Revelations is not a book of prophecy.

Thank you for taking this debate. To be honest, I was hoping a person who believed in the Bible but not the legitimacy of Revelation would take the debate. But I admit this is largely my fault due to my failure to clearly mention so. In any case, I don't mind proceeding in the debate. 1. Another possible reason why the authors did not give a specific date is because it would leave people to rely on faith, which is a consistent theme in the Bible. If a specific date would be revealed then people would most likely become reckless. For example, if the date was not until much much later (which would be likely if a date were have to been given), then people would say, "Well, since it's not going to happen in my lifetime, I can just enjoy myself for now but then still accept Jesus at the end of my life." Or, if the date was soon and close, then people would get excited and try really really hard to be spiritual and what not. But that effort to be spiritual and get one's live in line would be a superficial and forced one, not a genuine act of faith and love for God – which is what God wants. 2. I appreciated your try to "get to the heart of the matter". I try to do the same thing in debates about religion and faith. However, I have to respectfully say that you've misjudged me. Yes, I did grow up in a Christian home, but I went through a phase of depression from the years of sixteen to seventeen. This caused me to doubt, to question why God would allow me such pain. For awhile I tried to keep my faith in God, believing that there would be a greater "reward" if I stuck it out even when it was hard to. But eventually I resolved to enter into a time of questioning and finding out what I really believe in despite my parents influence. I decided to become my own person, to acquire my own beliefs. So I became a self-professed agnostic for a time, and that allowed for my questioning. But here I am three years later and my faith and personhood has never been stronger. Do I still doubt and question from time to time? Yes. But I have found the truth that theologian A.W. Tozer suggested, "To our questions God has provided answers; not all the answers, certainly, but enough to satisfy our intellects and ravish our hearts." I have found that the true difference between the believing and unbelieving is their desire to find these answers. -- The Christian Bible can be tracked down through history, not just as "another book of wishful thinking". Personally, I have not been one to enjoy doing such research, but there are many brilliant minds that have confirmed the legitimacy of the Bible through historical research. I could track down the best evidence and research in that category if you wish. 3. -- Just because something is symbolic or poetic, does that inherently mean that it has no truth or valuable facts to be drawn from it? There are many poems that use metaphors and symbolism that pertain to real life events. Thus, your point that because it's "symbolic" it isn't a legitimate book, is negated. ----The following is the three points on why Revelation is difficult to interpret.--- 1. -- The interpretation of the book if affected by the writers' culture, time and date, but that doesn't mean that the story will necessarily be different depending on who you ask. All it means is that it is important to understand those elements in order to fully understand the book. In addressing the part where you said, "which means that religions contradict one another.." Just because there is a contradiction of opinion in the world doesn't mean that there is no objective truth to be found among it all. If I asked my colorblind friend what color a red cup was, and he said "blue", but I insisted on telling him it was red, would that make the cup colorless because there was a contradiction of opinion? 2. In this point I can summarize the first part of what you said as, "anything is possible, so you can't be certain, so you're wrong." This is clearly an impractical way of debating because debating requires that you get somewhere. That's like a Postmodernist's preference for epistemological ambiguity. When you argue from the point of "anything's possible", yeah you decrease your opponent's argument validity, but if you stay true to it, you decrease any validity your argument might have too. That is why it's a largely impractical way to debate. -- John was inspired by God and I do believe in the inspiration of the scripture of the Bible. However, you are not God when you are inspired by God. God in still using YOU. And in John's case, he saw visions of future events and times. It was still John's eyes that perceived the vision. But it was God that gave John the vision and God who guided John's words when he wrote the book. 3. --For one, we are not worthy because we are not God. If some other being was on the same level as God, then it would no longer make God God. Secondly, God doesn't give us confirmation of his existence because he leaves room for us. Consider this quote by Fredrick Buechner, "Not the least of my problems is that I can hardly even imagine what kind of an experience a genuine, self-authenticating religious experience would be. Without somehow destroying the process, how could God reveal himself in a way that would leave no room for doubt? If there were no room for doubt, there would be no room for me." -- God's son provides proof of his existence. You can't say those two things in the same sentence. If God's son existed and walked this earth, then how is that not "sheer proof of his existence"? Does it really say that we are not supposed to test or doubt God? Micah 6:1 says, "Listen to what the Lord is saying: ‘Stand up and state your case against me. Let the mountains and the hills be called to witness you complaints." It says in Deuteronomy 6:16, "Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah." But there he is addressing a specific people and time. There, he is advising them against it, advising them that faith is the easier route. This is still true today, faith is the easy route, however, some people are appalled of the notion of such "unquestioning faith". The truth is that faith still is the easier route, but we can question, we can doubt, and we can find answers to those questions. But I'll tell you from experience that it takes a lot of pain, courage, and perseverance to find those answers. Or another Biblical example I can give of questioning is Job. At the end of the story (as you must know it) God said Job did nothing wrong in his questioning and sheer honesty. God welcomes our honesty and questions. Heck, look at the very middle of the Bible, its heart, the Psalms! About sixty-five percent of the Psalms are classifiable as "laments" to God expressing pain, doubts and questions. -- Commenting on your closing point: We have to ask the question, "By whose interpretation is the book a book of prophecy?" If we were to carry on in that, this would a debate about the legitimacy of the Bible, not of the book of Revelation, which it is. So I must say in turn that it seems implied that the book can be used to interpret and describe itself given the proposition of this debate. Perhaps that implication was not made clear on my part, if so, I apologize. But I think it seems like a given that the book can be used to describe itself. Am I going to read another book to tell me what Revelation is about? No, I'm going to read it and interpret it for what it says in it. My closing statement for this round: There are prophecies in the Old Testament, all of which came true and were fulfilled in the New Testament. I imagine that there were a portion of people back then that didn't believe in the prophecies just like my opponent does not believe in the unfulfilled prophecies of the New Testament. But again, I remind you, the Old Testament prophecies WERE fulfilled, and with amazing accuracy.