Rev 14:9-11 literal or not?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
And the 'intellectual or academic benefit' of understanding the way John used language and metaphor helps to decipher whether or not what he wrote related to events 'he' believed were literally true. - Your starting position that metaphor and literal events are entirely separate animals prevents a true understanding of what John was writing about.

If you believe this figure or group of religious writers - referred to as "John" - actually believed the details of "his" vision were "literally true", then your atheism is perhaps more implicit [softer, so to speak] - and less explicit - than has been apparent here for years. 🙂

To my way of thinking, the Book of Revelation is entirely bogus and manipulative. This manipulation is largely achieved with metaphors and allegories intended to make credulous believers think that it talking about things that are literally true.

-Removed-

I'd say it's not literal. It's cynical and manipulative. It's metaphorical - I'd say - knowingly masquerading as literal [in some credulous minds maybe].

It's a bit of opaque smell-the-glovery that sounds nothing like the plain-spoken "Jesus" figure portrayed elsewhere in the NT. Thread 197792

It was, I think, conjured up by ecclesiastical operatives decades after the death of their new religion's central figure in order to give the fledgling church some inscrutable heft and grit that only their theologians could then wield authoritatively.

It's inclusion in the NT was hotly contested.

@fmf said
The words "literal" and "allegorical" don't suddenly lose their meaning just because there are people who believe that allegories are literally true.

Again, your starting position that metaphor and literal events are entirely separate animals prevents a true understanding of what John was writing about.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Again, your starting position that metaphor and literal events are entirely separate animals prevents a true understanding of what John was writing about.

I don't think it does. What "John" was writing about were not "literal events" and the metaphors and allegories served the purpose of manipulation. Frankly, I am a bit surprised that you think the writer/writers referred to as "John" were writing about [or even believed they were writing about] real events or - indeed - a real vision.

@fmf said
There may well be historical facts in the Bible but when the writers are using metaphors and allegories to refer to supernatural things, they are neither describing historical facts nor are those metaphors and allegories literally true.

The question is whether John himself viewed the events as literal, and was using metaphor and allegory to describe events he believed would occur.

I think you need to separate your bias as an atheist. Obviously, as someone who doesn't believe in supernatural events, you (and myself) can't view what he describes as factual or literal, but John himself probably was using metaphor and allegory to convey something he believed was going to happen.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The question is whether John himself viewed the events as literal, and was using metaphor and allegory to describe events he believed would occur.

I don't believe he did. Not for one moment.

@fmf said
I don't believe he did. Not for one moment.

On what basis?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think you need to separate your bias as an atheist. Obviously, as someone who doesn't believe in supernatural events, you (and myself) can't view what he describes as factual or literal, but John himself probably was using metaphor and allegory to convey something he believed was going to happen.

Everything I write is from my personal perspective. I see no benefit to be had from an atheist like you or me pretending to think that Rev 14:9-11 is anything other than the manipulative nonsense that it is. I am not interested in pretending to propagate Christian perspectives or making excuses for the credulous stances that Christians take.

@fmf said
Everything I write is from my personal perspective. I see no benefit to be had from an atheist like you or me pretending to think that Rev 14:9-11 is anything other than the manipulative nonsense that it is. I am not interested in pretending to propagate Christian perspectives or making excuses for the credulous stances that Christians take.

Whoosh

@ghost-of-a-duke said
On what basis?

I must have started half a dozen threads on it to which you contributed. I am not going to trot it all out again today. If you believe the stuff in Revelation was a genuine vision related, in good faith, to other Christians and that it made its way into the NT on the basis of the sheer weight of its truth, then so be it.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Whoosh

No. I think it is you who is not understanding me.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Obviously, as someone who doesn't believe in supernatural events, you (and myself) can't view what he describes as factual or literal, but John himself probably was using metaphor and allegory to convey something he believed was going to happen.

John himself probably was using metaphor and allegory to convey something he believed was going to happen.

As I said, I am a bit surprised that you think the writer/writers referred to as "John" were writing about ~ or even believed they were writing about ~ real events or - indeed - a real vision.

@fmf said
John himself probably was using metaphor and allegory to convey something he believed was going to happen.

As I said, I am a bit surprised that you think the writer/writers referred to as "John" were writing about ~ or even believed they were writing about ~ real events or - indeed - a real vision.

"The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.”

Rev 22:6


The only surprise here is that you are unable to see beyond your own perspective.

-Removed-

The medieval Patristics (and rabbinical scholars) interpreted scriptures to have not two but four simultaneous layers of meaning:

Literal: The historical Jesus really did die on the cross and was resurrected 3 days later.

Allegorical: Jesus' death and resurrection represents the Church itself: the Church is Christ's "body" returned to everlasting life.

Moral: In order to have everlasting life, the Believer must imitate Christ, surrendering everything including life itself to his/her faith. Then they will be reborn into eternal life.

Anagogic: This is the "mystical" interpretation of scripture, wherein the particular story is a kind of symbolization of the fate of the entire world throughout history. So: the world is fallen, under Original Sin, and when the End Times come, the world must die, undergo judgment, and then the parts that are good will be reborn into eternal life. Sheep go to heaven; goats go to hell.

So biblical scholars are able to hold four or more distinct interpretations of a text simultaneously and consider them all equally "true."


Wiki

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The medieval Patristics (and rabbinical scholars) interpreted scriptures to have not two but four simultaneous layers of meaning:

Literal: The historical Jesus really did die on the cross and was resurrected 3 days later.

Allegorical: Jesus' death and resurrection represents the Church itself: the Church is Christ's "body" returned to everlasting life.

Moral: ...[text shortened]... re distinct interpretations of a text simultaneously and consider them all equally "true."


Wiki

There is a fifth traditional interpretation of Revelation (sic, singular), which is that it describes in allegorical and visionary language the stages of a mystic’s passage through the dark night of the soul and many earthly temptations to reach the blessed state.

One understands the Bible according to one’s own level of spiritual adeptness. That it can be interpreted on many levels is the reason people still read it and get anything out of it. If a single interpretation had been successfully imposed upon it, whether literal or any other, it would have been consigned to the waste backet of oblivion long ago.


EDIT:
I would like to add two further points to the discussion here.

First, modern biblical scholars are in general agreement that the author of the final book of the NT is not identical with either the author of the Gospel of John or the apostle known as "the beloved disciple."

Second, the word apokalypsis (Koine Greek) from which we derive the modern word "apocalypse," has undergone a significant shift of meaning since the book was written during the reign of the Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96). The modern sense of the word is catastrophe, end of the world, doom. The original Greek meaning was: the manner in which something is made known. This lends support to the fifth interpretation as mentioned above, namely that this book is to be read as it was intended, as a visionary or mystical tract, and not as a forecast of events yet to occur on the earthly/materialistic plane.