The Book of Revelation and the Bible

I totally agree with this statement. I would also add that the plethora of "Christian" denominations is a great example of mankind's tendency towards confirmation bias in interpreting both the Old Testament & New Testament. Which should be a red flag for claiming any divine inspiration in either bible, especially if it is left up to be interpreted by mere mortals claiming to know what a "God" is saying. Having said that, it has been my experience that you are not going to change the average bible thumpers mind with well though out logic, reason and evidence. Cheers!

 

You have no clue what you are talking about ..

Propitiation - Propitiatory - https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/deu32.pdf

Rendered expiation in your text - the act of making amends - repairation for guilt or wrongdoing - "atonement" for wrong doing.

Either rendition makes nonsense out of the Modern Translation.

Propitiation involves "Sacrifice" .. so in context repairation for guilt or wrongdoing as a sacrificial act .. Expiation of the sacrificial kind.

"And he makes Propitiatory Shelter, the Ground of Him" = Sacrificial cleansing of the land - the manner of which is described in the sentence prior.

Cleanse is term as translated by Heiser Page 6 .. gives a translation from 3 different Bibles ... https://thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf

What happened to all those Divinities mate

And do make sense of the modern translations use of the word atonement given what we now know about this passage .. including the word your source used .. of which you did not know the meaning ..

Floor is yours.

 

John the Revelator and John the Disciple were two different people. I'm surprised that you didn't know that. IRC, John was exiled to the island Patmos. Other pagan mystics were not so lucky or tricky. They were brutally exterminated by the Christian authorities.

The Revelator is much like Ezekiel with similar priestly stage props and embellishments, the same old creative process in disguise, but with mixed up sequence due to ignorance and/or tampering so that the exoteric would hide the esoteric. It's just priestcraft using grandiloquent symbology to found a religion, with awe-inspiring allegory and cosmology to further frighten and intimidate the naive laity.

Furthermore, Ezekial didn't get it from God. He got it from the Babylonians, the Assyrians, and the Sumerians.

 

How can you say Revelations should be thrown out if the end isn't nigh yet?

 

What do you feel when confronted with the gory symbolism of earthly harvest producing blood from the “winepress of the wrath of God” (Rev 14:14-21)? Perhaps you don’t like Revelations because you would rather wallow in the nice good propaganda prevalent in many other parts of the Bible.

As others posting in this thread have aptly demonstrated, the real nitty gritty stuff is not like the benign, comforting, and affirming regimens of naïve preference.

God as an ideal is the spirit residing at the end goal of Creation. A different aspect of God, the Demon aspect, unleashes the violent forces at the start of the creation cycle. The Demon is the flip side of God (Demon est Deus Inversus). The Gnostics declared that the bad God drove away the good God. That’s a goofy way of alluding to the inversus thing. “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.” (Isaiah 45: 7).

A counterintuitive drift is required for astute realization of God’s pint of view. His best interests (that include the production and harvesting of souls) do not coincide with what we habitually cling to as compelling and favorable for us from our point of view.

Surely you don’t fret over the fatalities of cells in your skin and lining of your digestive tract that must be routinely replaced. Likewise, the Creator probably doesn’t agonize over human misfits who may not be redeemable prior to disposal into the salvage waste heap. The potential dark sides in all of us (“God’s children”) are well known.

The challenge is to not get obsessively preoccupied with status/goals/materialist pursuits (“temptations”) and to be undaunted (“purified”) at graduation time despite having been broadsided by the flak endured from the barrages of life.

 

Thank you for keeping things in the proper perspective.

 

Why do you use Christian sources for interpretation of Judaic texts? It's like using Islamic scriptures to explain Christianity to a Christian. If you want to know what the Hebrew text says, ask a rabbi, not a priest.

 

What "Christian Source" Scripture for all online is not a Christian Source. and also I used your source .. explained to you the word from "Your Source" that you did not understand .. because you have no clue what you are talking about .. in desperation and denial.

What a joke of a post.

 

I don't have a problem with scripture4all. My problem is your attempt to shove a Christian interpretation of the Hebrew text down my Jewish intellectual throat.

You claimed that Deut 32:43 refers to ethnic cleansing. It doesn't. Your feeble attempt to equate expiation and propitiation with human sacrifice (ethnic cleansing) was doomed to fail anyway regardless of the source, because human sacrifices are forbidden in Judaism.

God's song seems to be liturgical, part of an ancient ritual perhaps.

 

It does refer to ethnic cleansing .. as per "scripture4all" and your own link.. the words of which you did not understand .. not bothering to look it up nor make any attempt to put the word you had not bothered to look up into context.

And I said "Sacrifice" not Human sacrifice .. although it could mean that - especially in context of the passage .. did you not notice Duh. ..

Propitiation "win or regain the favor of (a god, spirit, or person) by doing something that pleases them.
"the pagans thought it was important to propitiate the gods with sacrifices"

What a joke .. your the feeble one .. laughably so .. no need to be projecting your inability to look up a word on me.

 

You implied "human sacrifice" when you claimed that the verse is about sacrifice and ethnic cleansing.

Read the verse again, and again, and again, and again. God is the one doing whatever must be done for atonement/expiation/propitiation, not the people. The land is being subjected to atonement/expiation/propitiation, not God. Why would God sacrifice to please the land?

 

According to Greek Orthodox Christian tradition, Saint John the Disciple was the author of Revelation and is recognized as such by almost all the Christian faiths.

 

1) I did not imply human sacrifice --- that you are making up in your head and attributing to my post
2) Sacrifice can come in many forms .. animals being one. And as you were shown -- the definition Propitiate - could well include sacrifice ..although "Cleanse" may be a better - albeit similar translation.


For He’ll avenge the blood of His sons,
be vengeful, and wreak vengeance and recompense justice on his foes
And the Lord will Cleanse/Propitiate His people’s land"

The passage clearly refers to killing people as a means to cleanse/Propitiate the land.

"And he makes Propitiary Shelter - the Ground of him" What is a Propitiary Shelter in this sentence if not Turning the land into a big alter upon which this God will wreak vengeance and recompense justice to avenge the blood of his Sons.

So what is God going to do to avenge the blood of his Sons ... if other than kill people ?

 

You clearly don't know the first thing about Judaism. Your perspective is purely Christian, dogmatic, inflexible. Ask a rabbi, or five, about this verse. You'll probably get several different explanations, but I doubt you'd be able to understand any of them.

Rashi, the widely respected medieval French rabbi whose opinions are generally accepted by all, interpreted the verse as meaning that God will bring peace to the land.

There are no sons in the verse - only servants.

You claimed that sacrifices must be made, according to your understanding of the verse, in order to cleanse the land. Avenging the blood of God's servants is a different matter altogether. See Rashi.

 

This is too funny Projection and fallacy

1) You are the one clearly doesn't know about Judaism - least not related to the Israelites . which is not Judaism.
2) A midieval Rabbi ? - at at time when claiming "Sons of God" meant "Sons of God" would get one burned at the stake for heresy .. Too funny .. did you miss the part where from 700-900AD .. references to other dieties were edited out ? Not that a Rabbi 400 years ago would have the knowledge about the Israelite religion we do today in any case. off the page appeal to authority fallacy.

3) As per 2 . "YOU" are the one putting forth the purely Christian Perspective -- claiming that Sons of God means "Servants"

Would these be Human servants .. or are you claiming that the Sons of God are servants of the most high.

Over to you .. Tell me about the midievil Jewish Perspective .. and why it matters This will be fun..

 

I think that's ridiculous, but I don't have time to dig into this issue right now.

 

A very good description of your post.

Define "Judaism". Clarify your statement. I really, really hope it doesn't mean what I think it means.

I have breaking news for you: yes, early Jewish scholars helped shape Judaism as we know it today, and their views are generally accepted as valid interpretations, though not dogmas. Just like early Church Fathers helped shape Christianity as we know it today. The pillars of Judaism are the Tanach, the Mishna, the Gemara, the Tosafot, Rambam's Mishneh Torah, Karo's Shulchan Aruch, Rashi's commentary on the Tanach, Cassuto's interpretation of the Tanach, other important writings by great Jewish scholars, and the Kabbalah.

"Servants" appear in the massoretic text, which predates Christianity, so what heresy are you talking about? What references were edited out?

It's your right to imagine that the song was initially about sons of God, but you'll have to prove it if you want to be taken seriously. Even if you'll be able to prove your theory, such proof won't have any bearing on the interpretation of the massoretic text, because you based your arguments on this text.

"Servants" is the term in the massoretic text. It can also be translated as "worshipers". Please keep in mind that I read and understand Hebrew, unlike someone who has to rely on various translations.

Read the whole song, not only the last verse. Explain how would "sons of God" fit in with the rest of the song.

 

(LXX) - same as in 4DeutQ Deut 32:43

"O heavens, rejoice with Him
Bow to Him, all sons of the divine
O nations, rejoice with His people
and let all angels of the divine strengthen themselves in Him.
For He’ll avenge the blood of His sons,
be vengeful, and wreak vengeance and recompense justice on his foes
And the Lord will Cleanse His people’s land"

Masoretic Text (MT) Deut 32:43
"O nations, rejoice His people
For He’ll avenge the blood of His servants and wreak vengeance on His foes
And will cleanse His people’s land"

The Midievel Rabbi you brought up -- did not have access to the top version .. that found in the Oldest Bibles .. So of course he does not know of any "Sons of God" -- The Jews who created the (MT) 700-900 AD .. editied that part out.

Which is the point - the definition of Judaism having no relevence - just a red herring combined with fallacious name calling.

 

Yep, you did exactly what I hoped you wouldn't.

The old libel about how Jews supposedly changed their scriptures to eliminate certain passages, though still in vogue in certain circles, has been debunked long ago. Didn't happen. The massoretic text predates the Septuagint.

If the Septuagint was the original Jewish Bible, as you claim, it would've been used by isolated communities like Kaifeng Jews, the Lemba, or Beta Israel, communities that had been completely cut off from the rest of the nation long before the supposed Council of Jamnia. But it isn't.

Are you beginning to understand why I asked you to define Judaism? The Septuagint isn't Judaism, never was. Some Greek-speaking Jews may have used it, but it was never accepted by the majority.

 

I did not claim the Septuagint was the Orignian Jewish Bible
Prove your claim that the Massoretic Text (700-900 AD) predates the Septuagint and 4DeutQ 300-100 BC .. and what difference does it make as one is drastically different than the other - refuting your nnonsense claim that scripture was not changed.

 

The Dead Sea scrolls are proof that the massoretic text and a variant close to the Septuagint existed in Judea side by side before the translation of one version into Greek. They're not drastically different. The massoretic text wasn't created out of thin nothing in early Middle Ages, like you claimed.

Yes, it does matter what text came first.

Some Christians are still accusing Jews of having modified their own sacred texts in order to eliminate certain passages. Christian posters on Eastern European forums routinely accuse Jews of knowingly lying to non-Jews simply because Jews lie. The debunked but still widely circulated libel about Jews changing their scriptures to spite Christians greatly contributes to this attitude.

That's why it matters.

 

I never claimed it was created out of thin air ?? .. you were the one saying the MT came before LXX which is complete nonsense .. and it matters not which came first in context of modifying the text.

NO .. it does not matter which came first as regardless of which came first to realize one is different than the other = The text was modified.

What part of "The TEXT WAS EDITED" do you not understand ? .. one says something completely different than the other .. and changing the order "which came first" will not change this fact.

One text has a whole bunch of other divinities .. Sons of God -- Angels .. and so on .. the other does not ... has this removed. Is not just the OT that was modified by Jewish transcribers .. The same was done "By Christians" to the NT .. and there are many many examples.

Are you just figuring out now that the Bible contains Pious Fraud ? ... the Long Ending of Mark being one example of edits by Christians.

This is not Rocket Science .. .. its called "Which one is not like the other".

 

IMO, the book is mostly about the fall of Jerusalem and the fall of the Julian dynasty (I can go into more detail if anyone wants). Viewed that way, I don't see it as a bad book or a bad addition. But it sure has inspired a lot of nuttery, sometimes even dangerous nuttery. I don't think it really adds anything beyond historical intrigue.

 

While I agree with you, the imagery is vague enough that it’s meaning can be applied to almost any political situation so people who want to apply Revelation to the current political situation will do so.

 

Not for at least another two or three centuries at ......
near death experiencer Dannion Brinkley back in 1975 was given a brilliant explanation for the mark of the beast which would help to make sense out of this challenging book.

https://near-death.com/future/