HonestBrother, thank you for your opinion and dialogue. It challenges me to dig deep into my mental reservoir of facts that I have studied and researched for a number of years. I'm not here to argue or belittle anyone's belief or opinion. I'm a man of facts and I'm only posting the facts that have been discovered by many and my conclusion to what I feel those facts are.
You brought up some very interesting points and yet have me a little confused on some of the nature of your questions. Please pardon me as this is going to be a little lengthy as I attempt to answer your post in detailed fact and my opinion of those facts.
Where what seems to be the case? Are you referring to scriptures that are "contradictory", scriptures that talk about Egypt or the Gods of Egypt or what? I'd like to be clear on this point before I open that very large can of worms.
The book of Revelations itself has been called "The Revelation of John", "The Revelation of Christ", the "Apocalypse" and much more. Who wrote Revelation and when was it written? Well, interesting enough, no one seems to really know for sure. The author of Revelations simply called himself John, a Roman name that was as common as drinking water. This scripture was supposedly written by this particular John, was written when John was supposedly on the island of Patmos, where he was a prisoner for claiming the Gospel of Christ. Patmos is in the Aegean Sea off the coast of modern day Turkey. There's a lot of speculation and guessing over who really wrote it but within the religious ranks, (Roman-Catholics true indoctrinators of Christianity) it is "believed" to be authored by John Zebedee, the disciple who allegedly walked with Christ. NOTE, that the other disciples that wrote the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke are alleged to have never walked with Christ. They knew him and his teachings but did not walk with Christ and his life, only John did, supposedly. These are not my words but that of historians and theologians that put Christianity together. Also, NOTE that John also is "believed" to be the author of his own book the Epistles of John.
One of the many reason's there's confusion of the authorship of Revelation is due to the time that it is "believed" to have been written. John Zebedee is once again "believed" to have been born around the same time as Christ (4-7 BCE). Ancient fathers of the Catholic Church, one being a man by the name of Irenaeus, wrote that this scripture came to John as a "vision" near the end of Domitian's rule which was about 95 CE. So scholars, theologians and historians have a problem with this because this would have meant that John would have been around 100 years old or older when he wrote it, during a time where the average life age for men was only about 35, although scholars, theologians and historians due "believe" that the disciples lived longer lives than that. Note, it's believed that the average age of death for the disciples was believed to be early 60's. James 62 A.D, Paul 64 A.D and Peter 65 A.D. Now mind you this is a direct result of the allegedly persecution and killing of Christians under Nero.
One of the other major reasons there is so much confusion on validating authorship is the way or style that Revelation is written. Like I said above, John Zebedee is "believed" to be the author of the Epistles of John and Revelation but the writing styles and language are like night and day. The Epistle of John was written in standard understandable Greek and Revelation in what has been termed as "barbarous" Greek. This is controversial in itself because John as well as Jesus and the other disciples, were Jews that spoke and wrote in Hebrew and Aramaic. The interesting fact here is that there is no documentation claiming that John Zebedee ever traveled to Greece or learned Greek. This is when many Christians will say that the Holy Spirit allegedly allowed this to happen as in the book of Acts, when all the disciples spoke in a language unknown to them. The book of Acts, supposedly written by Luke, who did not walk with Christ, was also allegedly written some 55-59 years after all the events and crucifixion of Christ took place
I've never doubted the origin of the bible nor did I mention anything of it in my previous post. Yes the bible "story" does have an origin as does everything. The question is, what is its true origin? People seem to forget that these same biblical stories have been told thousands upon thousands of times and years by different cultures and people since the creation of man. (Which would be millions and not thousands). So the bible in itself is nothing new. Just stories being told from one people's (European) perspective after they basically took over the world and converted everything into their image to accommodate their lifestyles and rule.
Like you claim, Revelation is the last book to be written in the bible (which it actually isn't, it's the last one included in the bible). The Counsel of Nicea authenticated the scriptures they wanted to put in the bible and then some years later King James ordained 46 "religious" men, along with the help of William Shakespeare, to put an English version of the bible together. There are thousands of scriptures and gospels that were intentionally left out of the bible because they contradicted everything they put in the bible. (the Aquarian Gospels, Gnoptic Gospels, Coptic Gospels, the rest of the Apocalyptic Gospels, the Nag Hammadi gospels, the scripture of St. Thomas, the scripture of Judas, etc, etc.) Why would the author of Revelations "possibly" be speaking about Egyptian Deities in the last most controversial book of the bible? Maybe it's because the New Testament was translated from the Greek interpretation of the scriptures. A people who had many God's, who built their existing foundation on what they stole from Egypt. Maybe, whoever the author was, knew something that many people don't know. The FACT of the matter is every time a "Christian" closes a prayer with Amen, they are "unknowingly" giving reverence to an Egyptian Deity.
Please do explain to me my many levels of confusion because it seems you appear to be on the attack and to me you have your facts, opinions, history and mythology all confused yourself. Remember, history (his-story) tells us, the Greeks stole from the "original Egyptians", the Romans stole from the Greeks and the Egyptians. In mythology, both the Greeks and Romans had many "pagan" God's that were copied from the Egyptian Deities but the only proof (history or historical facts) that those entities even existed, are being found till this very day in Egypt. I'm not talking about just tombs of Pharaohs either. Due the research. So if historians and archeologists, "find" what appears to be concrete, historical proof and facts, I don't "believe" its mythology anymore, unless, the definition of mythology has changed over night.
You quoted "And I still haven't figured out: What purpose does it serve?" Please be more specific. What purpose does what serve?
You also quoted "PS: The word "GOD" is the translation and is not to be found in the original language."
BINGO! JACKPOT! You are absolutely correct. The word "GOD" is a translation that is not found in the original language(s). BUT, what language are YOU referring to as the original language? So what was it translated from? All the other languages mention a specific name for GOD except English, a language that isn't an original language and is comprised of other languages, mainly Greek and Latin. You are right on point with this observation, whether you meant it that way or not. Language is the deception my friend.
Peace and Blessings to all,