This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

  • Post New Message
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. The Book of Revelations: It's not relevant for the current age

User Info: DeadlyNinjaBees

DeadlyNinjaBees
4 weeks ago#1
So, the Revelations is clearly meant to represent the following:

- The Greek word "Apocalypse" literally means "Revelation", not the "End of all things"
- The beast and the number 666 CLEARLY relates directly to Emperor Nero
- Babylon the Great is quite obviously the Roman Empire

Basically, the whole thing is relevant to the period of time John of Patmos inhabited. John was constantly at the whim and threat of the Romans, so it makes sense he'd fixate on their destruction like the crazy, secluded, dogmatic man that he was.
What I'm now finding odd is that when you go back and read the book of Revelations in context with the history as it was then happening, it's OBVIOUS!
Yet for centuries we've all let ourselves be tricked into thinking it was prohpesising something BIGGER!
The truth was, everyone in the bible existed in their own bubble world and cared little for whatever else was happening elsewhere. Hence, to John, Rome, Greece and the surrounds were the entire world.
Don't take my word for it: Read it for yourself whilst following a timeline of Roman movements and persecutions in a history article. It all lines up.
There will be no Armageddon or Apocalypse. Just people misinterpreting the ancient scrawlings of a mad man in order to inflcit fear on the sheeple. And that's a horrid thing to do to others.
Soi Disantra.

User Info: zinformant

zinformant
4 weeks ago#2
DeadlyNinjaBees posted...
What I'm now finding odd is that when you go back and read the book of Revelations in context with the history as it was then happening, it's OBVIOUS!

We don't even know who wrote it, so any discussion of context is orphaned and scattershot. Your flippant dismissal of an entire genre of literature (apocalyptic work, in this case) is troublesome but seems to be par for the course with you. Even if you do not find spiritual merit within, it is rich in content.
Is it naive to dream of a world without war?

User Info: DeadlyNinjaBees

DeadlyNinjaBees
4 weeks ago#3
I didn't say s*** about the content, friend-o.
Instead of just going "Derp-a derp spiritual stuff!", how about laying out some actual factual stuff?
You know, like DEMONSTRATE information to add value to your side of the argument.
Can you do that? Or do you just dismiss information you don't like because you can't find evidence to provide value to your skin in the game?
Prove me wrong or kindly go off and educate yourself. Otherwise it's all just pissing in the wind, isn't it?
Also, we do know who wrote it: John (likely John of Patmos).
Soi Disantra.
(edited 4 weeks ago)

User Info: zinformant

zinformant
4 weeks ago#4
None of that follows. Do you dialogue or only monologue? You keep conversing with someone who is not there.
Is it naive to dream of a world without war?

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 weeks ago#5
DeadlyNinjaBees posted...
You know, like DEMONSTRATE information to add value to your side of the argument.


After you. I don't see any demonstrations of the claims you make, like how 666 CLEARLY relates directly to Emperor Nero. You just assert that it does.

User Info: DeadlyNinjaBees

DeadlyNinjaBees
4 weeks ago#6
Fair enough:

The book was been written about 95 AD. The date is suggested by clues in the visions pointing to the reign of the emperor Domitian. The beast with seven heads and the number 666 seem to allude directly to the emperor Nero (reigned AD 54–68), but this does not require that Revelation was written in the 60s, as there was a widespread belief in later decades that Nero would return.

It was code for Nero. Did you know the Catholics now accept this as their interpretation of the chapter?

Basically, the interpretation changed as history progressed.
Much like your JW religion refers to itself as the one "Truth" yet changes it's doctrine intermittently (which means it could never "true" in it's previous state), so too do interpretations of the bible change as history moves away from the BC years.
Soi Disantra.

User Info: DeadlyNinjaBees

DeadlyNinjaBees
4 weeks ago#7
zinformant posted...
None of that follows. Do you dialogue or only monologue? You keep conversing with someone who is not there.

"I don't like what you are saying and WON'T directly challenge anything because I don't have the capactity to retort to this form of challenge" is what I get out of that. Prove me wrong.
Soi Disantra.

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 weeks ago#8
DeadlyNinjaBees posted...
Fair enough:

The book was been written about 95 AD. The date is suggested by clues in the visions pointing to the reign of the emperor Domitian. The beast with seven heads and the number 666 seem to allude directly to the emperor Nero (reigned AD 54–68), but this does not require that Revelation was written in the 60s, as there was a widespread belief in later decades that Nero would return.


Is this a quote from a book? Which book? Who wrote it?

At present, an unknown author claiming "...the number 666 seem[s] to allude directly to the emperor Nero" isn't very persuasive.

EDIT: Oh, you just copied a paragraph off of Wikipedia. The section I quoted doesn't even have any citations around it.
(edited 4 weeks ago)

User Info: DeadlyNinjaBees

DeadlyNinjaBees
4 weeks ago#9
OrangeWizard posted...
DeadlyNinjaBees posted...
Fair enough:

The book was been written about 95 AD. The date is suggested by clues in the visions pointing to the reign of the emperor Domitian. The beast with seven heads and the number 666 seem to allude directly to the emperor Nero (reigned AD 54–68), but this does not require that Revelation was written in the 60s, as there was a widespread belief in later decades that Nero would return.


Is this a quote from a book? Which book? Who wrote it?

At present, an unknown author claiming "...the number 666 seem[s] to allude directly to the emperor Nero" isn't very persuasive.

EDIT: Oh, you just copied a paragraph off of Wikipedia. The section I quoted doesn't even have any citations around it.

I did! I thought you'd use your math abilites to work it out...
There are citations though. Two in fact!
But, hey, let's go further:

In Greek, both "Nero" and "killed his own mother" have the same numerical value (1005). And, to be sure, it is intriguing that 666 encodes the name of Nero in such a way when Revelation, itself, was written in Greek.

Couldn't be simpler! They didn't speak/have English back then, so we need to wind our brains back a bit and understand people thought in their own languages.
Soi Disantra.

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 weeks ago#10
DeadlyNinjaBees posted...
There are citations though. Two in fact!


At the end of the sentence, where Wikipedia makes a claim about "there was a widespread belief in later decades that Nero would return."

That is what the citations are referencing, the "Nero would return thing", not the "666 alludes to Nero" thing. Otherwise, they would have put a citation in the middle of the sentence, right after the relevant claim.

In Greek, both "Nero" and "killed his own mother" have the same numerical value (1005). And, to be sure, it is intriguing that 666 encodes the name of Nero in such a way when Revelation, itself, was written in Greek.


And this claim is sourced from someone's blog, as evidenced by the opinionated style of writing ("it is intriguing...").

Home page: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/index.html

Page where quote is taken from: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/nero.html

If you don't have any authoritative sources, then maybe 666 doesn't "CLEARLY" directly relate to Nero after all.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. The Book of Revelations: It's not relevant for the current age
  • Post New Message