Prophecy-Poll

[gcdonner]

I am well aware of what modern English dictionaries say, that was exactly my point, the meaning has changed in general usage.
It is pretty much the same thing that has happened to baptizo.

I guess I wasted the effort on that post, eh? How far back do you consider for it to be accepted in "general usage"?
The Expositor's Bible uses the phrase (1982). The Catholic Commentary uses the phrase (2008). Albert Barnes commentary uses the term (1884). Robertson's Word Pictures (1933).
Suffice it to say, this phrase isn't something new, but now in reference to baptizo ,what did you have in mind?

Would you agree that a secular definition of apocalypse, derived from apokalupsis, would not be revelation, or disclosure?

Not sure what you are getting at. Biblically speaking it definitely does mean revelation or discovery of what was hidden or concealed. I'm not familiar with another definition, but would be interested in your take on it.

[gcdonner]

I am well aware of what modern English dictionaries say, that was exactly my point, the meaning has changed in general usage.
It is pretty much the same thing that has happened to baptizo.

I guess I wasted the effort on that post, eh? How far back do you consider for it to be accepted in "general usage"?
The Expositor's Bible uses the phrase (1982). The Catholic Commentary uses the phrase (2008). Albert Barnes commentary uses the term (1884). Robertson's Word Pictures (1933).
Suffice it to say, this phrase isn't something new, but now in reference to baptizo ,what did you have in mind?

Would you agree that a secular definition of apocalypse, derived from apokalupsis, would not be revelation, or disclosure?

Today, the term is commonly used in reference to any larger-scale catastrophic event, or chain of detrimental events to humanity or nature. In all contexts, the revealed events usually entail some form of an end time scenario or the end of the world or revelations into divine, heavenly, or spiritual realms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse

[silentreader]

I am well aware of what modern English dictionaries say, that was exactly my point, the meaning has changed in general usage.
It is pretty much the same thing that has happened to baptizo.

I guess I wasted the effort on that post, eh?



How far back do you consider for it to be accepted in "general usage"?
The Expositor's Bible uses the phrase (1982). The Catholic Commentary uses the phrase (2008). Albert Barnes commentary uses the term (1884). Robertson's Word Pictures (1933).
Suffice it to say, this phrase isn't something new, but now in reference to baptizo ,what did you have in mind?

My posts are of necessity usually much shorter than yours, but that is exactly how I often feel.

[silentreader]

I guess I wasted the effort on that post, eh? How far back do you consider for it to be accepted in "general usage"?
The Expositor's Bible uses the phrase (1982). The Catholic Commentary uses the phrase (2008). Albert Barnes commentary uses the term (1884). Robertson's Word Pictures (1933).
Suffice it to say, this phrase isn't something new, but now in reference to baptizo ,what did you have in mind?

Would you agree that a secular definition of apocalypse, derived from apokalupsis, would not be revelation, or disclosure?

Not sure what you are getting at. Biblically speaking it definitely does mean revelation or discovery of what was hidden or concealed. I'm not familiar with another definition, but would be interested in your take on it.

The point I am trying to make, once again seemingly unsuccessfully, is that the adjective form, apocalyptic, should reflect the meaning of the noun form, apocalypse. Therefore Biblically speaking the meaning of the noun, apocalypse, or revelation, should help define the adjective, apocalyptic, or revelatory. Does that make sense?

[gcdonner]

I am well aware of what modern English dictionaries say, that was exactly my point, the meaning has changed in general usage.
It is pretty much the same thing that has happened to baptizo.

I guess I wasted the effort on that post, eh?



How far back do you consider for it to be accepted in "general usage"?
The Expositor's Bible uses the phrase (1982). The Catholic Commentary uses the phrase (2008). Albert Barnes commentary uses the term (1884). Robertson's Word Pictures (1933).
Suffice it to say, this phrase isn't something new, but now in reference to baptizo ,what did you have in mind?

My posts are of necessity usually much shorter than yours, but that is exactly how I often feel.

It's not the length of your post, but that I don't think you had time to read my post before you replied...

[gcdonner]

Would you agree that a secular definition of apocalypse, derived from apokalupsis, would not be revelation, or disclosure?

Not sure what you are getting at. Biblically speaking it definitely does mean revelation or discovery of what was hidden or concealed. I'm not familiar with another definition, but would be interested in your take on it.

The point I am trying to make, once again seemingly unsuccessfully, is that the adjective form, apocalyptic, should reflect the meaning of the noun form, apocalypse. Therefore Biblically speaking the meaning of the noun, apocalypse, or revelation, should help define the adjective, apocalyptic, or revelatory. Does that make sense?

It does and the term "apocalyptic language" refers to the kind of imagery/language used in apocalyptic literature. They often use cataclysmic language that sounds like the end of the world, or trees clapping, mountains melting, etc. to describe what was a momentous occasion for the nation(s) involved. The stars falling from the skies is reference to the leaders of a nation, or the moon turning to blood, or the sun failing to shine, all describing the cataclysmic end of a nation or leader...not the end of the world for everyone, just for those involved. This kind of literary device is used over and over again in the OT, especially in the prophets. It was familiar language to the Jews who had lots of apocalyptic literature, especially during the intertestamental period. Jesus employed this common means of describing coming calamities because he knew his audience would understand.
It is sad that many Christians today are ignorant of these common employments of language in the bible. Just like "coming in the clouds" was never intended to portray a physical presence, but rather a cloaked entrance that was demonstrated by the outcome that was forecast. The "sign of the Son of Man in heaven" is not a physical appearance, but a demonstration of his Divine power in human history. In this case the destruction of all of the OC symbols. It happened just the way He said it would, when He said it would, in the manner He said it would. Not the way 21st century evangelicals, et al, have imagined it would happen.
Apocalyptic language. Jesus quoted much of it directly from the Old Testament.

[DrWojo]

Are references to angels in Revelation 7:1-3
Revelation 8 - 11 and Revelation 15-17 literal, or figurative imagery?

[gcdonner]

Are references to angels in Revelation 7:1-3
Revelation 8 - 11 and Revelation 15-17 literal, or figurative imagery?

They are "literal" from the heavenly perspective. Remember that John is "in the Spirit" in heaven viewing these things, not on earth seeing these beings performing these things in physical ways.
Are there "literally/physically" 4 corners of the earth???

[DrWojo]

Are references to angels in Revelation 7:1-3
Revelation 8 - 11 and Revelation 15-17 literal, or figurative imagery?

They are "literal" from the heavenly perspective. Remember that John is "in the Spirit" in heaven viewing these things, not on earth seeing these beings performing these things in physical ways.
Are there "literally/physically" 4 corners of the earth???

This brings me to question #2: Was there an actual physical manifestation of angels in
Luke 2:10-15?

[gcdonner]

Are references to angels in Revelation 7:1-3
Revelation 8 - 11 and Revelation 15-17 literal, or figurative imagery?

They are "literal" from the heavenly perspective. Remember that John is "in the Spirit" in heaven viewing these things, not on earth seeing these beings performing these things in physical ways.
Are there "literally/physically" 4 corners of the earth???

This brings me to question #2: Was there an actual physical manifestation of angels in
Luke 2:10-15?

I would say yes, as it finishes the comments by saying

Luk 2:15  And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven...

And the shepherds were in the fields, not "in the Spirit" tending their sheep.
Context means everything, wouldn't you agree? Revelation is highly symbolic, apocalyptic and from the heavenly perspective, seeing things on earth from God's perspective. The Luke 2 passage is recording the event from the earthly perspective, recording human history that is being broken into by heaven's messengers.