Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Revelation: Defence vs. Definition

I have begun to dig into my revelation study. I think some points need to be made here: I am not looking for an excuse to believe what I think. I am looking for valid textual evidence from the text of scripture. If scripture does not prove it, then I will remain unswayed on the issue.

There is a difference between my approach and other approaches. Mine seems far more scientific. Please remember I am undoubtedly biased in my interpretation. I have my church to thank for that, and my history. Even though I do not know what my interpretation is, I am by far sure that I know what I am not.

I have listened to arguments on both sides and have decided to look at this myself. In addition, my interpretation will require revision, since I am blogging first and determining the whole of my eschatology last. I do this in order to prevent bias.

I will approach the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ in this manner: scripture and my hermeneutic. I wish to study key words, genres, history and geography that surround the text, keeping in mind that SCRIPTURE tells me the truth and anything else is subject to scripture. I am using the same technique I use to read Genesis that I use to read Revelation, without trying to add to or make incorrect inferences from the text, which is what I fear is going on altogether too much.

My defence versus definition approach is thus: I am determining my values regarding the eschaton from the beginning. I am fortunate enough in that no one has had any major impact on my view. This makes me far more able to be clear on the text than people who go in with too many pre-suppositions.

No comments: