Quote :

The False Prophet is the sea, and it becomes poisoned.

So the Sea caused everyone to take up the mark upon their right hand or forhead.. that they didn't actually get...according to you...



Rev 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,


.. And the sea performed great wonders in the sight of men.. bringing fire down form heaven, Lod V?

Rev 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live

.. And the sea decieved the whoel world by means of mikracles, Lord V?

You do not understand Revelation, it is not a literal book. It is apocalyptic.

It is a book of imagery and symbolism.

The Beast comes from the Sea, the False Prophet comes from the Earth and the Dragon is symbol of the stars.

Made a mistake on that, the false Prophet is not the sea, the Beast is the sea.

The judgment on the sea, is the judgment on the Beast.
The judgment on the land is the judgment on the False Prophet.
The judgment on the sun, moon and stars, is judgment on the Dragon.

It is symbolism, not literalism.

Ash, you have nothing to offer to this, other than scorn. Because what I have to say, does not line up with your beliefs of Revelation. I have not once scorned your beliefs on this, nor have I made fun of you for your beliefs.

This shows the class you have, you have the lowest form, when it comes to debate. Ridicule what you can not argue.

Shame on you Ash.

http://www.americanbible.org/brcpages/ApocalypticWriting

This is about what Apocalyptic writing is about.

This is why it can not be taken literal, as Ash keeps doing.

Quote :

Like poetry, apocalyptic literature uses symbols and intense images to describe realities that cannot be communicated any other way.

If Revelation is taken literal throughout, then you start running into problems.

That the Beast is a real beast. That there will be a real Great Red Dragon. But since most do not take these to be literal, but symbolic of something else, than the standard to the book must conform to the rest, unless otherwise noted or where symbolism can not be maintained.

The problem with Ash's position is that, as stated he takes it to literal. As I have stated, on a few points he has some ground, but that ground is very diverse and shaky.

The other problem is, and this is in general, they push the book into the future. And ignore any reason for it to be in the past. So when they argue, they argue from the furturist position.

So there can be no mark of the beast in the past, it must be future, it must be literal and it must be a microchip.

When you deal with such absolutism, they can not see how the past may have fulfilled the book.

When one takes the book literal, they show they do not understand the book itself. It is not a book to be taken literal, the original audience would not have taken it as literal as modern people take it. It is done this way, because most do not understand it and how it is meant to be taken.

It is a book of visions and symbols. Symbols that represent an event.

As I showed: The Dragon of Rev. 12 is symbolized by Sun, moon and stars. So the judgment against sun, moon and stars, are against the dragon. When it is against the waters/sea it is against the Beast from the Sea. When it is against the False prophet it is against the land/earth.

Check out the judgments and see this connection. It will explain what the judgments are about.

Quote :

You do not understand Revelation, it is not a literal book. It is apocalyptic.

It is a book of imagery and symbolism.

And?

That doesn't mean that your interpretation of it is anywhere near a reasonable one. Your point is superfluous here. Also, some passages can be taken literally... prophecy does not follow one single pattern.

Quote :

The problem with Ash's position is that, as stated he takes it to literal. As I have stated, on a few points he has some ground, but that ground is very diverse and shaky.

No, I don't take it all literally. Your problem is all or nothing thinking and just plain blind interpretation. To hold your views on most of these matters, you have to ignore a profound amount of scripture that is really quite direct and to the point... whether it be allegorical or more literal.. doesn't matter.

Quote :

Made a mistake on that, the false Prophet is not the sea, the Beast is the sea.

haha.. just ..just


Don't mind me... but yea.

Quote :

That doesn't mean that your interpretation of it is anywhere near a reasonable one. Your point is superfluous here. Also, some passages can be taken literally... prophecy does not follow one single pattern.

I did not say there was no literalism, "unless otherwise noted or where symbolism can not be maintained."

No it is not superfluous, you just do not want to follow what the book is and take it as what others, who have mistakenly take the book too literally.

What my points are are an interpretation, just like if you read any commentary on revelation, that supports your view.

Quote :

No, I don't take it all literally. Your problem is all or nothing thinking and just plain blind interpretation. To hold your views on most of these matters, you have to ignore a profound amount of scripture that is really quite direct and to the point... whether it be allegorical or more literal.. doesn't matter.

My view is an interpretation, based on keeping the book in its original form. When it says sea, what does sea mean? Sea is where the beast comes from. When it says stars, sun and moon what does it mean? It is where the Great Red Dragon is from. Etc.

I do not ignore scripture at all, I actually use quite a lot of it to arrive at my points.

What you fail to understand is the symbolism of the book. You see a literal man in Revelation 13, yet that "man" is part lion, bear, and leopard? Where are these three from? Daniel 7. What are the three beast of Daniel 7? They are kingdoms. An element that you ignore in your interpretation. So you can arrive at your conclusion of jt being a man.

And you claim I ignore Scripture? I used it to arrive at my conclusion.

When I quoted what I quoted, I used the book of Revelation to interpret itself. Sea represents Sea, ect. Sea is not a literal sea. Earth is not literal Earth, or Sun is not literal Sun, but they are symbols. Something you are not even willing to consider. And you claim mine is blind interpretation.

I have read many views, Lahaye, Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsey, Stephen Miller, Craig Keener, and many others who have written on revelation, I have read views that are Premil, Post Mil, Mid-rapture view, Amil, etc. So you have no claim that my view being blind.

My view is based off of many foundations, both within tradition, outside tradition, and history.

You know what Ash, you really do not care what others think, all you care about is YOU and YOU want EVERYONE to believe like you. If they do not, you mock them, laugh at them. You present an intelligence that is marred by your insolence toward anyone that disagrees with you.

I have not made fun of you, I have interacted with almost all of your points, respectfully and I have challenged your points. All you can do is be nit-picky about small stuff. Stuff that is just a difference of opinion, difference of interpretation. Which tells me you have no clue how to argue, you have no exposure to various points of view and you do not know how to handle it. So you nit-pick.

and your shows it.

I will not be responding to you any more, you have been a waste of time. You still have to challenge anything I have said. You may think you have, all you have done is just pick up a small stone and disagree with it, and call it a major find.

You have yet to even present your view other than the traditional "Rev. 13 Beast is a man!" whoopy! Like i did not know that view and then hold to it like a child holding on to his teddy bear. You presented no points for me to consider, other than post verses, which I am already familiar with, which led me to believe that the Beast is a kingdom and it is named after a man.

You present nothing new to the discussion. And you accuse me of being blind.

So, no more discussion with you on this, post all you want, but I find your attitude a waste of time.

You laugh at what I have to say, but at least I am willing to correct any mistake I make, in order to keep my view consistent and error free.

You may think that is funny, but it is honor, it is a sign of someone who wants to keep truth in his view, by correcting error.

The fact you laugh at it, says a lot about you.

Lord V, I don't normally laugh at people's serious opinions.... but in this case I have to.. because of the fact that most of your views can be taken serious about as easily as I could take a show like The Family Guy seriously.

Quote :

You laugh at what I have to say, but at least I am willing to correct any mistake I make, in order to keep my view consistent and error free.

Oh, yee great and mighty teacher, yee are also free of all error in your views?

Lord V.. The man, the myth.. the legend!

.

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Lord V, I don't normally laugh at people's serious opinions.... but in this case I have to.. because of the fact that most of your views can be taken serious about as easily as I could take a show like The Family Guy seriously.

Quote :

You laugh at what I have to say, but at least I am willing to correct any mistake I make, in order to keep my view consistent and error free.

Oh, yee great and mighty teacher, yee are also free of all error in your views?

Lord V.. The man, the myth.. the legend!

.

You know Ash. You really do yourself a disservice by turning your nose up at just about every living thing. Mockery really doesn't help express your point of view.

It's as if you have no interest in respectful discussion. Rather, in typical german fashion, you just want to be as loud and overbearing as possible, and your intent isn't to educate, but to wage warfare with words.

Let's cut it out. I don't want to see any more mockery or personal attacks in this thread. This thread actually has been going pretty well for long time. Let's keep it up and make sure the debate/discussion is civil.

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Lord V, I don't normally laugh at people's serious opinions.... but in this case I have to.. because of the fact that most of your views can be taken serious about as easily as I could take a show like The Family Guy seriously.

Quote :

You laugh at what I have to say, but at least I am willing to correct any mistake I make, in order to keep my view consistent and error free.

Oh, yee great and mighty teacher, yee are also free of all error in your views?

Lord V.. The man, the myth.. the legend!

.

The easiest thing to do is for me to respond to this and continue this one sided mudslinging contest. But for me to do that, I would have to lose ground and get dirty. So I will not.

This ends now!

lord voldemort wrote:

You do not understand Revelation, it is not a literal book. It is apocalyptic.

It is a book of imagery and symbolism.

The Beast comes from the Sea, the False Prophet comes from the Earth and the Dragon is symbol of the stars.

Made a mistake on that, the false Prophet is not the sea, the Beast is the sea.

The judgment on the sea, is the judgment on the Beast.
The judgment on the land is the judgment on the False Prophet.
The judgment on the sun, moon and stars, is judgment on the Dragon.

It is symbolism, not literalism.

big high five for making that association. im going to paraphrase here "and a third of the stars fell to the earth" i remember satan took 1/3 of the angels with him, satan is reffered too as the morning star several times, everytime in any sort of prophecy stars are used they are talking about angels i think one of the angels giving john revelations made that connection once as well. i wrote this half awake, so go easy on mistakes

wizardovmetal wrote:

lord voldemort wrote:

You do not understand Revelation, it is not a literal book. It is apocalyptic.

It is a book of imagery and symbolism.

The Beast comes from the Sea, the False Prophet comes from the Earth and the Dragon is symbol of the stars.

Made a mistake on that, the false Prophet is not the sea, the Beast is the sea.

The judgment on the sea, is the judgment on the Beast.
The judgment on the land is the judgment on the False Prophet.
The judgment on the sun, moon and stars, is judgment on the Dragon.

It is symbolism, not literalism.

big high five for making that association. im going to paraphrase here "and a third of the stars fell to the earth" i remember satan took 1/3 of the angels with him, satan is reffered too as the morning star several times, everytime in any sort of prophecy stars are used they are talking about angels i think one of the angels giving john revelations made that connection once as well. i wrote this half awake, so go easy on mistakes

I disagree that this is associated with "fallen angels".

The bible also states that the Jews are stars as well.

Gen 15:5 And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."
Gen 22:17 indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.
Gen 26:4 "I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed;
Gen 37:9 Now he had still another dream, and related it to his brothers, and said, "Lo, I have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me."

The descendants of Abraham are called stars.

There is this passage that tells me what that event is really about:

Zec 13:7 "Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, And against the man, My Associate," Declares the LORD of hosts. "Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered; And I will turn My hand against the little ones.
Zec 13:8 "It will come about in all the land," Declares the LORD, "That two parts in it will be cut off and perish; But the third will be left in it.
Zec 13:9 "And I will bring the third part through the fire, Refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them; I will say, 'They are My people,' And they will say, 'The LORD is my God.'"

The Dragon throws one third of the stars to the earth. If they are Jews, which I believe they are, since the passage is talking about Israel being attacked by the Dragon, than it is in reference to this passage that the 1/3 are Jews who are spared and 2/3 are with the Dragon and will be destroyed.

i see, wow where in the world do you get this discernment and wisdom

wizardovmetal wrote:

i see, wow where in the world do you get this discernment and wisdom

I read a lot. God has given me this gift as well. I have the aptitude to put pieces together and form a conclusion.

There have been times I have amazed myself with what I have concluded, especially when putting the bible together.

yea, i agree with that statement, you do have a gift, out of the thousands of "revelations experts" yours actually fits together without any missing pieces.

wizardovmetal wrote:

yea, i agree with that statement, you do have a gift, out of the thousands of "revelations experts" yours actually fits together without any missing pieces.

As I told Ash, I have read and watched many "experts" on the subject. I always had the sense they are missing something, because, their views were a little too nicely wrapped or at least too convenient.

So instead of looking at it from a theology aspect, which most do, I looked at it from a historical aspect. That is when, I started to notice parallels between history and the bible. I was not trying to force the bible to fit history, as I think Ash was accusing me of, but of allowing the bible and history to speak for itself and look for the harmony between them.

When I started to look at it in that light, I noticed than that the Ottoman Empire history paralleled Revelation in many ways. As I said, I was not forcing the issue, but as I read more and more on Ottoman History, the more I saw events that were similar to Revelation, even wording in a few instances were similar.

Like when the Turks overthrew the Caliphate, they hated it. The words that historians uses, were similar to the attitude God gave to them to over throw the Beast. If the Caliphate was an actual entity, like a building, they would have defaced it, cursed it, tore it down, and burned it til it was no more. That was the attitude of the Turks after World War one. Which fits Rev. 17/18.

You can only dismiss so much before you realize that the truth is staring you in the face.

Error and perversion of scripture on that level deserves mockery, Lord V. Hence you have earned my mockery on this subject.


Just as Christ mocked the pharisee's in his day. ( not to compare myself to Christ though )

Mockery in and of itself is not sinful.

Quote :

yea, i agree with that statement, you do have a gift, out of the thousands of "revelations experts" yours actually fits together without any missing pieces.

What about his mark of the beast missing piece?

What about his Beast as an Entity, not just an Empire, missing piece?

What about his in relation to Israel missing piece?

What about his faery tale interpretation of revelations in general missing piece?


.. Of course.. none of these things are a problem if you choose to draw vague analogies to completely irrelevant "pieces".

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Error and perversion of scripture on that level deserves mockery, Lord V. Hence you have earned my mockery on this subject.


Just as Christ mocked the pharisee's in his day. ( not to compare myself to Christ though )

Mockery in and of itself is not sinful.

Quote :

yea, i agree with that statement, you do have a gift, out of the thousands of "revelations experts" yours actually fits together without any missing pieces.

What about his mark of the beast missing piece?

What about his Beast as an Entity, not just an Empire, missing piece?

What about his in relation to Israel missing piece?

What about his faery tale interpretation of revelations in general missing piece?


.. Of course.. none of these things are a problem if you choose to draw vague analogies to completely irrelevant "pieces".

You know Ashley, the wisest thing I can do for you, is to not say a thing to this. You are betting for a fight. I am not taking it.

My discussion is with everyone else, just leave the thread and go some place else. You are not welcome here anymore. Your hostile and it is anything but Christlike.

Last warning- no more mocking, personal attacks. If I see one more then I will close this thread.

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Error and perversion of scripture on that level deserves mockery, Lord V. Hence you have earned my mockery on this subject.


Just as Christ mocked the pharisee's in his day. ( not to compare myself to Christ though )

Mockery in and of itself is not sinful.

Mazzie, not mocking here with the following. Just a question.

Why the self-righteous anger? What is your dog in the fight?

And what right do you have to mock people? What right do you have to ridicule? You do this over and over again. You are in your view SO righteous that because of your righteoussness, you are divinely appointed the right to insult, slander, distort, and otherwise put down people whose views do not align with yours. But who died and gave you that right?

You do this to me, to Paul, to EVERYONE you deem unworthy. Mazzie, if I get in trouble for getting this off my chest, I will just say, fine.

It was worth it.

Good to get things off one's chest. Always makes one feel lighter.

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Error and perversion of scripture on that level deserves mockery, Lord V. Hence you have earned my mockery on this subject.


Just as Christ mocked the pharisee's in his day. ( not to compare myself to Christ though )

Mockery in and of itself is not sinful.

Quote :

yea, i agree with that statement, you do have a gift, out of the thousands of "revelations experts" yours actually fits together without any missing pieces.

What about his mark of the beast missing piece?

What about his Beast as an Entity, not just an Empire, missing piece?

What about his in relation to Israel missing piece?

What about his faery tale interpretation of revelations in general missing piece?


.. Of course.. none of these things are a problem if you choose to draw vague analogies to completely irrelevant "pieces".

i do not see any of those accusations to be true, he has explained all of them. i also dont see anything he has said to be vague at all, personally i think if you dont agree with his theory, then dont agree, but there is no need to relentlessly attack him over it. we all have our own ideas on what is to happen in revelations, but in reality we can only stick concretly to three things, christ is coming back, the whole world will be judged, and his people will be restored and inherit his kingdom. and what are you talking about the israel missing piece?

He says there is no connection between Israel and the Ottoman Empire. Well here is another coincide with the bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megiddo_%281918%29

England and the Ottoman Empire battle in Megiddo (Armageddon), months before the Empire surrenders.

Just one more connection between the Ottoman Empire and the bible.

Megiddo is the location of the most battles in world history, so that doesn't really surprise me all that much.