"it is the number of a man, and his number is 666"

Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,324
edited January 2018 in Bible Questions

“This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.” (Revelation 13:18)

People have tried to affix the number 666 or one of its translations to a specific person. Nero was a candidate because his name could numerically match 666. They also could see the 666 relating to the Papacy. And many look for an Antichrist of the future bearing a name adding up to 666.

But what if the number doesn't match any person in particular? What if 666 is merely a man's number? The way K-9 is merely a dog's number?

The Lexham English Bible translates the verse as being man's number. “Here is wisdom: the one who has understanding, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number, and his number is six hundred sixty-six.” (Revelation 13:18)

Comments

  • dct112685dct112685 Posts: 1,111

    Well for one K-9 isn't a number. It is an abbreviation for canine.

  • GaoLuGaoLu Posts: 1,367

    There is a lot of wild speculation. Some say we can't really know but it is a beast/man. Some say we can't really know but it is symbol and not a beast/man. The correct answer, of course, is "Yes."

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,688
    edited January 2018

    The number points to Nero ... rather simple and plain, when the time of the writing of the book of Revelation is correctly understood in light of the inherent factors mentioned in the book and when those things revealed in it were to come to pass (cp Rev 1:1,3; Rev 22:10)

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,324
    edited January 2018

    Thanks for your replies. I spent some time looking for 1 person called Antichrist. Even though John said there were already many in his day. But Paul's "man of sin" who seemed to have the same definition as Daniel's "little horn" and John's "antichrist" led me to look for an individual.

    Back in the day people speculated it was Henry Kissinger. Later it would be different others. Even Obama at one point. And the Mark would become a microchip or some other means of control. But I believe now that the "Mark" is man's number in general. And represents man's sinful law whenever it supersedes God's law.

    This would make any totalitarian regime throughout history and in the future demanding allegiance to sinful laws over God's law guilty of the charge.

    The Mark being symbolic just as those who worship the Lamb have his name written in their foreheads Revelation 14:1.

    In essence, I interpret Revelation and other prophetic passages as saying: "it will be as though someone is doing this or that". We don't see the symbol materializing. But we see the outcome in the world around us as though the symbol materialized and is causing it.

    Post edited by Dave_L on
  • GaoLuGaoLu Posts: 1,367
    edited January 2018

    So, "it is the number of a man" doesn't mean "number" or "man?"

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,324

    @GaoLu said:
    So, "it is the number of a man" doesn't mean "number" or "man?"

    Thanks for your interest in this. I think the number is symbolic not to be worn literally. Anymore than the 144,000 having their father's name written in their foreheads wear that symbol literally in Revelation 13:18–14:1.

    The way I understand Revelation is that it is a book of symbols that signify physical realities.

    “THE Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:” (Revelation 1:1)

    CP: “This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.” (John 21:19) Also similar uses in the NT of "signify" or "signified".

    So I read it as: I will see totalitarian world conditions as if there were a beast requiring a mark. Or a pale horse bringing war. Or a great whore producing the world conditions I see surrounding the Papacy in the dark ages etc.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,989

    @Dave_L said:
    “This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.” (Revelation 13:18)

    People have tried to affix the number 666 or one of its translations to a specific person. Nero was a candidate because his name could numerically match 666. They also could see the 666 relating to the Papacy. And many look for an Antichrist of the future bearing a name adding up to 666...The Lexham English Bible translates the verse as being man's number. “Here is wisdom: the one who has understanding, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number, and his number is six hundred sixty-six.” (Revelation 13:18)

    Dave,
    I know it's an old thread, but I hope to rekindle fresh interest in the text (passage). I am compelled to say, look at the passage in context, note who wrote the book, to whom, when, the language of the writer's past, and the nature of the book (apocalyptic). This will help with your basic knowledge and lead to a correct understanding.

    Until then, considers this exercise below. Some take the layout as a serious understanding of the text above (Revelation 13:18). The number of the beast, the man’s number of Verse 18, is said to be found...

    Note: What ‘man’ represents the Papacy? It is none other than the office of the pope who bears the Latin title, “Vicarius Filii Dei”, or “Vicar of the Son of God.”

    Following the ancient custom of a person having both a number and a name, let us add the Roman numerals in this title:

    • Add ‘Vicarius’, V = 5+I = 1+C = 100+A&R = 0+I = 1+U (u and v are equal in Latin) = 5+S = 0 is 112.
    • Add to it ‘Filii’, F = 0+I = 1+L = 50+I = 1+I = 1 is 53.
    • Add ‘Dei’, D = 500+E = 0+I = 1 is 501.

    Now add the three, 112+53+501 = 666.

    Does this make sense to you? :) Could there be any possible truth to this? CM

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,324

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:
    “This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.” (Revelation 13:18)

    People have tried to affix the number 666 or one of its translations to a specific person. Nero was a candidate because his name could numerically match 666. They also could see the 666 relating to the Papacy. And many look for an Antichrist of the future bearing a name adding up to 666...The Lexham English Bible translates the verse as being man's number. “Here is wisdom: the one who has understanding, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number, and his number is six hundred sixty-six.” (Revelation 13:18)

    Dave,
    I know it's an old thread, but I hope to rekindle fresh interest in the text (passage). I am compelled to say, look at the passage in context, note who wrote the book, to whom, when, the language of the writer's past, and the nature of the book (apocalyptic). This will help with your basic knowledge and lead to a correct understanding.

    Until then, considers this exercise below. Some take the layout as a serious understanding of the text above (Revelation 13:18). The number of the beast, the man’s number of Verse 18, is said to be found...

    Note: What ‘man’ represents the Papacy? It is none other than the office of the pope who bears the Latin title, “Vicarius Filii Dei”, or “Vicar of the Son of God.”

    Following the ancient custom of a person having both a number and a name, let us add the Roman numerals in this title:

    • Add ‘Vicarius’, V = 5+I = 1+C = 100+A&R = 0+I = 1+U (u and v are equal in Latin) = 5+S = 0 is 112.
    • Add to it ‘Filii’, F = 0+I = 1+L = 50+I = 1+I = 1 is 53.
    • Add ‘Dei’, D = 500+E = 0+I = 1 is 501.

    Now add the three, 112+53+501 = 666.

    Does this make sense to you? :) Could there be any possible truth to this? CM

    I think this is a valid interpretation. It favors the Historicist view of Revelation held by most until recently including the Reformers.

    "Man's Number" allows for different Antichrists including Nero, the Papacy, and even totalitarian regimes that forced obedience to sinful laws under threat of loss and death. Islam could very well join these ranks in the future.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,989

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:

    Note: What ‘man’ represents the Papacy? It is none other than the office of the pope who bears the Latin title, “Vicarius Filii Dei”, or “Vicar of the Son of God.”

    Following the ancient custom of a person having both a number and a name, let us add the Roman numerals in this title:

    • Add ‘Vicarius’, V = 5+I = 1+C = 100+A&R = 0+I = 1+U (u and v are equal in Latin) = 5+S = 0 is 112.
    • Add to it ‘Filii’, F = 0+I = 1+L = 50+I = 1+I = 1 is 53.
    • Add ‘Dei’, D = 500+E = 0+I = 1 is 501.

    Now add the three, 112+53+501 = 666.

    Does this make sense to you? :) Could there be any possible truth to this? CM

    I think this is a valid interpretation. It favors the Historicist view of Revelation held by most until recently including the Reformers.

    Yes, you're correct here.

    • This method may not have all the answers, but it so beats buying into the Spanish Jesuit priest, Francisco Ribeira, who, in 1585, published a commentary on Revelation in which he worked to turn aside the Protestant application of the apocalyptic antichrist prophecies and symbols from pointing to the Church of Rome. His commentary on Revelation was a counter-interpretation—part of the counter-Reformation of the Church of Rome. Ribeira applied all of Revelation, except the earliest chapters, to the end time rather than to the history of the Church. Antichrist would be a single evil person who would be received by the Jews and would rebuild Jerusalem, abolish Christianity, deny Christ, persecute the Church, and rule the world for three and a half years.

    • Another Spanish Jesuit, Luis de Alcazar (d. 1613), first promoted the idea of
      preterism in a systematic formulation. In his book, Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse published posthumously in 1614, Alcazar postulated that practically all of Revelation was fulfilled by the time of Constantine the Great." Therefore, the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled in the historical period of the Early Church. The Reformers had identified the Roman Church as Babylon and had succeeded in making Revelation a powerful controversial weapon in their favor.

    "Man's Number" allows for different Antichrists including Nero, the Papacy, and even totalitarian regimes that forced obedience to sinful laws under threat of loss and death. Islam could very well join these ranks in the future.

    With this range of possibilities, nothing would suffice more than a thorough study of the Book of Revelation, in general, and a detailed study of Chapter 13 of this book. I will try to post some foundational points on understanding Revelation 13, in particular, if interested. "... Let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.” (Revelation 13:18).

    Until then, here are REASONABLE patterns of information in understanding 666. One scholar explains in detail the significance of the different types of numbers John employed in Revelation. He demonstrates that John used:

    1. Square numbers to represent the people of God (144).
    2. Triangular numbers to represent the evil forces (666).
    3. Rectangular numbers to represent the period of conflict between good and evil forces (42, and 1,260).

    Keep studying. CM

    SOURCE:

    -- Baukham, The Climax of Prophecy, 384-407.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,688

    @C_M_ said:
    Until then, considers this exercise below. Some take the layout as a serious understanding of the text above (Revelation 13:18). The number of the beast, the man’s number of Verse 18, is said to be found...

    Note: What ‘man’ represents the Papacy?

    Please note: The passage is NOT speaking about an office, such as a king, a priest, a pope, etc
    The passage is speaking about one particular man, one particular individual which could be identified by the number of his name adding up to the number given

    It is none other than the office of the pope who bears the Latin title, “Vicarius Filii Dei”, or “Vicar of the Son of God.”

    See above ... the passage is NOT speaking about an office held by different individuals, etc ... Furthermore, was there even a pope office when the revelation was given to John??

    Following the ancient custom of a person having both a number and a name, let us add the Roman numerals in this title:

    • Add ‘Vicarius’, V = 5+I = 1+C = 100+A&R = 0+I = 1+U (u and v are equal in Latin) = 5+S = 0 is 112.
    • Add to it ‘Filii’, F = 0+I = 1+L = 50+I = 1+I = 1 is 53.
    • Add ‘Dei’, D = 500+E = 0+I = 1 is 501.

    Now add the three, 112+53+501 = 666.

    See above ... this seems more of "artificially arrived at" seeing that it is not about the name of a particular individual. The passage in Rev 13 clearly concerns a certain individual.

    Does this make sense to you? :) Could there be any possible truth to this? CM

    Not really, because it disregards the simple textual points mentioned.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,688

    @Dave_L said:
    "Man's Number" allows for different Antichrists including Nero, the Papacy, and even totalitarian regimes that forced obedience to sinful laws under threat of loss and death. Islam could very well join these ranks in the future.

    This contradicts the simple truth that Rev 13:18 is speaking about one particular individual whose name would reflect that particular number. Rev 13 is not a "muddied statement" which "allows for different Antichrists".

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,324

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    "Man's Number" allows for different Antichrists including Nero, the Papacy, and even totalitarian regimes that forced obedience to sinful laws under threat of loss and death. Islam could very well join these ranks in the future.

    This contradicts the simple truth that Rev 13:18 is speaking about one particular individual whose name would reflect that particular number. Rev 13 is not a "muddied statement" which "allows for different Antichrists".

    It just says man's number is 666.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,688

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    This contradicts the simple truth that Rev 13:18 is speaking about one particular individual whose name would reflect that particular number. Rev 13 is not a "muddied statement" which "allows for different Antichrists".

    It just says man's number is 666.

    Well, reading the statement more carefully one could notice that it is about "THE beast" (not a beast, not beasts, etc) and then speaks of the name of the beast, the name of him. Thus it should be clear that one individual is in view and being spoken of, not about different Antichrists .... or are you saying that the various names of all your different Antichrists (Nero, Papacy, even modern day totalitarian regimes) each have the number 666 ??

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,324

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    This contradicts the simple truth that Rev 13:18 is speaking about one particular individual whose name would reflect that particular number. Rev 13 is not a "muddied statement" which "allows for different Antichrists".

    It just says man's number is 666.

    Well, reading the statement more carefully one could notice that it is about "THE beast" (not a beast, not beasts, etc) and then speaks of the name of the beast, the name of him. Thus it should be clear that one individual is in view and being spoken of, not about different Antichrists .... or are you saying that the various names of all your different Antichrists (Nero, Papacy, even modern day totalitarian regimes) each have the number 666 ??

    Not necessarily. Any man = 666 and people wear that number metaphorically whenever they place Antichrist laws above God's law.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,989

    Dave,
    Are we getting ahead of our skis here? Don't you think it's best, we define what the term or word, "Antichrist" means before we seek to attach it to a person or institution (past, present or future)? To do so, it would add more weight and understanding when applied (past, present or future). What say ye? CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,688

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    Well, reading the statement more carefully one could notice that it is about "THE beast" (not a beast, not beasts, etc) and then speaks of the name of the beast, the name of him. Thus it should be clear that one individual is in view and being spoken of, not about different Antichrists .... or are you saying that the various names of all your different Antichrists (Nero, Papacy, even modern day totalitarian regimes) each have the number 666 ??

    Not necessarily. Any man = 666 and people wear that number metaphorically whenever they place Antichrist laws above God's law.

    Do you realize that you are going beyond what Scripture states and thus are adding to the Scriptures??

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,324

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    Well, reading the statement more carefully one could notice that it is about "THE beast" (not a beast, not beasts, etc) and then speaks of the name of the beast, the name of him. Thus it should be clear that one individual is in view and being spoken of, not about different Antichrists .... or are you saying that the various names of all your different Antichrists (Nero, Papacy, even modern day totalitarian regimes) each have the number 666 ??

    Not necessarily. Any man = 666 and people wear that number metaphorically whenever they place Antichrist laws above God's law.

    Do you realize that you are going beyond what Scripture states and thus are adding to the Scriptures??

    I think it's a difference in interpretation. I agree it = the Papacy as CM pointed out. But also I believe it leaves room for Nero, Islam, certain traits in the US. Etc.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,324

    @C_M_ said:
    Dave,
    Are we getting ahead of our skis here? Don't you think it's best, we define what the term or word, "Antichrist" means before we seek to attach it to a person or institution (past, present or future)? To do so, it would add more weight and understanding when applied (past, present or future). What say ye? CM

    Antichrist = against Christ or in place of Christ.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,989

    @Wolfgang said:

    @C_M_ said:
    @Wolfgang said: Please note: The passage is NOT speaking about an office, such as a king, a priest, a pope, etc

    The passage is speaking about one particular man, one particular individual which could be identified by the number of his name adding up to the number given.

    • This why I said...

    CM said: With this range of possibilities, nothing would suffice more than a thorough study of the Book of Revelation, in general, and a detailed study of Chapter 13 of this book. I will try to post some foundational points on understanding Revelation 13, in particular, if interested. "... Let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.” (Revelation 13:18).

    >

    @C_M_ said: It is none other than the office of the pope who bears the Latin title, “Vicarius Filii Dei”, or “Vicar of the Son of God.”

    @Wolfgang said: See above ... the passage is NOT speaking about an office held by different individuals, etc ... Furthermore, was there even a pope office when the revelation was given to John??

    A good question. It brings us back to the point I raise with Dave today, how do we define "antichrist"?

    Until then, see my statement above!

    Following the ancient custom of a person having both a number and a name, let us add the Roman numerals in this title:

    • Add ‘Vicarius’, V = 5+I = 1+C = 100+A&R = 0+I = 1+U (u and v are equal in Latin) = 5+S = 0 is 112.
    • Add to it ‘Filii’, F = 0+I = 1+L = 50+I = 1+I = 1 is 53.
    • Add ‘Dei’, D = 500+E = 0+I = 1 is 501.

    Now add the three, 112+53+501 = 666.

    @Wolfgang said: See above ... this seems more of "artificially arrived at" seeing that it is not about the name of a particular individual. The passage in Rev 13 clearly concerns a certain individual.

    I hate to say it again but see my statement above. CM

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,989

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:
    Dave,
    Are we getting ahead of our skis here? Don't you think it's best, we define what the term or word, "Antichrist" means before we seek to attach it to a person or institution (past, present or future)? To do so, it would add more weight and understanding when applied (past, present or future). What say ye? CM

    Antichrist = against Christ or in place of Christ.

    I wonder, do Wolfgang and Reformed agreed with this definition? CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,688

    @Dave_L said:
    I think it's a difference in interpretation.

    well, of course !! The question is, which understanding and interpretation follows the text and is thus the true understanding.

    I agree it = the Papacy as CM pointed out. But also I believe it leaves room for Nero, Islam, certain traits in the US. Etc.

    And I have pointed out that such is not what the text bears out.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,688

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:
    Antichrist = against Christ or in place of Christ.

    I wonder, do Wolfgang and Reformed agreed with this definition? CM

    The Gr. preposition anti can have the meaning of "against" or "in place of". Thus the compounds noun "anti-Christ" would be a person who acts against Christ, and this could be by means of putting him-/herself in place of Christ.
    It seems to me that by far most places where "anti" is used it carries the simple meaning of "against".

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,989
    edited December 2018

    Brethren,

    It sounds like we need to get to exegeting the passage of Rev 13. We can work together, let me see, we all agreed:

    1. The Bible is the "Inspired" ("God-breathed") Word. "Holy men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
    2. No prophecy is of private interpretation.
    3. Revelation is an apocalyptic (long time-periods) book. Prophecy points, but doesn't pinpoint.
    4. God speaks to and through his servant the prophet ("mouthpiece" for God; one who speaks for God).
    5. John wrote the book of Revelation in letter-form, to be sent and read publicly, to the seven Churches (believers) of Asia Minor.
    6. We must understand the original audience's times, language, message; and then, make present-day application of John's message for today's Christians.
    7. The Book of Revelation uses symbolic images and OT words and languages.
    8. The Book was written on Patmos around the late AD 90.
    9. Some form of Emperor worship was in place.
    10. John was familiar with the writing of Paul and the OT.
    11. Revelation is the last book of the NT and biblical canon.

    If we agree to these, general understanding of the Bible and the Book of Revelation, we are ready to look at Rev 13's background. Stay tuned...CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,688

    @C_M_ said:
    3. Revelation is an apocalyptic (long time-periods) book. Prophecy points, but doesn't pinpoint.

    Does "apocalyptic" mean "long time-periods"? Can one really say that prophecy doesn't pinpoint ?? Cp. Jesus' prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem within the time frame of the then living generation ... seems rather specific and pinpointing to me ...

    1. God speaks to and through his servant the prophet ("mouthpiece" for God; one who speaks for God).
    2. John wrote the book of Revelation in letter-form, to be sent and read publicly, to the seven Churches (believers) of Asia Minor.
    3. We must understand the original audience's times, language, message; and then, make present-day application of John's message for today's Christians.

    one can only make a present-day application IF and to what degree the message can be applied. The more important point is to get the true understanding in light of the text, the context. to whom it was written, etc.

    1. The Book was written on Patmos around the late AD 90.

    I contend that the book was written on Patmos during the late AD 60ies.

    If we agree to these, general understanding of the Bible and the Book of Revelation, we are ready to look at Rev 13's background. Stay tuned...CM

    As mentioned above, there are a few points in your listing, some of which rather important to arrive at a correct understanding of its content, which I do not agree with.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,989

    @Wolfgang said:
    As mentioned above, there are a few points in your listing, some of which rather important to arrive at a correct understanding of its content, which I do not agree with.

    Wolfgang,
    The last things first: If you haven't already, please state, specifically, what it is you disagreed and say why. Until then, I will wait to hear from others, if they choose to participate. Let's work together.

    First things last:

    @C_M_ said: 3. Revelation is an apocalyptic (long time-periods) book. Prophecy points, but doesn't pinpoint.

    >

    @ Wolfgang said: Does "apocalyptic" mean "long time-periods"? Can one really say that prophecy doesn't pinpoint ?? Cp. Jesus' prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem within the time frame of the then living generation ... seems rather specific and pinpointing to me...

    Wolfgang, no smoking gun. This was my short-cut of using one of the characteristics ["long time-periods"] of "Apocalyptic" Prophecy in contrast with "Classical Prophecy" (of course, I didn't mention it). Blame me for assuming you understood this.

    Let me lay it out: The word "apocalyptic," in its broadest sense, designates the disclosure of God's presence through human agents, bringing to view the divine purpose, presence, and action in the midst of the human situation. It's one of the four ways "apocalyptic" in English serves as an adjective. Of course, it can be used as a noun also.


    "Apocalyptic Prophecy" -- DOES NOT have multiple fulfillments (Dan 2 and Rev 12). Apocalyptic prophecy seems to have just ONE fulfillment and is UNCONDITIONAL.

                                                **-vs-**
    

    "Classical Prophecy" -- may have MORE THAN ONE fulfillment and maybe CONDITIONAL. e.g. Rev 2-3 reveals a reduced number of symbols and more non-symbolic language.


    To "Pinpoint" to me is the exact time, date, day, hour, etc. I hope this answered your questions.

    Peace! CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,688

    @C_M_ said:

    @C_M_ said: 3. Revelation is an apocalyptic (long time-periods) book. Prophecy points, but doesn't pinpoint.

    >

    @ Wolfgang said: Does "apocalyptic" mean "long time-periods"? Can one really say that prophecy doesn't pinpoint ?? Cp. Jesus' prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem within the time frame of the then living generation ... seems rather specific and pinpointing to me...

    Wolfgang, no smoking gun. This was my short-cut of using one of the characteristics ["long time-periods"] of "Apocalyptic" Prophecy in contrast with "Classical Prophecy" (of course, I didn't mention it). Blame me for assuming you understood this.

    Different kinds of prophecy (apocalyptic and classical)?? Such classification as you mention there makes no sense to me in light of Biblical use of the term prophecy.

    Let me lay it out: The word "apocalyptic," in its broadest sense, designates the disclosure of God's presence through human agents, bringing to view the divine purpose, presence, and action in the midst of the human situation. It's one of the four ways "apocalyptic" in English serves as an adjective. Of course, it can be used as a noun also.

    CM, you have a tendency of introducing what I would regard to be "side-tracking points". I do not agree that the word "apocalyptic" designates "the disclosure of God's presence through human agents ... ". Yes, God discloses His presence through human agents (prophets) declaring (prophesying) God's purposes, will, etc. to humans. Such declarations/prophecies may have apocalyptic character and may be about apocalyptic events, but don't have to be.


    "Apocalyptic Prophecy" -- DOES NOT have multiple fulfillments (Dan 2 and Rev 12). Apocalyptic prophecy seems to have just ONE fulfillment and is UNCONDITIONAL.

    True prophecy will not have multiple fulfillments ... IF it did have multiple fulfillments, one could not distinguish a true prophet from a false prophet.

                                                **-vs-**
    

    "Classical Prophecy" -- may have MORE THAN ONE fulfillment and maybe CONDITIONAL. e.g. Rev 2-3 reveals a reduced number of symbols and more non-symbolic language.

    ??? No, there are no multiple (more than one) fulfillments to a prophecy ...
    How many symbols or if non-symbolic language is used in a prophecy doesn't change anything in regards to prophecy.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,989

    Wolfgang,
    I don't agree with you. The Bible speaks of prophecies that were conditional and unconditional. Don't box God in, when dealing with humanity. It seems that you would benefit from a review study of predestination/God's foreknowledge.

    What you call "side-tracking points", to me, they've backgrounded points to the main topic at hand. I am sorry you failed to see them. I thought, at least, you, if not others, would appreciate to understanding my approach and reasoning in dealing with the material at hand? I will continue to do so when necessary. I hope it doesn't upset or annoys you too much.

    Wolfgang, from your studies and personal opinion, what is prophecy and/or the purpose of prophecy? I remain. CM

    PS. We learn something new every day. CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,688

    @C_M_ said:
    Wolfgang,
    I don't agree with you. The Bible speaks of prophecies that were conditional and unconditional.

    ?? What does this point about conditional and unconditional have to do with multiple fulfillments or not?? You are either deviating from the matter at hand or else are confusing a few things.

    Don't box God in, when dealing with humanity.

    Where did I box God in ??? You are walking out on thin ice ... rather double check what you are writing to make it sure it is accurate rather than making false accusations about others.

    It seems that you would benefit from a review study of predestination/God's foreknowledge.

    Thanks for the advice ...

    What you call "side-tracking points", to me, they've backgrounded points to the main topic at hand. I am sorry you failed to see them. I thought, at least, you, if not others, would appreciate to understanding my approach and reasoning in dealing with the material at hand? I will continue to do so when necessary. I hope it doesn't upset or annoys you too much.

    IF such do give background, you should make sure that such is made a lot more clear.

    Wolfgang, from your studies and personal opinion, what is prophecy and/or the purpose of prophecy? I remain. CM

    Prophecy in rather simple terms is "Message spoken on behalf of God", it may or may not contain predictions of future events or matters.

Sign In or Register to comment.