Revelation:My take and thoughts

Faith & Science Conversation
1

After a long time searching up and finding all sorts of theories for the Book of Revelation i decided to take the literal approach on who the Beast actually is (or the futuristic approach whatever is called)>Of course the book it filled with hyper-symbolism and even rhetoric maybe or some other non literalistic writting and i get that.But when it comes down to the beast its the only logical explanation for me which answers my other questions.For instance if Nero was really the beast then the second coming would have happened.If from the other hand the number and the beast are some kind of “human behaviour” as ive wrote or "anti_christ behaviour"that any of us can manifest at any time it really doesnt make sense since again the events that follow doesnt add up.The only possible view is that someday a man so evil will be born that he must be the adversary incarnate.

Ill probably get some critisism about my view but hey we are here to share our perspective right?

2

Well I don’t think that’s the only possible view, but I think it’s a somewhat common view. In the last century futurist views of revelation has become very common. Though it’s not as common for someone to believe the anti christ is a incarnate of the adversary, there are a handful who believe that. I guess I can’t tell though if you mean the anti christ is the Devil made flesh or not, but even if so, films like the Omen has made it a bit more popular.

I think that when it comes to what exactly is a restored world, we get conflicting biblical concepts.

3

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.