Actually, I think that the end times scenarios we hear a lot about (ie pre-millenialism) through Hal Londay, Barry Smith, Tim La Haye, et al are no more than speculation and a contrived attempt to make the current world scene fit their Biblical interpretation.  Call on your local Lutheran library and get a look at the historicist position (minus all the BS...er, BI stuff you got in the RF).

I am not a fanatic against pre-millenialism but I do think that Revelation is probably meant to be read in the context of the events that were unfolding as it was written and not as a Nostradamus type book.  I am sure you want some black and white answers on this as you have been taught you can have (by the RF), yet I really dont think you;ll find an air tight theology on end times. 

When people are being lined up to be beheaded or get a barcode/chip on their hand then I will be wide open to a pre-millenial point of view.  But I don't think that doubting this interpretation of events is to be faithless or doubt the Bible as authority for the Christian life as some would want you to believe.  I have had more years of this kind of end times fear than than of the RCI one and yet upon scrutiny, found both lacking.  I suggest you live your life, love God, your family and friends, help the poor and needy when you see opporutnity and enjoy all that God has given you.  Let the end times take care of themselves.  As Jesus said just to the 12, just before his ascension into heaven:  "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority" (Acts 1:7).

Hell, I've been there, so I believe in it... I was in a cinema that showed tombraider 2.

Hell is a hot terrible place completely separated from God... and ive been there as well. Noosa Queensland.

The bible says Where there is light there cannot be darkness. ergo... God cannot be everywhere if you include darkness. But I know what you mean. Sort of like when you turn off the light and the cockroaches scurry under the fridge... except you turn the light off... and God is not a cockroach...

If hell were this metaphorical place where satan and his henchmen poked and proded you for eternity and you burnt in pain for eternity (seems a harsh and illogically long time... and are nerve endings provided so that the fire actually does hurt... seeing we have no bodies. I believe that the second death refers to the soul being destroyed and consumed by fire never to be ressurected for etertiny... eg. 600 billion years from now the whosoever (Holy JOe) won't be able to say... hey remember Heatandbless that died the second death all those billions of years ago... let's bring him back. I dont think Holy Joe Ruling and reigning the new Jerusalem and joyriding around Saturn will be able to do that... or whatever it is we will be doing for eternity. Perhaps we just sit around in a room for eternity and muse on the old church we used to go to and all the crazy things we did there.) ... big brackets hey... where were we. I'm going to bed. I thought the following article was interesting even though it may contradict everything I just said... as if I said anything that made sense anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Psalm 139:7-10  " Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. "
Genesis 11:5  "And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded."
Genesis 18:20-21  "And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know."

The passages from Genesis about God "coming down to see" seem to indicate that God surely is not everywhere present, or else why would He have "to come down" to some place? The passage from Psalm 139 on the other hand clearly indicates that God is present in even most contrasting places (heaven and hell; east and west).

Once again in these cases, we must understand that in certain places in Scripture God is attributed human characteristics, this is done by way of the figure of speech "condescensio". God, as a spirit, who "inhabits eternity" (cp. Isaiah 57:15) is indeed everywhere present and He need not literally go some place or come down to some place to actually be present there. Such references about the LORD going to Babylon to take a look at the tower which the folks there had built, or about the LORD going to Sodom to see if it was true what He had heard about that place, are the use of this figure of speech. Something is expressed in human terms for emphasis and perhaps a better understanding on the reader's part. God is not "coming" to these places in a phyiscal sense, rather He is turning His attention there and is going to deal with that particular situation.

When we understand the figure of speech involved in the expressions used, and when we observe the contexts of each passage, we can easily see that there is not discrepancy nor contradiction whatever between these sections of Scripture.

Hello

Bit late in the thread but this is my thought....only allowed one a day

I'm not a pre millieniumist

I'm not a post milleniumist

I'm a pan milleniumist

I figure it will all pan out in the end

---

Hell, I've been there, so I believe in it... I was in a cinema that showed tombraider 2.Hell is a hot terrible place completely separated from God... and ive been there as well. Noosa Queensland.

---

This is totally late, but this quote is TOTALLY funny & kool....

can I use it?

what do you think about this H&S, "Love your enemies" right?   And Satan is 'the enemy' yeah?  so.... erm,,,,, what are you meant to do?

Sometimes I feel like I am doing wrong by God when I tell Satan to... go to hell...

aM i jUSt rEALlY sTRaNge?

---

what do you think about this H&S, "Love your enemies" right? And Satan is 'the enemy' yeah? so.... erm,,,,, what are you meant to do?Sometimes I feel like I am doing wrong by God when I tell Satan to... go to hell...aM i jUSt rEALlY sTRaNge?

---

You probably are really strange yep but that's ok... "a peculiar people"

Someone once said "Jesus loves me but I just wanted to be good friends"... haha (oh, don't look at me like that pilinut) maybe we should love Satan just enough until we get a nice car and house and then dump him and tell him we never loved him but were only using him for his money.

---

Hell, I've been there, so I believe in it... I was in a cinema that showed tombraider 2. Hell is a hot terrible place completely separated from God... and ive been there as well. Noosa Queensland.

can I use it?

---

Yeah, be my guest... Although you can probably replace Tombraider 2 with Blade 3 or 'The last action hero' and Noosa with Mt Isa.

---

... Although you can probably replace Tombraider 2 with Blade 3 or 'The last action hero' and Noosa with Mt Isa.

---

looks like you really need to 'press in' and seek God for a greater spirit of discernment

---

Reply to : HolyandSinful... Although you can probably replace Tombraider 2 with Blade 3 or'The last action hero' and Noosa with Mt Isa.looks

 

like you really need to 'press in' and seek God for a greater spirit of discernment

---

oops................hmmmmm..... I'm really hopeless at remembering to log in.......... can you pray for me....................

---

So H & SI have read a lot of your postings and find them quite interesting... and can relate!!!I am just a confused little person now.... do you think the Lord will return one day.... or do you think that is like you say , the Historial interpretation???What do others think?

---

The Preterist View

The view of Preterism holds that the contents of Revelation constitute a prophecy of events that were fulfilled in the 1st century. This view depends critically on an early date of Revelation, circa AD 68, since any later date makes the "prophecy" postdate the events prophesied. Even accepting that date leaves a narrow margin of one to two years before the fulfillment occurs. Preterist interpretations generally identify Jerusalem as the persecutor of the Church, "Babylon", the "Mother of Harlots", etc. They see Armageddon as God's judgment on the Jews, carried out by the Roman army, which is identified as "the beast". Some preterists see the second half of Revelation as changing focus to Rome, its persecution of Christians, and the fall of the Roman Empire. It sees the Revelation being fulfilled in AD 70, thereby bringing the full presence of God to dwell with all humanity.

The Futurist View

The futurist view assigns all of the prophecy to some future time, shortly before the second coming. Futurist interpretations generally predict a Great Tribulation, a relatively short period of time when believers will experience worldwide persecution and be purified and strengthened by it, and a rapture, whereby all true Christians are taken from Earth by God into Heaven. Pretribulationists believe that all Christians then alive will be taken bodily up to Heaven before the Tribulation begins. Some variants of this interpretation portray Israeli Jews as collaborators with the Antichrist; well-known futurist Pat Robertson was sharply criticized for actually stating that "The Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today." Midtribulationists believe that the rapture of the faithful will occur halfway through the tribulation, after it begins but before the worst part of it occurs. Posttribulationists believe that Christians will not be taken up into Heaven until Christ returns at the end of the Tribulation.

The futurist view was first proposed by two Catholic writers, Lacunza and Ribera. Lacunza wrote under the pen name "Ben Ezra", and his work was banned by the Catholic Church. It has grown in popularity in the 19th and 20th centuries, so that today it is probably most readily recognized. Books about the "rapture" by authors like Hal Lindsey, and the more recent Left Behind novels (byJerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye) and movies, have done much to popularize this school of thought.

The Rastafarians hold a futurist view of the book of Revelation, relating it both to 20th-century events such as the crowning of Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie and the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, and also to future events such as the second coming of Selassie on the day of judgment.

The Historicist View

The historicist view regards the prophecy as spanning the time from the end of the first century through the second coming of Christ.

Politically, historicist interpretations apply the symbols of Revelation to the gradual division and collapse of the Roman Empire, the emergence of a divided Europe in the West and a Muslim empire in the East, and the collapse of the Eastern Empire while Europe attempts to reunite and recreate the Roman Empire.

Ecclesiastically, historicist interpretations see Revelation as teaching that the Church would expand, despite persecution, until it "conquered" the whole world?but in the process, would gradually evolve into an apostate system within which true Christians would be a persecuted minority. The apostate Church is associated with the symbols of the "Mother of Harlots" and with "Babylon". It is seen as an "Antichrist system" which exists for much of history rather than expecting a single "Antichrist" in the last days, as futurist interpretations do.

According to historicist interpretations, the second coming of Christ occurs about the time that a partly reunited Europe starts to wage war against Israel. This view is held mainly by Fundamentalist Protestant Christians. The exact constitution of this confederacy differs between interpretations: in some it is mainly composed of Eastern European countries, notably Russia; in others, Western European; some include Britain, while others suggest that Britain and former Commonwealth nations will oppose the confederacy. In all historicist interpretations, Christ defeats this confederacy, rescues Israel from certain destruction, judges apostate Christianity and vindicates the true believers, and sets up a kingdom on earth.

The earliest Christian writers adopted a historicist viewpoint, though at such an early date, the distinction between historicist and futurist views was less pronounced. Historicist interpretations tend to be millenarian, emphasizing the literal reign of Christ on earth, and as that doctrine receded in importance, so too did the historicist focus in interpretation. Today, historicist interpretations are favored in the most ardently millenarian sects.

Many Protestant writers today use this school of interpretation as the foundation for an anti-Catholic polemic, but it should be noted that such is not an inherent property of historical interpretations. Many Catholic writers in the fourth and fifth centuries applied the notion of future apostasy to their own church, in various ways. Some argued that an apostasy would arise within the church. Others argued that this had already happened, and cited one or another sect which arose over some theological dispute. What differs between interpretations is the identity of the apostasy.

The Spiritual or Idealist View

The Spiritual view (also called Idealist by some writers) does not see the book of Revelation as predicting specific events in history. Rather it sees the visions as expressing eternal spiritual truths that find expression throughout history. Only in the last few chapters are specifically predictive eschatological issues taken up.

The Catholic & Eastern Orthodox View

Eastern Orthodoxy has an interpretation that does not fit well into any of the above classifications. It treats the text as simultaneously describing contemporaneous events and as prophecy of events to come, for which the contemporaneous events were a form of foreshadow. It rejects attempts to determine, before the fact, if the events of Revelation are occurring by mapping them onto present-day events, taking to heart the Scriptural warning against those who proclaim "He is here!" prematurely. Instead, the book is seen as a warning to be spiritually and morally ready for the end times, whenever they may come ("as a thief in the night"), but they will come at the time of God's choosing, not something that can be precipitated nor trivially deduced by mortals.

Historical-Critical Interpretation

The historical-critical interpretation takes as axiomatic some qualities that would be considered commonplace in a non-Christian or non-Rastafarian context, first of all that Revelation is a text, which is embodied and transmitted in manuscripts, which have their own histories. Such texts are subject to changes, such as miscopying, repetition of lines already entered, excision, interpolation or emendation. Motivations for such changes run the whole gamut of human motivations, and need also to be assessed in their historical context.

The acceptance of Revelation into the canon is itself the result of a historical process, essentially no different from the career of other texts. The eventual exclusion of other contemporary apocalyptic literature from the canon may throw light on the unfolding historical processes of what was officially considered orthodox, what was heterodox, what was even heretical.

The historical-critical interpretation cannot address two aspects of Revelation. It is not prepared to discuss aspects of divine inspiration of the original text, nor can it assess the book's relevance to the modern world. Interpretation of meanings and imagery is limited to what the historical author intended and what his contemporary audience inferred. Thus, the symbolism of Revelation is to be understood entirely within its historical literary and social context. Critics study the conventions of apocalyptic literature and events of the 1st century to make sense of what the author may have intended.

Nevertheless, many interpretative questions remain: Is the structure of the book linear, resumptive, or thematic? How does the imagery relate to historical events? Did the author intend one or multiple meanings in the text? The plurality of answers to these (and other) questions is plain to see both from the text of this article and scholarly opinion. Historical-criticism does not sit well within this plurality, but contemporary approaches to biblical texts, notably the literary-critical method, revel in this uncertainty. Different questions are asked, and as a result, the focus shifts from author to reader. What does it matter who wrote Revelation? Why can't the structure be linear, resumptive and thematic simultaneously? What stops the imagery relating to just 1st-century events and not 21st-century events as well? Fundamentally, what stops Revelation having more than one valid meaning? (For more related information, see Literary criticism, but see also Historical-grammatical hermeneutics.)