Response to a woman who insists she is the Woman in Revelations 12

This is my response to a woman who I have had communication with for a few years, but ceased because she didn’t care to examine much if anything about Ti and Do and she claims to be the “woman” in:

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

I just happened to check one of her blog posts recently and saw that those who are in her congregation that she is a member have decided to, I guess ban her from their congregation because of her views they don’t agree with.

So in occurred to me to ask her to share with me her interpretation of the entire chapter of Rev 12 as the Woman is it’s focus and frankly I am sure it’s referring to Ti. Do actually told us this in about the only limited bible study we ever did for the 19 years I was in Ti and Do’s classroom. By the way, Ti and Do never quoted chapter and verse, though they did at times refer to things Jesus said but in their own words. They also rarely used the word in the bible without adding what they felt the word meant. For instance, to worship was really to serve, give service to. Heaven was literal heaven’s or outer space. Heavenly Father was Older Member.

I believe she goes by MiniGoodtale, or that’s the name of her blog and perhaps her name is Val. She sent me three links to her wordpress postings that were interpreting Rev 12. As soon as I read the first verse’s interpretation I could get no further though she provided some Strongs dictionary definition of each word no context consideration or background or origins were provided, and these were documents she posted on her blog some time ago, so they seemed very contrived to, as so many do to match what they have been either taught to see or not see or are wanting to see or not see. Thus I commented back to here below:

Sawyer’s response:

Here is my initial response to your provision of Rev 12 interpretation:
“heaven” – you said meant “gospel”, I can see where you came up with that from Strongs:

3772 ouranos oo-ran-os’
perhaps from the same as oroV – oros 3735 (through the idea of elevation); the sky; by extension, heaven (as the abode of God); by implication, happiness, power, eternity; specially, the Gospel (Christianity):–air, heaven(-ly), sky.

The primary definition is referring to literal geographic “elevated areas” as the air, sky and actually to include areas of the sun, moon and stars are also elevated above the earth, so is actually referring to everywhere in outer space. The addition of “implications” are fine to consider but how can they be used as a primary definition as everything can be linked together to make a case for oneself using implications. The way to learn how to best and most objectively translate and interpret is by looking at the context in as many verses as you can everywhere in scripture. In so doing, starting with what Jesus was quoted to have said:

Matt 5:12, Matt 5:16, Matt 5:45, Matt 5:48, etc.

Now take the word you chose “gospel” and insert it in the verse where “heaven” was put in these scriptures and see if it makes sense given what “gospel” actually means.
I’ll take the second verse listed as it’s pretty clearly not going to work at all with “gospel” inserted as will be the case for all of these actually:

Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Would this work to say, “father which is in gospel”

Of course not. After all, “gospel” is another word given a “religious context” when it could have simply been left as a “good message” for clarity, by the way something the Two Witnesses clarify in their prophecy period, as Jesus said, upon his incarnate return he would “speak plainly and boldly” and not in stories (to keep from being killed sooner because the plain/bold talk would be far harder for the general public to swallow and if what they can’t swallow, especially among the leaders, they seek to banish and eliminate from society which is what eventually would and did happen, but not until jesus had laid the groundwork for his student body to continue their lesson plan.

Here is the usage of the word, “gospel” and it’s definition that should coordinate with your usage to have any accuracy at all:

Mat 24:14 And this gospel ((euaggelion= good message)) of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
where “gospel” is defined as:

gospel = 2098 euaggelion yoo-ang-ghel’-ee-on
from the same as euaggelizw – euaggelizo 2097; a good message, i.e. the gospel:–gospel.

Can you imagine Jesus saying, “…this HEAVEN of the kingdom shall be preached…”
or how replacing “heaven” below with A GOOD MESSAGE (gospel meaning) makes any more sense:

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in A GOOD MESSAGE; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Of course you chose “in time” in place of “in” right before your selection of “gospel” in place of “heaven” to try to put it in the context you were seeking when the context was clearly more suited to a “place” rather than a “time” because heaven is a place (the abodes of the Kingdom of the Above Human Gods (as each member is Above even the greatest human according to Jesus) as evidenced by every usage of what Jesus was quoted to have said translated to the English word “heaven”, even though many, many Christians have tried to make it figurative as a “state” of bliss, etc. (It is also a blissful state but that’s not where the emphasis is in the context of most of it’s usage. It also has a relationship to “time” in that They are “out of human time” as being eternal and abiding off Earth they are not subject to time contraints of humans. But if we were to accept your translation as the “time of the gospel” then what is your NEW message or are you thinking, just quoting what’s in the records is the delivery of the “message” (gospel) which is the same think every preacher in the world is saying so why have a prophecy of it and why wouldn’t it have been worded like the Rev 11 prophecy of the Two Witnesses as to prophecy is to speak words inspired by God which is a “good message”. Now if you would allow yourself to open up to the voice of the Kingdom of Gods from the literal heavens though Ti and Do you will literally have an enlightening experience you are holding back for yourself by insisting on being the person of this Rev 12 Woman.

I have to be direct for your sake but your interpretation is about supporting yourself in who a Luciferian has tricked you into believing because in doing so the Luciferian might keep you away from the truth because you have a potential to be in service to the real Kingdom of God/Heaven. To be of service you have to “deny self” not elevate self. What you learn to elevate is the teachings. It’s not your fault that you have been attacked and nothing is lost in your exhaustive research. In fact, the knowledge you have acquired could be invaluable to Jesus and the Father.

You can receive proof of what is TRUE on any subject by projecting your asking for the TRUTH of this matter from the God almighty who made the heaven’s and the earth who reigns throughout the literal heavens. You can ask for the TRUTH about who you are in this regard with as specific a question as you can make it. And ask more than one question and I guarantee you will get a response UNLESS you fear asking or the answer.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Response to a woman who insists she is the Woman in Revelations 12”

  1. Larry Mondello (google it) Says:

    This is an interesting post, SWY… do you see?

    Like bigfoots on the moon — which is “possible” to you… this lady’s interpretation is also “possible”…. probable? No because the bible is myth.

    But it is like “Dueling Banjos”… creepy interpretation 1 … then creepy space hippy interpretation 2…

    Do you SEE?

    Am I bringing you to the light?

    There is still time.

    Joy to you, my sweet brother and true friend.

    • sawyer Says:

      I never said there were bigfoots on the moon. I have no idea what’s on the moon so I don’t claim to know what can or can not be on the moon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: