Thanks for your kind words and your awesome tone, Greg. That impresses me much more than personal bible studies do.
One of the reasons I decided to stop my involvement in Protestantism is all the endless privet interpretations that its bible interpreters have come up with for the last 500 years. And what we see going on the last few decades among their ranks, I knew it was high time to leave it far behind.
Thank God for The Aramaic Scriptures (The Peshitta) and The Church of the East who's Christians (Nasraye) have been entrusted with its text for all these centuries.
As you might know, The Church of the East does not reject the book of Revelation, though it isn't included in its official canon, or included in the liturgical cycle of readings, like the other 4 books/letters.
The reason is simple enough. The Church of the East didn't receive those 5 books from the Apostles (Shlikhe) along with the 22 books/letters. And there is some indication that the COE didn't even know they existed until the mid 1800s, or perhaps had forgotten they existed, since they never used them and never had copies of them.
They/we are not against them being read at all, as I have an official modern Assyrian Bible (Old and New Testament) here, which I purchased at a COE Parish near where I live (Mar Yosip), it being sanctioned by the late great Patriarch H.H. Mar Dinkha IV, and it has the Western 5 books in it, along with the 22 books and Eastern text.
So, if you think "the oil" is the book of revelation, (I don't), then the members of the Church of the East have it in their official modern vernacular Bible to read as much as they like. I have been reading its words since 1980, and still am not certain what it all means. And I don't think anyone else does either. Speculations and interpretations is all over the board on it.
I want to discuss this a bit if we can. You said: "I do think that where the Aramaic text is describing something physical on earth, then it is literally describing something physical."
Would you then believe that there is going to be a literal beast with 7 heads coming out of the sea?
That is describing something physical on earth, right? It may be describing something physical, but clearly it is symbolic of something else than a real beast with 7 heads coming out of the sea. I have heard a number of speculative interpretations on that one over the years.
Shlama
One of the reasons I decided to stop my involvement in Protestantism is all the endless privet interpretations that its bible interpreters have come up with for the last 500 years. And what we see going on the last few decades among their ranks, I knew it was high time to leave it far behind.
Thank God for The Aramaic Scriptures (The Peshitta) and The Church of the East who's Christians (Nasraye) have been entrusted with its text for all these centuries.
As you might know, The Church of the East does not reject the book of Revelation, though it isn't included in its official canon, or included in the liturgical cycle of readings, like the other 4 books/letters.
The reason is simple enough. The Church of the East didn't receive those 5 books from the Apostles (Shlikhe) along with the 22 books/letters. And there is some indication that the COE didn't even know they existed until the mid 1800s, or perhaps had forgotten they existed, since they never used them and never had copies of them.
They/we are not against them being read at all, as I have an official modern Assyrian Bible (Old and New Testament) here, which I purchased at a COE Parish near where I live (Mar Yosip), it being sanctioned by the late great Patriarch H.H. Mar Dinkha IV, and it has the Western 5 books in it, along with the 22 books and Eastern text.
So, if you think "the oil" is the book of revelation, (I don't), then the members of the Church of the East have it in their official modern vernacular Bible to read as much as they like. I have been reading its words since 1980, and still am not certain what it all means. And I don't think anyone else does either. Speculations and interpretations is all over the board on it.
I want to discuss this a bit if we can. You said: "I do think that where the Aramaic text is describing something physical on earth, then it is literally describing something physical."
Would you then believe that there is going to be a literal beast with 7 heads coming out of the sea?
That is describing something physical on earth, right? It may be describing something physical, but clearly it is symbolic of something else than a real beast with 7 heads coming out of the sea. I have heard a number of speculative interpretations on that one over the years.
Shlama