666 calculation

[fallingblood]

That's a common interpretation, but one we view as incorrect. And as I pointed out, used as a year it fits quite well.



The only problem is that same "soon" message was believed by a lot of Christians back then until it became clear that there would be a considerable delay before any fulfillment!

Besides, there are other prophecies that do give exact years (in addition to the 666 one) that in retrospect were indeed accurate! If you're interested, you can see these at:

www.bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled

Peace,

Bruce

The problem still is, if John meant that it would be in the distant future, everything he said would have seem nonsensical to the churches that he sent the letters to. Obviously, John meant the letters to be relevant to them.

 

[BruceDLimber]

The problem still is, if John meant that it would be in the distant future, everything he said would have seem nonsensical to the churches that he sent the letters to. Obviously, John meant the letters to be relevant to them.

What you overlook is that IOV those letters were in fact sent to various religious groups! You can see the details of this at:

www.bahai-library.org

by clicking "Books" and then selecting Riggs' Apocalypse Unsealed, which discusses this in detail; see especially Chapters Two and Three.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[fallingblood]

What you overlook is that IOV those letters were in fact sent to various religious groups! You can see the details of this at:

www.bahai-library.org

by clicking "Books" and then selecting Riggs' Apocalypse Unsealed, which discusses this in detail; see especially Chapters Two and Three.

Peace,

Bruce

I think I will stick to Bruce Metzger and Marcus Borg. I find them less biased.

 

[BruceDLimber]

What--you mean they agree better with YOUR biases?

Bruce

 

[fallingblood]

What--you mean they agree better with YOUR biases?

Bruce

Yes, it is true that I have some biases. However, I know for sure that Marcus Borg is a Christian, so he has no reason to try to discredit the Bible. He may have some biases, but I see no reason for him to have made up anything or try to distort the facts.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The problem still is, if John meant that it would be in the distant future, everything he said would have seem nonsensical to the churches that he sent the letters to. Obviously, John meant the letters to be relevant to them.

I used to think that, too. But it might be too much to assume.

John could have been an artist - the kind of writer, like James Joyce for instance, who purposefully writes in a way that is almost impossible to understand. The meaning is not so much in the cryptic words but in in the simple message that is found throughout: that God is going to bring all things to redemption through Jesus Christ - and soon.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is my absolute favorite quote from the early church regarding Revelation:

Irenaus, a student of Polycarp who was a disciple of John wrote:

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ‘he’ [John?] or ‘it’ [Revelation?] was seen . . . towards the end of Domitian’s reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxxi.html