Why? Assuming your view is correct, understanding or not understanding it won't affect whether one takes part in it. And assuming that we are raptured before all that stuff, who cares what happens afterward?
It's easy: I read it the way they intended it.Quote:
To say that Revelation doesn't have symbolisms would be foolish. However when you read and understand Daniel and Revelation, I just don't see how you can walk away thinking the book is ALL symbolic.
Um, yes and no. But Daniel himself said he didn't understand any of it, and we only have the remotest of clues about it a thousand or so years later. And even then, some things just don't fit. Look at all the absurd attempts to fit the whole 69/70 weeks thing into the question of the temple and Jesus. It just doesn't work. And putting thousands of years' worth of gap between the 69th and 70th weeks is totally foreign to what he wrote, understood or imagined.Quote:
None of the other times Daniel spoke of were SYMBOLIC. Oh the Animals or type of beasts he described were but they represented a REAL world ruler and a SPECIFIC time.
See, the key word in your comment is "represent." We don't know for sure; the things you've been told are somebody's best guess. Nothing more. And the times actually don't fit his descriptions. So those who want to fit it all into a nice neat package have to manipulate numbers, adjust history, play games with symbolism, and otherwise muck with the whole thing to make it fit. I have a big problem with that.
We don't know that. In fact, that's the whole question. We have monsters rising out of the sea and the land, we have frog spirits causing havoc, we have horsemen, we have creatures with thousands of eyes hanging around God's throne - if he HAD seen things like that before, I'd wonder what kind of mushrooms he had been eating. But what did it all mean? That's what we don't know. We do know that "literal interpretation" leads us down a ridiculous path.Quote:
In Revelation John is trying to describe things he hasn't seen before..
Sorry, but there's no "antichrist" in Revelation, Daniel or Matthew. The term only occurs in John's epistles, and there he says there's more than one. The big enemy in Daniel best fits Antiochus IV who defiled the temple during the intertestamental period. Matthew 24 best fits the destruction of the temple in AD 70 by the Romans. And the number that dispensationalists are so enamored with, 666, is a symbol for Nero. Daniel's "weeks" don't fit any known period of history so they have to be something symbolic as well, or else he was wrong. And the beat goes on.Quote:
they are real, the antichrist is real and so is the 7 actual years of tribulation. Not only does John describe it... Daniel does too AND so does the Lord Jesus in Mathew.