The Book of Revelation & The Verb "Signified"

[Invicta]

28 minutes ago, Christ Follower said:

 In a nutshell. A partial preterits, is a beleive that Matt 24  and Rev 1 is and indication that the tribulation was for the first century church, hence no rapture, Jesus comes to set up his millennial kingdom

I have read someone who believed that all tribulation is on the church. Not so.

[John81]

34 minutes ago, Christ Follower said:

 In a nutshell. A partial preterits, is a beleive that Matt 24  and Rev 1 is and indication that the tribulation was for the first century church, hence no rapture, Jesus comes to set up his millennial kingdom

In this view, what is the timing of the return of Jesus to set up his millennial kingdom? Is that a literal thousand year kingdom on earth? What follows the millennial kingdom?

[Invicta]

37 minutes ago, Christ Follower said:

 

Actually, the harlot is Isreal under the old covenant,Who does God constantly referred to as a Harley in the Old Testament? Braden dying on m Who does God constantly referred to as a harlot in the Old Testament? 

The book of Revelation is a book written to the church and refers to the church.  The old covenant doesn't come into the book of Revelation.

[Christ Follower]

47 minutes ago, John81 said:

In this view, what is the timing of the return of Jesus to set up his millennial kingdom? Is that a literal thousand year kingdom on earth? What follows the millennial kingdom?

We don't know the timing of his return. And I don't think the millennial reign will be a long period of time,  after the millennial kingdom is final judgement.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Christ Follower

[Christ Follower]

1 hour ago, Invicta said:

The book of Revelation is a book written to the church and refers to the church.  The old covenant doesn't come into the book of Revelation.

Right, it's written to the believers who are under persecution. And in Jeremiah 31 is when God brings about the final covenant, Which will extend through the church age. Many of God's moral laws are still active today.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Christ Follower

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, Invicta said:

The book of Revelation is a book written to the church and refers to the church.  The old covenant doesn't come into the book of Revelation.

So, Brother David, is either the old covenant OR the new covenant directly referenced anywhere throughout the book of the Revelation?

[Old-Pilgrim]

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Ronda said:

Pastor Markle, excellent  study on the word "signify" as well as the Greek "semaino" used in  Rev. 1:1 (as well as in all the other verses you brought forth)! Showing again that scripture compared with other scripture actually interprets itself!  The importance of literal interpretation  is so very important as well!!! If a person is willing to allegorize (symbolize or spiritualize) scripture, I believe it shows a lack of reverence for God's word. I believe He meant what He said and said what He meant.

There are cases of symbolism in the Bible, however, in most of those cases the interpretation is also given. For instance: I once had an argument with another (supposedly) Christian on the meaning of the "seven heads" given in Rev. 17:3... the actual interpretation is GIVEN to us in verse 9 "..The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth". Yet this other person demanded (to my exasperation) that that is NOT what they seven heads were! I should have ended the discussion then, but instead furthered to discuss it by stating that the meaning for "mountains" were actual, physical mounds of earth, and were certainly not symbolic.... the "heads" were symbolic, the interpretation (mountains) was NOT symbolic. But this person couldn't seem to see the difference at all! Which proved to me (for the hundreth time likely) that in matter of the Bible, those who do not use a literal interpretation cannot grasp even the simplest of differences in interpretation... to them it's ALL symbolic!!! I believe those who allegorize scripture will never be able to comprehend even the most basic parts of eschatology. I've heard some say that allegorizing is a "lazy" approach, I think it's worse than "lazy", I think it show the lack of respect for God's word.

I recently started a thread here entitled "Jeremiah 49"... the reason being, I have had many discussions elsewhere (not on OB) regarding this section I referenced (Jer. 49:35-39, and even more specifically verse 36).  There are so few (who claim to study eschatology) who use a literal interpretation. I have many fellow friends who I believe DO use literal interpretation, yet they have no interest (or little interest) in eschatology and/or Bible prophecy. And the other (professing) Christian friends who DO claim to have interest in eschatology and/or Bible prophecy, but do not use literal interpretation.  Some admit they allegorize... sadly (and possibly worse) others SAY they interpret literally, but actually DO interpret allegorically, mixing and matching (a horrible mistake) of both literal and allegorical interpretation (likely to "fit" a theory).  So I brought this forth on OB hoping there would be at least one person who uses literal interpretation rather than allegorization.  I wasn't really wanting to argue the verse (other than if I had to, if someone attempted to allegorize the meaning of "wind", etc), I was more interested in what others (if any  have) already studied on this, and the conclusion they arrived at... using literal interpretation. I did get one brief answer, but not enough description to give me a clue about where they were headed with a conclusion.... so anyways... I do hope someone will come forth with some thoughts/conclusions on Jeremiah 49:36 (using literal interpretation).

Sorry to "derail" your thread... I simply wanted to commend your study on "signify" as well as commend the literal interpretation as well (as usual my brain went off down the trail to the next thought and I didn't stop typing, lol)

Hi Ronda, this is not my favorite topic, but on the symbolism, I think there is cases of double symbols, or symbols being explained in symbol, I can think of one case off hand from Revelation,

Revelation 21:2  And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband....Revelation 21:9  And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

So we have the City and the Bride, both symbols of the same thing which presumably must be the Church, or am I wrong? I think the gulf between the heavens and earth are so vast that symbols are needed to convey some glimpse of the heavens and the spiritual realm to us.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Old-Pilgrim
spelling

[Invicta]

 

Hi Ronda, this is not my favorite topic, but on the symbolism, I think there is cases of double symbols, or symbols being explained in symbol, I can think of one case off hand from Revelation,

Revelation 21:2  And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband....Revelation 21:9  And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

So we have the City and the Bride, both symbols of the same thing which presumably must be the Church, or am I wrong? I think the gulf between the heavens and earth are so vast that symbols are needed to convey some glimpse of the heavens and the spiritual realm to us.

There is also the harlot, mystery Babylon, which is explained as being Rome.  The direct opposite to the bride and the new Jerusalem.

[Old-Pilgrim]

 

There is also the harlot, mystery Babylon, which is explained as being Rome.  The direct opposite to the bride and the new Jerusalem.

Well It does sound like Rome, and I know it has been taken as Rome by friend and foe in one shape or another, but politics aside, both 'heads' and a 'beast' sound like living things and one would wonder why a hill of soil or rock would be represented as a living creature, and I wonder if there might be a bit more to the beast than simply a literal mass of land, if Rome was the beast, then it was one of its heads which was wounded, but there was only one Pope over Rome, perhaps the heads are seven power structures of which Rome was one. We also have in Revelation the Mystery Babylon, and in History we Have the Mystery Religion, So the seven mountains of Rome might represent seven different occult entities all similar in nature and intent, but each with some degree on self governance. Such as Kabalism, Gnosticism, Illuminate in more modern times, But there might be seven spirits leading seven heads in an effort to supplant the seven spirits of God.Re 3:1

Edited March 31, 2016 by Old-Pilgrim

[Invicta]

 

Well It does sound like Rome, and I know it has been taken as Rome by friend and foe in one shape or another, but politics aside, both 'heads' and a 'beast' sound like living things and one would wonder why a hill of soil or rock would be represented as a living creature, and I wonder if there might be a bit more to the beast than simply a literal mass of land, if Rome was the beast, then it was one of its heads which was wounded, but there was only one Pope over Rome, perhaps the heads are seven power structures of which Rome was one. We also have in Revelation the Mystery Babylon, and in History we Have the Mystery Religion, So the seven mountains of Rome might represent seven different occult entities all similar in nature and intent, but each with some degree on self governance. Such as Kabalism, Gnosticism, Illuminate in more modern times, But there might be seven spirits leading seven heads in an effort to supplant the seven spirits of God.Re 3:1

It might, but it doesn't agree with how the angel explains it.

[Genevanpreacher]

I have never heard proof of the sybolism in Revelation as being supported by this one word Bro. Scott.

As for your other verses you mentioned way up the list of posts, I can see where the words do mean the same as "signified" in Rev. 1:1, yet not exactly.

I think the symbolism is quite noticeable in the whole book. And focusing on this one word is quite a weak stand indeed.

Thanks.

(My Bible says "shewed" by the way.)

Edited April 4, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[Invicta]

Rome is known as The City of the Seven Hills.  IN fact Grattan Guinness called his poem giving the history of Rome, just that, The City of the Seven Hills. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Invicta

[Invicta]

Another way to describe signify, apart from figure that the scripture uses, would be representative.  One image represents a real person or country, etc.  The Harlot represents a false church, whereas the bride represents the true church., etc.  

[Paul]

The title and Pastor Markle's discussion focuses greatly on the "verb" signified.  So I looked it up and the word "signified" is actually a noun, while the words "signify" and 'signifying' are verbs.  The definition of "signified" is "the meaning expressed by a sign rather than the physical form it is expressed in" (Collins dictionary).  As a noun the word "signified" combined with "it" (signified it) can describe a state or quality, that is the state of revelations being in signs or sketches rather than literal.  

A major problem with accepting that there is a mix is that people get to cherry pick which parts they consider literal and soon enough another revelation is born, a literal thousand years on earth after the resurrection is a long running beauty for example.  No Apostle mentioned this and it's nowhere else in the Bible, and Jesus refutes it in John 18:36 (also Romans 14:17 is worth looking up).

 

[OLD fashioned preacher]

10 hours ago, Paul said:

The title and Pastor Markle's discussion focuses greatly on the "verb" signified.  So I looked it up and the word "signified" is actually a noun, while the words "signify" and 'signifying' are verbs.  The definition of "signified" is "the meaning expressed by a sign rather than the physical form it is expressed in" (Collins dictionary).  As a noun the word "signified" combined with "it" (signified it) can describe a state or quality, that is the state of revelations being in signs or sketches rather than literal.  

A major problem with accepting that there is a mix is that people get to cherry pick which parts they consider literal and soon enough another revelation is born, a literal thousand years on earth after the resurrection is a long running beauty for example.  No Apostle mentioned this and it's nowhere else in the Bible, and Jesus refutes it in John 18:36 (also Romans 14:17 is worth looking up).

 

Understand from "the get-go" that I haven't read this thread. This post, therefore, has nothing to do in defense nor opposition to any contents of said thread. With all that stated:

“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: who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.”

Would you care to take this sentence and show how, in the phrase "he sent and signified it", the word "signified" is used as a noun and not as the past tense of the verb (to) signify?
 

Incidentally, Webster's 1st edition has the following concerning both etymology and definition of the verb "signify" (which you acknowledged as a verb). So the past tense of such a "making known (def #4)" would be ...?

SIG'NIFY, v. t. [L. significo; signum, a sign, and facio, to make.]

4. To make known; to declare. The government should signify to the protestants of Ireland that want of silver is not to be remedied.