anyone who uses the term revelation for something and then ties it to any particular religion, identity, social imaginary, historical context, linguistic scheme of representation, discursive tradition etc etc (fill in your favorite and most theoretically sophisticated, academic buzzword), is not talking about revelation as what it would be for a human being who looks for it and considers it (ie. revelation) something that is going to reveal to them satisfactory and truthful meanings of their life and of existence itself (which they therefore would be accepting, as a starting point, they dont already have and want to receive from their maker).
those (academics but also others) who otherwise insist (insofar as their livelihood is at stake) that words be used precisely and appropriately feel no such compunction when they agree to give all sorts of meanings to terms except that which is most reasonable and clear..and it is because if they did, they won’t have much to say that they could sell in the academic market place…
be an academic and read academic work if you must…but for me, it is never allowed to touch my heart or mind and soul..it is never going to be of help to me insofar as i seek truth as a human being. academics do not talk and listen to each other because they are trying to find truth for themselves or get closer to it. they are helping to keep conversations about stuff interesting. they get to have a job. they get to introduce peolpe to ideas and questions, some of which may be of some use in their personal quest for meaning and truth..but thats about it..
whatever academic writing i have encountered where revelation is mentioned, it is assumed to mean something that in my considered view, it is decidedly not..
end of rant