@Vidqun
But what I miss from your post is your interpretation. What do you think it all means? How is it all going to play out? Or are you still working on your hypothesis? Because that is all we can do at this stage: Work out a hypothesis according to available data. Put in into a theoretical construct and apply the data in real time. Then allow for the repetition of the experiment and/or peer review and see if it holds up to scrutiny.
PW: Good point about interpretation. Before I answer, I think exactly the same as you do, that the question of Revelation should be addressed primarily in terms of some theoretical construct - without names of institutions, rulers, or countries first.
My criticism, which I wrote to e.g. Mr. Kosonen, regarding the attempt to interpret e.g. some characters in Revelation as UNO etc., also applies to me.
Let me explain: i can think that if Jesus came at this time, then the institutions, rulers and beasts of this world, will definitely play some role in Revelation. But I have to be prepared for the possibility that Jesus will also come 250 years from now. And it is clear that the "materialization" I can afford today will certainly not be valid 250 years from now...
So I am watching the situation today, around me, but I am equally careful not to overestimate or underestimate the situation "here and now". Personally, I miss this approach: most interpreters who consider Revelation (apart from those who claim that it has all happened in the past) then, in my opinion, "bet" everything on one card. There is no natural caution or respect for the statement that no one knows about that day. Especially with ex-JWs, that caution should be obvious. Okay, many will agree with this, but again, few actually apply it to their interpretations as well - the actual world and the possible world.
It seems to me that if one were to actually do this, then one would have to sooner/later resign oneself to concretizing institutions/rulers/countries and go back to finding some theoretical construct and testing it. So first without the names...
Now for the interpretation. I, like millions of people before me over the centuries, have tried different variations. Different chronological scenarios. I've read the literature and commentary over the last 200 years or so.
In the end, only one approach worked for me: start from the endš The result is always clear. That's why I started looking at the storyline just before the end - who is fighting who and with what outcome. And strictly without names of states or institutions. As in sociology, I began to look at roles, functions and relationships - first in terms of the chronology of events.
To be specific: if in 11:7 it is stated that the two witnesses will be killed by the Beast of Abyss in 17:8 then those events, build on each other. First the witnesses, then the Beast. Or, if it is written in 16:10 that the bowl of wrath will be poured out on the throne of the Beast, then the Beast must exist, so the event of the 5th bowl must occur after the Beast appears. Or: if the 6th seal (7:3) states that the sealing of the 144,000 is to begin, then the 5th trumpet (9:4) states that the apocalyptic locusts, among others, are not to harm those who have the seal of God. And if the locusts are identified as the 1st woe (8:13), then the 6th trumpet (9:12) announces the release of the four angels, because the sealing of the 144,000 has been completed...
This created a basic chronological framework that suggested (I am still talking about a theoretical construct!) that events proceed roughly as they are described. There is not some parallelism or periodization of events.Then I looked for the individual meanings of the words in their symbolic meaning. This is very, very thin ice.Three things became the main clues so that I didn't go outside the box (I often did):
*
What I described above very simply had results, for example, in that I then searched for the identity of the Great Babylon. I have written about 6 pages of this and will probably have to write about 6 moreš The reason I was there was that I was commenting on firstly the history of interpretation of the concept, then the current state of biblical scholarship and only then, stating my opinion, which I support from the history of interpretation, the current state of biblical scholarship and from the extensive argumentation from the NT text, which is key.
But I'm too lazy to write!š So, even though I have a lot of background, I don't really feel like writing because discussing the issues is better than boring writing about who wrote what and when...š
But while I have to argue "666" very well, then I am, as I write, half done (satisfied) with the identity of the Great Babylon, so then we can discuss it here...
**I will try to finish the topic of Babylon the Great by the end of the week and then it will be obvious what I think about the Beast, the 10 Kings... And if there is any point in looking up their names at all (the Beast and the kings will be named something, but it will be clear that it is not that significant - the interpretation should apply as much to today as to the world that may be 250 years from now, or even what may have been until now... So again I return to what I wrote to Mr. Kosonen.)