday, and is not to be confused with the eschatological term "day of the Lord", which is used in the Old Testament and in the New Testament to refer to the time at the end of the age when God executes his judgment on the earth. These are completely different terms in the Greek language (kuriaké hémera being the term meaning Sunday, and hémera tou kuriou being the term referring to the time of the end of the world), and I gave the references showing this to be the case.
• 

  Awakened at Gilead

  OK, that's what I thought you said, but wanted to make sure.... So yes, this was what woke me up. We had to read the whole Bible in the 3 months before going to Gilead. The week before Gilead started, I read Revelation. It was a revelation, as when I read Rev 1:10 I read the footnote, and the thought that the WTS COULD be wrong made me start doubting the whole thing. As I read the rest of the book, I read it with that possible other interpretation in mind, and I got a completely different idea from it. It was a powerful seed, that led me to doubt much of what I learned at Gilead, and right out of the "truth"....

  AaG
• 

  JCanon

  Awakened...

  Have you ever given any thought to how this equally possible alternate rendering of Rev 1:10 would change the whole WTS view of the Apocalypse? I did, and that thought led me to question everything else that the WTS teaches, because they base evrything on possibilities and then teach them as if they were absolute realities... Going through Gilead and seeing how everything in the Bible supposedly pointed to their miserable history in 1919 and shortly thereafter really woke me up... Which is why I was...

  You make a good point, but in this case "context" prevails for such a complex book. Bottom line is that specific events only happen ONCE during end times, which as Satan being kicked out of heaven. So even if some of the ancient congregations are mentioned, they become symbolic and have to become a reference for the end-time setting.

  Even as initially referenced, "the things that will shortly take place" resets the intended audience to those who would reasonably be warned to experience these things shortly, say within the lifetime of a generation and so that lifts the reference to an end-times scenario. At the same time, that would not preclude parts of Revelation becoming a viable reference for the congregations back then which would not specifically relate to an end-time scenario.; which only means Revelation is a complex book.

  The term the "Lord's day" though is far too a common reference among Christians by now to be too generalized and not refer to the second coming scenario.

  2 Thess 2:

  1 However, brothers, respecting the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we request of YOU 2 not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is here.

  3 Let no one seduce YOU in any manner, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.

  Even this specific reference is in the context of the second coming.

  As far as redening "on" vs "in", the same word is used, ev to describe "in inspiration in the Lord's day", which would otherwise be translated "on inspiration on the Lord's day." So I see no specific mistranslation issue here or John referring to the current day for this verse.

  JC

  Please note the word for "day" (hemera) (Strong's G2550) is the same word used in Revelation 1:10:

  That 1519 ye 5209 be 4531 0 not 3361 soon 5030 shaken 4531 in 575 mind 3563 , or 3383 be troubled 2360 , neither 3383 by 1223 spirit 4151 , nor 3383 by 1223 word 3056 , nor 3383 by 1223 letter 1992 as 5613 from 1223 us 2257 , as 5613 that 3754 the day 2250 of Christ 5547 is at hand 1764 .

  I was 1096 in 1722 the Spirit 4151 on 1722 the Lord's 2960 day 2250 , and 2532 heard 191 behind 3694 me 3450 a great 3173 voice 5456 , as 5613 of a trumpet 4536 ,

  MEANING? Meaning you have a broad range of interpretation here, the casual or specific use of terms to refer to certain concepts. However, the CHRONOLOGY of specific events related in Revelation is absolute per other references in the Bible and that alone dates the book to modern-time references, not excluding that it had contemporary references or generalized references; just like the "7 times" prophecy was a literal 7 years of madness for Nebuchadnezzar to be off his throne but 2520 years when you make a "greater fulfillment" which is required/permitted when you have a specific Biblical precedent for doing so, which is the "day for a year" reference, which also is confirmed by practical application; i.e. the first coming at the 70th week was 483 years not literal days from the "going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem" which occurred the 1st year of Cyrus in 455 BCE. So the CHRONOLOGY preempts any remote presumption this work really doesn't reference any future events beyond those in that contemporary setting back there. In fact, it is so preemptive that such a notion is "incompetent." Please contact any scholars commenting on the subject if you wish and have them call me and I'll be glad to explain it to them.

  JC
• 

  JCanon

  Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (Forms of the Old Testament Literature) by John, Joseph Collins

  The Apocalypse (New Testament Message; A Biblical-Theological Commentary) by Adela, Yarbro Collins

  When you have done so, and have given some real consideration to genre, textual criticism and history relevant to the time periods in which the literature was written, then post back here with your thoughts.

  Until you have done so, it's not a topic about which we can have a constructive discussion.

  I'll check these out. I do lots of reading and sometimes comment back to authors. However, because of the "day for a year" reference in Ezekiel an exegetical chronology application that stretches into the 20th century is always going to be an option. So without presuming what these books might effectively or ineffectively relate, the Bible itself is a direct reference for these things per my interpretation. If a "day for a year" for the Jews is applied to all chronology references for a "day" then you are going to be referencing events beyond the contemporary times of the literature. So if either of these scholars come up with something contradicting that I can tell you right now they are "incompetent". By the way, a thing can be incompetent, like an "incompetent uterus," which comes to mind.

  Thanks for the references.

  JCanon
• 

  JCanon

  Eyes Open, quick review of McKenzie.

  Here is a quote from a review of McKenzie's book you suggested:

  In his chapter on prophecy (pp. 67-89), McKenzie explains how prophets encouraged covenant obedience through the use of predictions of blessing or chastisement set in the immediate future. Next, he leads readers through several passages, pointing out easily overlooked features of the text that are nonetheless vital to proper understanding. In one example he shows how the final verses of Amos reapply its message against Israel to exilic Judah (pp. 73-74). This same attention to detail is applied to an examination of how Old Testament prophecy is reinterpreted (often christologically) in the New Testament. Here the effect is to downplay such passages as intentional predictions of Christ. Next, he briefly shows how the New Testament authors appropriated these passages by seizing upon unexhausted meaning, making reapplication, and emphasizing what they regarded as a passage’s real intent (pp. 84-89). While McKenzie does an able job in the space allowed, a fuller treatment of the sample passages would be welcome, particularly given what many conservative readers are being asked to surrender at this point.

  http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/reviews/review289.htm

  The highlighted portion I think reflects his point of view, one I believe I understand, however, "chronology" preempts his position totally. Perhaps that's why CHRONOLOGY ended up becoming an important area of expertise in end-times. What he is basically saying is that the context of these references would not have ordinarily or necessarily been prophetic for anyone but the Jews during that time, or they were "reused" in an incidental manner for latter times, even adopted by the Christians to apply to something regarding Christ. He may make that academic point well. But chronology alone contradicts the Bible was only written for Biblical times and not for the future. Chronology is specific. It dates the second coming to a precise YEAR.

  For instance, the "7 times" prophecy of 2520 days is only 7 years if a "day" were just a day. But once Ezekiel says "a day for a year" then you have a specific reference that 2520 days are to be interpreted as 2520 years. This is specific. It doesn't say a day is 5 years or 4 days or 2-1/2 weeks. It says "a day for a YEAR." 2520 days are to be exchanged for 2520 years.

  Same with the "seventy weeks" which is 490 DAYS in relation to the arrival of the messiah after 69 weeks. Is this a literal69 weeks, or 483 years. The 1st of Cyrus occurred in 455 BCE and the messiah, historically, baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius in 29 CE is exactly 483 YEARS. That is, the VAT4956 confirms 511 BCE as year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar which means year 23 falls in 525 BCE. Per Josephus 70 years of desolation and servitude ended in the 1st of Cyrus, which dates the 1st of Cyrus, alternatively to 455 BCE. So you have a secular, astronomical absolute date to deal with per the VAT4956 that gives an absolute historical date for the 1st of Cyrus in 455 BCE, that has to match another absolute historical event, which is the 15th of Tiberius that has to have some coordinated meaning for 483 years, if a "day for a year" is meant. Of course, it does! It works out perfectly.

  So, again, his argument is incompetent because he hasn't considered the chronology, and Christians didn't come up with the "day for a year" presumption, which might have been an argument for McKenzie, it is in the Bible. The Bible requires "a day for a year" application. So I haven't even read the book and he's already contradicted totally.

  Anyway, I did look at your reference. I see where he is coming from academically but it falls short of some questions I would have him address regarding chronology. I believe he is well footed to presume those stories in the Bible are meant for the contemporary audience, but the chronology isn't, so.... he's not really addressing WHY others would presume those passages have future references because the chronology would establish these things in a future setting, a SPECIFIC future setting many times.

  JC
• 

  Eyes Open

  Hi JC,
  
  Thanks for the post. So you won't be reading those books? In that case I will bow out of discussing the topic with you further because, as I said previously, unless you have given the consensus of the modern scholarly view substantial consideration there's no point in us talking at cross purposes.
  
  My view is that the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation were designed for the audiences to which they were originally directed, the Jews in Greece and the Christians in Rome, and that their prophecies ultimately proved to be failures. Many have used various means to interject some modern-day, urgent message into these works (e.g. the day for a year principle, which I don't believe is stated anywhere in the bible as applying to Daniel). As an ex-JW, I've had my fill of convoluted eschatologies. Every single one of these attempts has failed.
  
  I believe all current and future attempts will also fail.
• 

  JCanon

  Hi Eyes Open.

  I respect YOUR position. You have given authors reflecting quite well, from what I've only briefly read, this academic view of the issue. But it doesn't ADDRESS the CHRONOLOGY. That's the problem. That is, I would tend to accept their alternative view even if I personally disagreed with them, but their position is preempted completely by the "day for a year" reference, and when you have periods in expressed in days say up to 2520 days.

  Hi JC,
  
  Thanks for the post. So you won't be reading those books? In that case I will bow out of discussing the topic with you further because, as I said previously, unless you have given the consensus of the modern scholarly view substantial consideration there's no point in us talking at cross purposes.
  
  My view is that the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation were designed for the audiences to which they were originally directed, the Jews in Greece and the Christians in Rome, and that their prophecies ultimately proved to be failures. Many have used various means to interject some modern-day, urgent message into these works (e.g. the day for a year principle, which I don't believe is stated anywhere in the bible as applying to Daniel). As an ex-JW, I've had my fill of convoluted eschatologies. Every single one of these attempts has failed.
  
  I believe all current and future attempts will also fail.

  So we can part and "agree to disagree" as they say, but these authors don't address the chronology context that reference/imply future events. They are only seeing where the majority of this literature was pertinent to the local setting and only later are we reading more into than that. Believe me, I get it. I see it. I can accept that position quite well. But it doesn't work once you introduce the chronology. In fact, as I said, it makes that position completely "incompetent" it is so preemptive. Especially after the first advent when Jesus' arrival at "69 weeks" aligns with the corrected chronology. That "70 weeks" prophecy is very fundamental for setting the messiah arriving at the end of 69 weeks, which is 483 days/years. We have an absolute date for this, the 15th of Tiberius. We are stuck with coordinating 29 CE with a 483-year scenario. This is no problem for most Bible scholars to come up with this. JWs and many others see this pointing to 455 BCE, which they link to some scenario of the rebuilding work beginning in earlier times. The corrected chronology dates that to the 1st of Cyrus, JWs and otehrs use the closest day for the revised chronology of the 20th of Artaxerxes or whatever else they come up with, but most of them clearly understand this is a reference to 483 years not literal days. But even if they didn't (and some don't like C.O. Jonsson) "a day for a year" is a specific Biblical formula, that was stated and part of this literature. Once you apply days to years you are going to immediately get dates beyond even Christian times. And NOW it is a amazing to see that coordination. But I need only reference the first coming in 29 CE in relation to the 1st of Cyrus, 455 BCE, as precisely 483 years, or 69 weeks, which means 483 days indeed are fulfilled in 483 years. So, again, while generally their argument and position would be considered a viable option/alternative, that option/alternative is completely preempted by this single reference: "a day for a year." I do lots of reading and enjoy other's takes on the Bible, so again, thanks for the references. But I can tell from here that theory doesn't work. What I sometimes do, if they are available online is to query them on this specifically, like "Well, what about this "day for a year" reference? Doesn't that suggest events in the distant future?" Of course, that answer is self apparent without asking. I respect your view but I have no other way of saying how the chronology affects this other than stating again it makes your position and theirs INCOMPETENT and IRRELEVANT. It's just that poorly missed. It doesn't even come CLOSE to being correct. It's a JOKE. It borders on Biblical stupidity, though I wouldn't say that. It is so bad, in fact, it is as if it is UNCONNECTED. It doesn't even come close to being addressable as an issue. But that's my opinoin on it. Again, thanks for the references. I learn (and have already) from everyone's point of view, as I have here. JC
• 

  JCanon

  In short, I was explaining that the phrase "Lord's day" in Revelation 1:10 was indeed a reference to the day of Sunday, and is not to be confused with the eschatological term "day of the Lord", which is used in the Old Testament and in the New Testament to refer to the time at the end of the age when God executes his judgment on the earth. These are completely different terms in the Greek language (kuriaké hémera being the term meaning Sunday, and hémera tou kuriou being the term referring to the time of the end of the world), and I gave the references showing this to be the case.

  I was 1096 in 1722 the Spirit 4151 on 1722 the Lord's 2960 day 2250 , and 2532 heard 191 behind 3694 me 3450 a great 3173 voice 5456 , as 5613 of a trumpet 4536 ,

  That 1519 ye 5209 be 4531 0 not 3361 soon 5030 shaken 4531 in 575 mind 3563 , or 3383 be troubled 2360 , neither 3383 by 1223 spirit 4151 , nor 3383 by 1223 word 3056 , nor 3383 by 1223 letter 1992 as 5613 from 1223 us 2257 , as 5613 that 3754 the day 2250 of Christ 5547 is at hand 1764

  JC
• 

  Narkissos

  JCanon, you apparently didn't get that the critical term is not the common word "day" (hemera) but the rare qualifying epithet adjective kuriakos (= "dominical," # 2960 in your post), which occurs only in Revelation 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 11:20 in the NT, both in liturgical, not eschatological, contexts (the Lord's supper, the Lord's day). This is not the phrase for the eschatological "day of the Lord," hemera Kuriou (= Kurios genitive).