It's hard to have the events of Revelation 4-19 in the past when Revelation 1:19 and 4:1 clearly indicate these events start AFTER the church age. We are still in that period of time. Plus, you may as well throw out the whole book once you start abandoning the literal reading of the rest of the book - then you are just winging it and making it mean what you want it to mean - and there would be no objective way (beyond pure speculation) to determine when something was actually fulfilled.

That seven year time period has not occured yet, there is no one-world leader ruling, and there is no mark of the Beast instituted worldwide. When you abandon the plain sense of the passage, you abandon the whole book.

[bibleprotector]

In the futurist interpretation, the events of Revelation 4-22 are future. This is valid, and I believe it is. However, we cannot discount that prophecies have multiple valid interpretations, and that in the Protestant Reformation they had another view. This other view is that the Antichrist was the Papacy. This interpretation seems strange to those who have not heard about it, and only been brought up in the futurist view, but once the historicist view is studied, there is a lot to show the exact correctness of the historical interpretation.

A prophecy with a dual application means that the first application is usually only a partial fulfillment and the second the complete one - or fulfilled in two cases - eg. The nation of Israel going into Egypt, then Jesus going into Egypt:

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

There is no way you can have some symbolical fulfillment then later some literal fulfillment. If prophecy is not fulfilled literally, then it is not fulfilled.

[bibleprotector]

Of course you can have a symbolic and then literal fulfilment.

This is the famous example:

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD" (Malachi 4:5).

"And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." (Matthew 17:10-13).

Christ says that John the Baptist was Elijah, but this is symbolic, and he also says that Elijah is still literally coming. (Matthew 17:3, 9 is only a vision.)

Therefore, it is entirely valid to interpret Revelation symbolically to apply to Christian history, and then to apply it literally to a pre-Millennial seven year tribulation period. This is because the narrative has two meanings which do not contradict but complement each other.

So do you mean that the prophecy in Revelation applies to today and the future? I've never heard this viewpoint before. You've got me interested!

[bibleprotector]

The historicist prophecy is our Protestant heritage, that is, it was held to for years, and believed by people like the King James Bible translators. There is a proper futurist view (because there are some variations). But if we take that the futurist interpretation is at the end of the historicist interpretation, I believe this fits together properly.

I believe that there are parts of historicist prophecy which relate to the King James Bible. I have a few articles on historicist prophecies. This one is fairly basic and introductory: www.bibleprotector.com/AN_INTRODUCTION_TO_THE_1260_DAYS_PROPHECY.pdf

Just to be clear...

I'm not suggesting Amos 8:11 only means what I'm stating. I'm just suggesting the Bible version issue has caused a "famine' of sorts.

Look at how much fornication goes on in the church because the newer "Bibles" replace the word "fornication (that is specifically defined)" with the phrase "sexual immorality (with subjective meaning)".

I preached a message entitled "Insulting God" proclaiming we insult God by "shacking-up" and not marrying according to God's plan, being guilty of fornication. At the Altar, a woman was sobbing profusely because she had "moved-in" with her boyfriend not believing it was wrong, because all her "friends" said it was a socially acceptable thing to do. So, it wasn't esteemed by her and her friends that it was "sexually immoral" (she's since married to make it right).

People are hungry for God's Word and they are getting a counterfeit. It's like being hungry for food and only getting a picture of food. The hunger remains, even though eating paper can fill you up.