Just Horsing Around - Not Enough Horses in the World to Fulfill Revelation 9:16

[illinoisguy]

"And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them." -Revelation 9:16

The standard pre-trib dispensensationalist interpretation of this passage is that this predicts an invasion of the Middle East from somewhere east of the Euphrates, shortly after the Rapture. It is said that the army will come from China, the only country big enough to field an army of 200,000,000 men (although I suppose India could do it too). Obviously, a literal fulfillment of this prophecy would require 200,000,000 horses.

Here's the problem - it is generally accepted that there are only about 60,000,000 horses in the entire world today:

Global Horse Population: How Many Horses Exist in the World

Discover the current global horse population. Explore our comprehensive overview to learn how many horses exist in the world today.

www.explorefauna.com

Global Equine Count: How Many Horses Are There In The World

Discover the horse population! Get insights into how many horses exist worldwide, from mustangs to Arabians, & explore equine statistics.

worldanimalfoundation.org

Of these, only about 3,700,000 are in China:

Horse Population by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

Based on a strictly literalist, futurist, pre-trib interpretation of the book of Revelation, it would appear that the Rapture cannot be regarded as imminent at this time, since there are not enough horses in the world to provide equine equipment for a Chinese army of 200,000,000 cavalrymen. The Rapture will have to be on hold, until we can breed enough horses to fulfill the prophecy. There won't be enough time after the Rapture to breed 140,000,000 + horses and ship them all to China.

Not only that, but these will have to be a rare breed of horses - having breastplates of fire, heads like lions, belching fire, smoke and brimstone out of their mouths, with tails like serpents, Revelation 9:17-19. This is definitely not a case where "a horse is a horse, of course, of course."

The point of this post is that it may not be practical to insist on a strictly literalist interpretation of all the signs and symbols in the book of Revelation, and that we may be missing the point if we attempt to read Revelation as a blow-by-blow account of prophecies to be literally fulfilled in the near future.

 

[Ransom]

But why do you spiritualize Revelation 13?

 

[illinoisguy]

We can always count on Ransom to give us the horselaugh, can't we?

Until we see creatures like these, horse/lions with a serious case of bad breath, 200,000,000 of them, I suppose we are safe from the ravages of the 6th Trumpet.

But seriously, the attempts to place a literal interpretation on the exotic symbolism of Revelation, as done in these depictions, miss the significance of the prophecy. Maybe sinners will not be literally zapped by fire-breathing horses, but they will certainly face the judgments of God, while true believers will ultimately triumph through times of tribulation, and Christ will be totally victorious.

 

[Ransom]

Along the same lines, when I was young, I remember seeing one of those Spire comics (probably based on one of Hal Lindsey's books) that took Rev. 14:20 literally: "And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse’s bridle, for 1,600 stadia."

Leaving aside the idea of blood being pressed out of a winepress, that is a lake of blood 314 miles in diameter and 5 feet deep--approximately 4.19×10^17 liters. That's easily several orders of magnitude greater than all the blood that exists in the world.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Maybe it’s not meant to refer to literal horses, but rather something that might appear as a horse in ancient times. I’d assume a drone today might appear as a bird in ancient times.

 

[Ekklesian]

Maybe it’s not meant to refer to literal horses,

That's the point.

 

[voicecrying]

I'm gonna create a rapture-watch website that is simply the number of horses alive worldwide and the number needed to reach 200,000,000. This should be helpful in quieting all the rapture predictions for a bit.

 

[Ekklesian]

not trying to play relevation literary revisionist here... . or make claims to knowing how prophecy and future wars will play out..... but the horse was replaced by the armored tank in warfare over 100 years ago.. ....for a while after that soldiers that manned tanks and other mechanized equipment in battle were considered "mounted" troops.... and even now tank divisions are called by the name "cavalry"........... .. and when it comes to belching fire and brimstone a modern battle tank can do that very well......

View attachment 6293

View attachment 6294

Still not a literal interpretation. And that's the point.

 

[Ransom]

Maybe it’s not meant to refer to literal horses, but rather something that might appear as a horse in ancient times. I’d assume a drone today might appear as a bird in ancient times.

Sure. But to read "horses" and see tanks, or "locusts" and see helicopter gunships, is not a literal reading. Which is the point.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Usre. But to read "horses" and see tanks, or "locusts" and see helicopter gunships, is not a literal reading. Which is the point.

I just skimmed his post, but is he suggesting there are people who literally interpret the verse to mean there will be a breed of millions of horse-lion-dragons in the final battle or whatever?

 

[Ekklesian]

I just skimmed his post, but is he suggesting there are people who literally interpret the verse to mean there will be a breed of millions of horse-lion-dragons in the final battle or whatever?

No. That's the point. NO ONE takes it literally...not even those who claim to be taking it so.

 

[illinoisguy]

I'm gonna create a rapture-watch website that is simply the number of horses alive worldwide and the number needed to reach 200,000,000. This should be helpful in quieting all the rapture predictions for a bit.

Maybe they can start breeding these horses on the same ranch where some nutcase is trying to breed the perfect red heifer with no gray hairs, in order to fulfill ancient rabbinical end-times prophecies.

but is he suggesting there are people who literally interpret the verse to mean there will be a breed of millions of horse-lion-dragons in the final battle or whatever?

No, I am not suggesting that anybody interprets the verse that way, nor am I aware of such an interpretation, although that would seem to be a requirement for a consistently literal interpretation of Revelation. And that's the point - it is simply not practical to believe that all the symbolic statements in Revelation will someday be literally fulfilled.

Salem Kirban is well-known as a literalist interpreter of Revelation, but even he balks at taking Revelation 9:13-19 literally: "Again as in the case of the locusts we are perplexed as to whether these will be (1) some sort of animal or insect plague here figuratively described. . . . (2) a demon or fallen angel army could perhaps also be here described; or (3) a great human army may be intended. No one knows which it is for sure: John is describing the creatures in terms of his experience and his vocabulary - though without error as they looked just that way. But what are they??? What do you think? I am today inclined to think that they are a human army with weapons and gas masks."

Notice that Kirban spiritualizes the horses into humans with gas masks, and says they may be "figuratively described." But prophecy buffs of his ilk will stomp all over those of us who propose spiritualized and figurative descriptions of other passages in Revelation, even though these are the only possible ways to understand John's visions.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

OK, on this same theme, I’d appreciate an answer to this question by those of you with better Scriptural knowledge. How does one know the difference between what to interpret literally versus figuratively? The hybrid dragon-lion-horse seems simple enough, but what about the rest of the Bible? For example, I’ve heard folks with advanced theology degrees scoff at the idea of a literal Hell the same way we just scoffed at a literal dragon-lion-horse hybrid.

For example, I recall reading, years ago, some books by Dr. Ehrman, who ironically enough, was a former Christian fundamentalist who attended Moody and Wheaton prior to getting a PhD at Princeton. This interview actually touches on the subject:

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824479587/heaven-and-hell-are-not-what-jesus-preached-religion-scholar-says

 

[Ransom]

I just skimmed his post, but is he suggesting there are people who literally interpret the verse to mean there will be a breed of millions of horse-lion-dragons in the final battle or whatever?

Someone might make that interpretation, but they are poorly versed in hermeneutics and so far out of the mainstream that they don't matter. No one serious claims that. Everyone knows the horse-lion-dragon represents something more conventionally earthly, though that identity might be up for debate.

"Consistently literal" hermeneutics aren't really consistently literal. It really means "literal when not otherwise obviously figurative." Problem is, Dispensationalists can't claim it's their exclusive domain (though they try). Every responsible biblicist reads the Bible that way. The difference is really where, or how much.

 

[Ransom]

OK, on this same theme, I’d appreciate an answer to this question by those of you with better Scriptural knowledge. How does one know the difference between what to interpret literally versus figuratively? The hybrid dragon-lion-horse seems simple enough, but what about

Put briefly, the conventional wisdom is to seek a figurative sense if the literal sense (the straightforward meaning of the words according to their conventional definition) is impossible. It does require a little bit of understanding of figures of speech (simile, metaphor, symbol, etc.), but much of that is somewhat intuitive or can be grasped with a little bit of help from high-school English or a literary glossary like M. H. Abrams'.

It seems to me that hell, as a place of eternal torment, makes perfect literal sense. The descriptions of hell are less clear. Hell is real, but is it literally a "lake of fire"? I think not, personally, but we're supposed to understand it's something like that. It's a metaphor.

(For that matter, so is hell. Jesus actually uses the word "Gehenna," which was the name of a place outside Jerusalem where pagans committed human sacrifices, and which by Jesus's day, the Jews had desecrated and turned into a garbage dump where things like trash and dead animals burned night and day. Gehenna is not hell, but hell is like Gehenna.)

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Put briefly, the conventional wisdom is to seek a figurative sense if the literal sense (the straightforward meaning of the words according to their conventional definition) is impossible. It does require a little bit of understanding of figures of speech (simile, metaphor, symbol, etc.), but much of that is somewhat intuitive or can be grasped with a little bit of help from high-school English or a literary glossary like M. H. Abrams'.

It seems to me that hell, as a place of eternal torment, makes perfect literal sense. The descriptions of hell are less clear. Hell is real, but is it literally a "lake of fire"? I think not, personally, but we're supposed to understand it's something like that. It's a metaphor.

(For that matter, so is hell. Jesus actually uses the word "Gehenna," which was the name of a place outside Jerusalem where pagans committed human sacrifices, and which by Jesus's day, the Jews had desecrated and turned into a garbage dump where things like trash and dead animals burned night and day. Gehenna is not hell, but hell is like Gehenna.)

It almost sounds like you’re saying that in this matter, we approach the Bible by just applying human “common sense” to differentiate literal versus figurative concepts. That was my thinking too, but the only hesitation I’d have is that much of the Bible requires much more faith than common sense. The Scripture is rife with miracles, for example. Stories, beginning with Adam and Eve and ending with Revelation, all require faith and acceptance of a lot of information that is dismissed by the unbelievers. Perhaps we should not be so hasty to dismiss the literalists.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

every person with a high level of bible knowledge i know says it;s possible what john saw in his visions was images of a modern battle field with modern machinery of war and modern weapons .... things he had never seen before .. could not have imagined with his 1st century base of knowledge.... .things he could not possibly understand... . ....... so he described them according to the things he did know about and the things people of his generation reading his words would also know about and understand...... either way war is war... the machinery and technology changes over the years but the objectives do not.....

Yes, I’m digging pretty far back into my childhood, but your explanation is pretty much what I recall learning and hearing from the pulpit.

Let’s put this into 21st century context. I’m only in my mid 40s, and there exists technology today that would have been un fathomable for me back in the 80s. The idea of someone watching a movie on a phone, or someone flying a drone over my head, or wearing a watch that tracks your health, and so much more. My grandparents were born in the 20s and 30s. You can guess how much has changed in their lives. Now, take it back to biblical days….

 

[Ransom]

It almost sounds like you’re saying that in this matter, we approach the Bible by just applying human “common sense” to differentiate literal versus figurative concepts.

Yes. The Bible is written in human language and meant to be humanly intelligible. It doesn't follow special rules of language.

The doctrine of perspicuity (clarity) says that the message of the Bible are able to be interpreted and understood. Not that all parts of the Bible are equally simple to understand, but that you don't need esoteric knowledge or an inflible Priesthood to explain it to you. The Bible can be taught to children (Deut. 6).

That was my thinking too, but the only hesitation I’d have is that much of the Bible requires much more faith than common sense. The Scripture is rife with miracles, for example. Stories, beginning with Adam and Eve and ending with Revelation, all require faith and acceptance of a lot of information that is dismissed by the unbelievers.

You're mixing up your categories. The issue with a miracle story is whether or not it is true. It's not an issue of what it means - whether "walking on water" is symbolic of some other idea or concept. We read about Jesus walking on the water, and we understand it's meant to say Jesus was walking on the top of the sea.

Revelation, on the other hand, is apocalyptic literature, the point of which is to reveal what was previously hidden about such things as the course of evil in the world, or the end of all things. One of its features is highly figurative or symbolic language. Essentially it's written in code--it's meant to be obscurantist. You need to work out what it actually means--what the animals and numbers and fantastic beasts and whatnot actually stand for.

 

[Ekklesian]

How does one know the difference between what to interpret literally versus figuratively?

One needs instruction. And one needs a genuine desire for knowledge. Babes are breastfed, but adults need to work for their food.

The Apostles all read the OT figuratively. There's no denying that. So, follow their example.

OK, on this same theme, I’d appreciate an answer to this question by those of you with better Scriptural knowledge.

How about striving to know the Scriptures better yourself? God doesn't reward knowledge to a slothful pursuit. One must seek it as for hidden treasure.

 

[Ekklesian]

things he had never seen before .. could not have imagined with his 1st century base of knowledge.... .things he could not possibly understand...

It's rather presumptuous to think John could not tell the difference between living creatures and machines. Not to mention what one might imagine the '1st century base of knowlege' was.