BluePhantom
Educator (of liberals)
This will be the first entry where we start to delve into the text of the Apocalypse itself. This will probably be the trickiest part of the the entire series because it will rely in some places on at least a basic (if not an advanced) understanding of the Greek language, ancient customs and traditions, and the norms and mores of society in the first century CE, vs. all those things in the 21st century CE. It's no small task because it means you have to take yourself completely out of the traditions you have come to know after 2,000 years of propaganda and think like a first century Jew or gentile convert.
To be able to do that an intense understanding of ancient culture, ancient symbolism, and ancient values is absolutely required and this is tough because the average person doesn't have the time or energy to educate themselves on these matters. The Great Whore of Babylon, for example, is one of the most frequently misinterpreted and misunderstood parts of the Apocalypse. But with just a touch of historical knowledge it becomes as clear as a bell and the symbolism becomes unavoidable. Thus these people often simply take what is told to them by their parents, or their pastor or priest, or a valued friend who heard it from someone else (and most of the time they themselves don't know what they are talking about) and they just go with it.
As a college professor my rule was always to focus on the thinking aspect for my students and the supporting evidence they provided instead of the conclusion they reached. My goal was always to encourage them to think for themselves, show them how to find information, how to apply it critically, and then let them apply it in such a way that it enhanced their lives in whatever form that may be. To me that is the difference between scholarship and dogma. Scholarship relies on a give and take communication, an exchange of ideas, a debate toward a common understanding. Dogma relies upon absolutism and has no tolerance for differing points of view. We see this in the contributions of several USMB posters who I will not bother to mention by name...it's obvious who they are.
I find it a sense of pride that I never marked a student's work lower simply because their thesis did not match my own belief system (and let me tell you there are PUHLENTY of professors who do just that..in fact that is more common than uncommon given my experience in the college educational system). Honestly I never did that. I welcomed disagreement and my basis for grading was on how well they documented and supported their conclusions....basically, how well they argued their point. As a side note I can say that many of the posters on USMB that I have dealt with would have probably failed my classes not because their opinions differ from mine, but because when you present guys like Shipp and Wiley and Hal Lindsay as your supporting evidence you really have no credibility to speak of. At that point most rational people who are even semi-educated will simply say "I am dealing with a nut" and that's pretty much the end of it.
So before we delve into the text of the Apocalypse I want to remind readers of the original terms.
The Scope
This series will analyze The Apocalypse from a historical perspective taking culture, languages, and history into account. In other words this will not be a futuristic analysis. While a futuristic interpretation is certainly welcome for debate, such a perspective is a theological interpretation and not a cultural or historical one.
This will not be a futuristic or faith based analysis, but a discussion on what John of Patmos was getting at when he wrote it.
My hope is that we will have a deep, thorough, and lasting discussion with contributions from multiple perspectives from which each person can take their own lesson, understanding, and appreciation.
The Rules
- Be respectful. Passionate debate is welcomed. Opposing points of view are welcomed. Please show tolerance of contrary interpretations and disagree in a respectful manner.
- Keep to the scope. Again this is going to be a historical, cultural, and scholarly approach to interpretation. Making the argument that "the Bible says it and therefore it must be true" isn't going to cut it (and frankly you will get what you deserve).
- I ask contributors to ignore the trolls and not allow themselves to get sucked into pissing matches with those who are unable or unwilling to consider contrary points of view. Ignore them.
- Make your point, support it, and be constructive.
-Let each person walk his/her own path and let them reach their own conclusions. Offering them a different perspective is welcome. Telling them "you must believe this" is not.
My Position
While I am very well versed and educated on the Apocalypse, I do not feel that my opinion is the definitive opinion. It's simply MY opinion that works for me and fits well within MY personal theology. If you reach a different conclusion I have no problem with that...after all I could be wrong. I don't know everything and I welcome new learning provided it is well supported with documentation, historical analysis, or at least a logical argument.
The Goal
The goal is to explore the history, the culture, the language, and all the other elements in regards to The Apocalypse in the hopes that together (including myself) all will achieve a greater appreciation, a greater understanding, and a greater connection with God.
Your First Assignment
My process will be to give a reading assignment from the Apocalypse, allow time for people to read the text, research it, think about it, develop opinions on it, develop questions about it, and then we will have discussion.
I am going to give a couple days...your reading assignment: Revelation chapters 1-3 which many people think is the most boring and insignificant part of the book. WOW are they wrong! There is a LOT going in in those first chapters.
Read and we will discuss in a couple days.
-The Phantom
To be able to do that an intense understanding of ancient culture, ancient symbolism, and ancient values is absolutely required and this is tough because the average person doesn't have the time or energy to educate themselves on these matters. The Great Whore of Babylon, for example, is one of the most frequently misinterpreted and misunderstood parts of the Apocalypse. But with just a touch of historical knowledge it becomes as clear as a bell and the symbolism becomes unavoidable. Thus these people often simply take what is told to them by their parents, or their pastor or priest, or a valued friend who heard it from someone else (and most of the time they themselves don't know what they are talking about) and they just go with it.
As a college professor my rule was always to focus on the thinking aspect for my students and the supporting evidence they provided instead of the conclusion they reached. My goal was always to encourage them to think for themselves, show them how to find information, how to apply it critically, and then let them apply it in such a way that it enhanced their lives in whatever form that may be. To me that is the difference between scholarship and dogma. Scholarship relies on a give and take communication, an exchange of ideas, a debate toward a common understanding. Dogma relies upon absolutism and has no tolerance for differing points of view. We see this in the contributions of several USMB posters who I will not bother to mention by name...it's obvious who they are.
I find it a sense of pride that I never marked a student's work lower simply because their thesis did not match my own belief system (and let me tell you there are PUHLENTY of professors who do just that..in fact that is more common than uncommon given my experience in the college educational system). Honestly I never did that. I welcomed disagreement and my basis for grading was on how well they documented and supported their conclusions....basically, how well they argued their point. As a side note I can say that many of the posters on USMB that I have dealt with would have probably failed my classes not because their opinions differ from mine, but because when you present guys like Shipp and Wiley and Hal Lindsay as your supporting evidence you really have no credibility to speak of. At that point most rational people who are even semi-educated will simply say "I am dealing with a nut" and that's pretty much the end of it.
So before we delve into the text of the Apocalypse I want to remind readers of the original terms.
The Scope
This series will analyze The Apocalypse from a historical perspective taking culture, languages, and history into account. In other words this will not be a futuristic analysis. While a futuristic interpretation is certainly welcome for debate, such a perspective is a theological interpretation and not a cultural or historical one.
This will not be a futuristic or faith based analysis, but a discussion on what John of Patmos was getting at when he wrote it.
My hope is that we will have a deep, thorough, and lasting discussion with contributions from multiple perspectives from which each person can take their own lesson, understanding, and appreciation.
The Rules
- Be respectful. Passionate debate is welcomed. Opposing points of view are welcomed. Please show tolerance of contrary interpretations and disagree in a respectful manner.
- Keep to the scope. Again this is going to be a historical, cultural, and scholarly approach to interpretation. Making the argument that "the Bible says it and therefore it must be true" isn't going to cut it (and frankly you will get what you deserve).
- I ask contributors to ignore the trolls and not allow themselves to get sucked into pissing matches with those who are unable or unwilling to consider contrary points of view. Ignore them.
- Make your point, support it, and be constructive.
-Let each person walk his/her own path and let them reach their own conclusions. Offering them a different perspective is welcome. Telling them "you must believe this" is not.
My Position
While I am very well versed and educated on the Apocalypse, I do not feel that my opinion is the definitive opinion. It's simply MY opinion that works for me and fits well within MY personal theology. If you reach a different conclusion I have no problem with that...after all I could be wrong. I don't know everything and I welcome new learning provided it is well supported with documentation, historical analysis, or at least a logical argument.
The Goal
The goal is to explore the history, the culture, the language, and all the other elements in regards to The Apocalypse in the hopes that together (including myself) all will achieve a greater appreciation, a greater understanding, and a greater connection with God.
Your First Assignment
My process will be to give a reading assignment from the Apocalypse, allow time for people to read the text, research it, think about it, develop opinions on it, develop questions about it, and then we will have discussion.
I am going to give a couple days...your reading assignment: Revelation chapters 1-3 which many people think is the most boring and insignificant part of the book. WOW are they wrong! There is a LOT going in in those first chapters.
Read and we will discuss in a couple days.
-The Phantom
Last edited: