Taking Quality Questions on Revelation

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Is this the point when you query again whether man walked on the moon?!


Curious sonship how you flag up 'poor questions' while simultaneously providing woefully poor answers.

Is this the point when you query again whether man walked on the moon?!

No sir.
My question has nothing to do with walking on the moon.

Curious sonship how you flag up 'poor questions' while simultaneously providing woefully poor answers.

Do you have an answer to this question?

Do you remember though when US astronauts took the mighty Saturn Five rocket up to the moon ?

Originally posted by @sonship

Is this the point when you query again whether man walked on the moon?!

No sir.
My question has nothing to do with walking on the moon.

Curious sonship how you flag up 'poor questions' while simultaneously providing woefully poor answers.

Do you have an answer to this question?

Do you remember though when US astronauts took the mighty Saturn Five rocket up to the moon ?

No, not really. (Before I was born). What's your point?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
No, not really. (Before I was born). What's your point?

I just mean that you recall this historically.
Historically you are aware that astronauts flew on the Saturn Five rocket up to the moon?

You at least recall that historically. Right?

You've seen footage of space walks too. I'm sure.

Originally posted by @sonship
I just mean that you recall this historically.
Historically you are aware that astronauts flew on the Saturn Five rocket up to the moon?

You at least recall that historically. Right?

You've seen footage of space walks too. I'm sure.

Again, how does that relate to what I posted?

'As explained, the writer was speaking as someone who viewed the world as flat. (Having 4 corners). Nothing more than that. This clearly demonstrates his visions were of his own manufacture, as any divine revelation from an omniscient deity wouldn't have used such erroneous language.'


Why are you asking about astronauts? Make your point already, or better yet address what I wrote. - If the writer's revelation was of divine origin, (and in the understanding that such a divine being knew the Earth wasn't flat) why does the writer lay out a vision that lacks such divine knowledge?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke

'As explained, the writer was speaking as someone who viewed the world as flat. (Having 4 corners). Nothing more than that. This clearly demonstrates his visions were of his own manufacture, as any divine revelation from an omniscient deity wouldn't have used such erroneous language.'

I think your point was addressed already and shown not to be the show-stopper you think. I agreed with Tom Wesley's comment completely -

Either way we look at it, your argument is clearly not incontestable.

I asked you about the astronauts going up to the moon.
Apparently you understood my speech. However up to the moon is probably scientifically imprecise language. In outer space how can we really know what is "up" or "down"?

"Up" or "down" to some place in the universe is relative speech which communicates well.

I also asked about seeing footage of space walks. You said nothing. But I think you understood what I meant. Technically there is no gravity for one to "walk" high above the earth's atmosphere. They more "float" than "walk".

I think you and every other modern day hearer knew what I meant by "space walk".

The language was scientifically imprecise.
But it communicates.

So does "the four corners of the earth" in Revelation 7:1.

For years I have been hearing about the "Big Bang" theory.
That is probably language that communicates but is also scientifically imprecise. If there was no air to carry sound waves there would be no "Bang".

We here people still speak of "sun-rise" or the sun "going down". If we wanted to be a stickler about precision we could protest that the sun didn't "go down" really. The earth is rotating. Yet the phrase "the sun went DOWN" communicates pretty well.

John seeing in his vision four angels at the "four corners of the earth" communicates to people of that day just as "Big Bang" or "space walk" or " traveling UP to the moon " does to people of our day.

The language is not unscientific. It is just scientifically imprecise according to modern standards. Should scientific knowledge advance further, I am sure that imprecise phrases we use today may sound naive to people five hundred years from now.

In his vision John may have been as in a virtual reality auditorium. He looked around and saw the fierce winds being held back in the four directions by four angels. It communicates.

In the next verse he says he saw another Angel "ascending from the rising of the sun". Of course all generations of people down through the ages understand him to mean in the east.

That's all the time I have this morning.
Of course I have TIME until the day I die. The speaking is imprecise scientifically. You understand that I MEAN that that is all the TIME I can dedicate to this activity right now.

Originally posted by @sonship
We here people still speak of "sun-rise" or the sun "going down". If we wanted to be a stickler about precision we could protest that the sun didn't "go down" really. The earth is rotating. Yet the phrase "the sun went DOWN" communicates pretty well.

John seeing in his vision four angels at the [b]"four corners of the earth" communicates to people ...[text shortened]... stand that I MEAN that that is all the TIME I can dedicate to this activity right now.[/b]

Congrats on missing the point entirely.

You say, "the language is not unscientific. It is just scientifically imprecise," and yet seem oblivious to the consequences of that line of reasoning.


Why was the vision given by God "scientifically imprecise?!"

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Congrats on missing the point entirely.

You say, "the language is not unscientific. It is just scientifically imprecise," and yet seem oblivious to the consequences of that line of reasoning.


Why was the vision given by God [b]"scientifically imprecise?!"[/b]

Why was the vision given by God "scientifically imprecise?!"

it wasn't. And I didn't say it was.
I said the phraseology to modern standards of science speak, was imprecise.

Surely, it communicates that from every direction God was causing His angels to restrict the damage inflicted upon the earth.

Are you claiming that you could simply not comprehend that this was being conveyed?

"And after this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth nor on the sea nor on any tree." (Rev. 7:1)

Do you think the Bible was making a scientific statement that there are ONLY four winds effecting the planet - "THE four winds of the earth" ?

I would consider stumbling at that to be kind of grasping for excuses not to listen to the prophecy.

"Well God, I know You were concerned about my thefts, my fornications, my stealing, my bearing false witness, my idolatrous substitutes for God, my unfaithfulness, my teaching people that there was no God, and my other sins. But you see, I didn't consider repentance or the need for salvation because this word You had John write about the four corners of the earth, JUST DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

I'm a modern man here God. You'll understand that this phrase "angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth" was so scientifically wrong, well, I assumed You didn't speak anything.

By the way, give me some credit for quoting Proverbs and other books as having Divine authority ... when it seemed to serve my skeptical purposes."

A bit of a diversion.
Kent Hovind (with whom I would have some differences) fields a bunch of famous Bible alleged contradictions.

Possibly he corrects me on something I wrote about a week ago about the mentioning of Easter in the book of Acts.

YouTube

Originally posted by @sonship
A bit of a diversion.
Kent Hovind (with whom I would have some differences) fields a bunch of famous Bible alleged contradictions.

Possibly he corrects me on something I wrote about a week ago about the mentioning of Easter in the book of [b]Acts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CY-jX9juoQ[/b]

Was a good time for a diversion. You were starting to flounder.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Was a good time for a diversion. You were starting to flounder.

That's your reply?

John's phrase - "the four corners of the earth" is not nearly enough reason for me not to revere Revelation as God's word.

His track record on prediction was quite good concerning the first coming of Christ. Concerning the second coming of Christ, I have good reason to believe God is still speaking.

Originally posted by @sonship
That's your reply?

John's phrase - [b]"the four corners of the earth" is not nearly enough reason for me not to revere Revelation as God's word.

His track record on prediction was quite good concerning the first coming of Christ. Concerning the second coming of Christ, I have good reason to believe God is still speaking.[/b]

Sorry sonship, was a morning quip before I left for work.

Will try a little harder, when I log in later, to provide reason enough for you 'not to revere Revelation as God's word.' 😉

In the Bible the number four carries the significance of God's creation. W. W. Bullinger analyzed many number usages in Scripture and has some helpful notes.

Now the number four is made up of three and one (3 + 1 = 4), and it denotes, therefore, and marks that which follows the revelation of God in the Trinity, namely, His creative works. He is known by the things that are seen. Hence the written revelation commences with the words, "In the-beginning God CREATED." Creation is therefore the next thing - the fourth thing, and the number four always has reference to all that is created. It is emphatically the number of Creation, of man in his relation to the world as created; while six is the number of man in his opposition to and independence of God. It is the number of things that have a beginning, of things that are made, of material things, and of matter itself. It is the number of material completeness. Hence it is the world number, especially, especially the "city" number."

[ Number in Scripture Its Supernatural Design and Spiritual Significance, E.W. Bullinger, Kregel, pg. 123 ]