[berned]

Well campion, the reason I ask you the question in #127 is...

Notice this passage in The Gospel of Mark... Jesus is speaking.

Mar 13:7 "When you hear of WARS and rumors of WARS, do not be frightened; those things must take place; but that is not yet the end. Mar 13:8 "For nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be EARTHQUAKES in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

Notice how God is able to use two completely different words to mean "WAR"... and ... "EARTHQUAKE". When God wants to talk about military action, see how He uses the word "WAR"?

Now skip down a few words in the verse... see how when God wants to talk about the ground shaking, (as opposed to, say, a military action) He uses the word "EARTHQUAKE"?

This is what causes many students of the Bible to conclude that the word in Revelation 11:13 that goes "EARTHQUAKE" actually means a real-life "EARTHQUAKE"... and since no such EARTHQUAKE occured in Jerusalem in the First century, and since ALL of Jerusalem was utterly wiped out in 70AD... This leads us to believe that Revelation is prophesying about a FUTURE earthquake that will destroy a tenth of the FUTURE city of Jerusalem and kill seven thousand, just as God says in His book "revelation".

We are emboldened in this thinking by the fact that by a lucky co-incidence, Jerusalem NOW EXISTS!! So an earthquake really could occur just as prophesied in the book of Revelation. That's all I'm saying.

[Campion]

Yes, I see the deep reverence of your approach. "Earthquake" means "earthquake." Humanoid locusts riding horses with lions' heads means a 21st century army invading Israel. "City" means "church," except when it means "city." "King" means "kingdom," if that makes it fit. Dry bones coming together means a UN decree founding a socialist, secular state in 1948. "Beast" really means anti-Christ, although when John wants to say "anti-Christ" in 1 John, he seems perfectly capable of saying "anti-Christ". And allegory is bad, because literal is the only way to go. I think the correct term for this approach is not "reverent" but "exegetical hash".

Here's a hint, and then I have to go home. Revelation is written in a literary genre called the "apocalyptic". (It was a common Jewish literary form of the time.) It uses symbolism. The passage in Mk you mention is not apocalyptic, it's simply a narrative. Pointing out that God calls earthquakes "earthquakes" in narrative text doesn't mean much when you turn to the question of what "earthquake" means in an apocalyptic.