NationStates Jolt Archive

Who has ever read this part of the bible? I did and its very interesting. What are your thoughts on it?

Asylumny']Who has ever read this part of the bible? I did and its very interesting. What are your thoughts on it?

The fact that its cool.



I also love it when Christian fanatics get all bent out of shape about the World Ending everytime theres a Middle East Crisis. EVERY time, I hear some Church is saying the End is Nigh. Ironic thing is, the end has been nigh for 1,700 years.....

True true. Next is 2012

Asylumny']True true. Next is 2012

What do you mean?

The strange thing it mentions God talking with a two sworeded tongue. I looked and it says when someone speaks with a two sworded tongue it means they are lieing

They say the end of the world is 2012

Asylumny']The strange thing it mentions God talking with a two sworeded tongue. I looked and it says when someone speaks with a two sworded tongue it means they are lieing

Revelations was written in a style known as Apocalyptic. Its a code. One that only early Christians would understand. Since they are all dead, and the knowlege of them exterminated, we have no idea what it means.


Though there is alot of evidence it is refferring to the Roman Empire.....

Asylumny']They say the end of the world is 2012

Huh, thats the same year I graduate college and enter the army....

what are you going to be doing in the army?

Asylumny']what are you going to be doing in the army?

Army Ranger.

Asylumny']what are you going to be doing in the army?

"Special" Forces.

ok a little quiz

1.Whats an army ranger (I just want to see if you know)

"Special" Forces.


Im picturing a squad of retarded soldiers, led by the guy from "Life Goes On", Corky.

Asylumny']ok a little quiz

1.Whats an army ranger (I just want to see if you know)


Rambo.

Im picturing a squad of retarded soldiers, led by the guy from "Life Goes On", Corky.

lol this is sig worthy

Asylumny']ok a little quiz

1.Whats an army ranger (I just want to see if you know)

An Army Ranger is light infantry. Their mission is to quick strike at an enemy, eliminate the target, and pull out. They train 50 weeks out of the year for combat, and they are perpetually ready to be deployed in 18 hours, making them the most effiecent light infantry force in the world.


They were formed in the French and Indian War. In World War Two Rangers stormed Omaha Beach, and climbed Pont du Hoc. In Korea, they served as a light infantry reaction force. In Vietnam, they performed Recom missions, deep behind enemy lines, and had the most dangerous training school in the world, the final test being to engage enemy forces. Survive and you pass.

On October 3rd 1993 a company of Rangers launched Operation Restore Hope in Somalia, in cooperation with 1st SFOD (DELTA Force) Navy SEALS, 160th SOAR (Special Operations Aviation Regiment) and Air Force Special Forces. This would turn out to be the largest firefight since the Vietnam War, ending in the deaths of 18 Rangers and Delta Operators. Two of which recieved the Medal of Honor (Randy Gordon was one's name...). They served in Iraq and Afghanistan.


I know about the Rangers ;)

The book is interesting, and yes, it's a code and there's no way we would understand it fully. I would recommend you read the hole NT first before you read Revelation as it will be much more meaningful.

Asylumny']Who has ever read this part of the bible? I did and its very interesting. What are your thoughts on it?

It's just a bad acid trip of a weird fanatic retard.

Asylumny']Who has ever read this part of the bible? I did and its very interesting. What are your thoughts on it?
It is interesting, but it's mostly symbolism, not literal fact.

It's my favorite Bible book.

Revelations was written in a style known as Apocalyptic. Its a code. One that only early Christians would understand. Since they are all dead, and the knowlege of them exterminated, we have no idea what it means.


Though there is alot of evidence it is refferring to the Roman Empire.....


The Secret Message of Jesus
Uncovering the Truth that could Change Everything

??

Asylumny']Who has ever read this part of the bible? I did and its very interesting. What are your thoughts on it?
Some of its actually quite entertaining!

Book of Revelations = Allegory

It's a story with a moral, nothing else.

Asylumny']Who has ever read this part of the bible? I did and its very interesting. What are your thoughts on it?

I have read it and it goes to show that God will go to great lengths to make you see the error of your ways. He is showing us what the price is for not acccepting His Son, Jesus.

I recall reading something that the events encoded in Revelation actually occured in the 1st century AD and were meant to describe the Roman occupation of Judea and the effects it would have on the Jewish and Christian communities. After all, Jesus did say he would return during the lives of his first apostles so it makes sense when viewed from that angle.

Asylumny']The strange thing it mentions God talking with a two sworeded tongue. I looked and it says when someone speaks with a two sworded tongue it means they are lieing

Can you please show me where you got that for me? thanks.

The book is interesting, and yes, it's a code and there's no way we would understand it fully. I would recommend you read the hole NT first before you read Revelation as it will be much more meaningful.

How is it a code? It is straight forward writing. It describes the 21 Judgements of God and the battel between Good and Evil.

And FYI, Revelations is in the new testiment so if you are going to read all of the New Testiment, you'll wind up reading Revelations.

Besides, what is said in Revelations is said in other books of the Bible too.

What do you mean?

The Mayan calander, which was acruate to the day though it was made almost 1000 years ago, mysteriously ends on December 12, 2012.

;)

What's really funny is that somehow this has been adopted by many christians as the day god will decide to pack in his Earth project.

It is interesting, but it's mostly symbolism, not literal fact.

I'm sorry but I am going to have to call you out on this one. Some of it is probably symbolic, but most of it is straight forward facts.

I have read it and it goes to show that God will go to great lengths to make you see the error of your ways. He is showing us what the price is for not acccepting His Son, Jesus.


Yeah there is such a big problem with non intergration of people in the World. Its just that God is a fairly powerful parent. Does Jesus call God Dad?

I'm sorry but I am going to have to call you out on this one. Some of it is probably symbolic, but most of it is straight forward facts.

And you verify those facts from....what?

Just because you believe in something does not make it fact. If you want to claim it's fact, provide substantiation.

Yes, we all know about the Mayan calendar. Clearly though, the Mayans got tired of making it.

The Mayan calander, which was acruate to the day though it was made almost 1000 years ago, mysteriously ends on December 12, 2012.

That is, uniquely enough, evidence of why the Mayan culture failed. A calendar says an awful lot about a civilization.

Asylumny']Who has ever read this part of the bible? I did and its very interesting. What are your thoughts on it?
i think its crap that never should have been put into the bible. it had no relevance then and it has no relevance now.

. . .is a crock.

The Mayan calander, which was acruate to the day though it was made almost 1000 years ago, mysteriously ends on December 12, 2012.

;)

What's really funny is that somehow this has been adopted by many christians as the day god will decide to pack in his Earth project.

I hate to break this to most Christians but if that were so, we would already be in the Tribulation and we are not.

Also, we are to ignore those who think they know when the Lord Savior is coming back.

Yeah there is such a big problem with non intergration of people in the World. Its just that God is a fairly powerful parent. Does Jesus call God Dad?

He does call him Father.

And you verify those facts from....what?

Just because you believe in something does not make it fact. If you want to claim it's fact, provide substantiation.

If you followed what is said in Revelations and compare it to what other prophets have said, you can see a stark similarity in writings. Revelations points to an anti-christ and the prophet Daniel states in his manuscript that there will be a covenant of 7 years between the anti-christ and Israel. Now if you look at the 21 Judgments, they take place over 7 years which begins with the signing of the peace treaty between the Anti-Christ and Israel. Ironically a treaty that will be violated 3.5 years later with the descretation of the Temple.

The evidence of fact is there. Yes there is some symbolism but a closer look at the words will show facts and not symbols for the judgments, the Anti-Christ, and Jesus's glorious appearing.

i think its crap that never should have been put into the bible. it had no relevance then and it has no relevance now.

Despite the end time prophecies mention by Jesus and others that are in the bible? It has more relevence in my opinion.

He does call him Father.
he does instruct us all to call god "daddy".

he does instruct us all to call god "daddy".

To call him Father yes.

If you followed what is said in Revelations and compare it to what other prophets have said, you can see a stark similarity in writings. Revelations points to an anti-christ and the prophet Daniel states in his manuscript that there will be a covenant of 7 years between the anti-christ and Israel. Now if you look at the 21 Judgments, they take place over 7 years which begins with the signing of the peace treaty between the Anti-Christ and Israel. Ironically a treaty that will be violated 3.5 years later with the descretation of the Temple.

The evidence of fact is there. Yes there is some symbolism but a closer look at the words will show facts and not symbols for the judgments, the Anti-Christ, and Jesus's glorious appearing.

In other words, to support the "truth" of a part of the bible, you point to...other parts of the bible?

May it be worth pointing out that the reason revelations may match with other parts of the bible is because the person who wrote it....knew the bible?

You assume revelations is true because it matches with parts of the bible, without even admitting the possibility that it is this way BECAUSE it was written to match the bible?

Despite the end time prophecies mention by Jesus and others that are in the bible? It has more relevence in my opinion.
those end times ended with the fall of the roman empire at the latest since rome and nero were the whore of babylon mentioned in the text.

all of these things were to come to pass before the "current" generation passed which was well before the decision of what books to include in the new testament

In other words, to support the "truth" of a part of the bible, you point to...other parts of the bible?

Its called verification. The End Time prophecies are all throughout the Bible.

May it be worth pointing out that the reason revelations may match with other parts of the bible is because the person who wrote it....knew the bible?

You can make that claim if you wish for it is true that John did know it but if you read it carefully, you can see that though he wrote it, he saw it. Also, you are forgetting that not everything is mentioned in the other books with end time events. Paul tells us that we will not be here during the Tribulation which is not mentioned in the Book of Revelations. Jesus talks about his reappearence and it is shown in John's vision. Daniel talks about the treaty between the anti-christ and israel.

You assume revelations is true because it matches with parts of the bible, without even admitting the possibility that it is this way BECAUSE it was written to match the bible?

I take Bible Prophecy very seriously and I do take most of it literally. You may not and that is your choice but you have no proof that it is all symbolism just like I cannot prove that most of it is literal.

To call him Father yes.

not father, DADDY

shouldnt you know this?

those end times ended with the fall of the roman empire at the latest since rome and nero were the whore of babylon mentioned in the text.

Are you sure they did? If that is the case then why aren't we in the everlasting Kingdom of Heaven? The evidence was not there for his immediate return for the Nation of Israel did not exist. Kind of hard to have end time prophecy fullfilled if your key nation did not exist.

all of these things were to come to pass before the "current" generation passed which was well before the decision of what books to include in the new testament

Now tell me what God's definition of a generation is.

I take Bible Prophecy very seriously and I do take most of it literally. You may not and that is your choice but you have no proof that it is all symbolism just like I cannot prove that most of it is literal.

True, and as long as we respect each other's right to believe what we want, I have no issue.

I do in some way on an intellectual level minorly object to something being called "fact" when its factual certainty can not be actually proven. You may believe it's fact, but can no sooner demonstrate it's fact then I can that it's not.

not father, DADDY

shouldnt you know this?

Yes I do know and I know it is Father.

True, and as long as we respect each other's right to believe what we want, I have no issue.

Well I do not have an issue with you but it was a nice little debate. I appreciate it :)

I do in some way on an intellectual level minorly object to something being called "fact" when its factual certainty can not be actually proven. You may believe it's fact, but can no sooner demonstrate it's fact then I can that it's not.

Yea well....I discuss this with my friends alot and have read books on Bible Prophecy. So yea some of it is symbolism and some of it isn't. I'm not out to convince people of that but to win them over to the Lord's side.

Are you sure they did? If that is the case then why aren't we in the everlasting Kingdom of Heaven? The evidence was not there for his immediate return for the Nation of Israel did not exist. Kind of hard to have end time prophecy fullfilled if your key nation did not exist.



Now tell me what God's definition of a generation is.

as you well know, there were many many christian writings that could have been put into the bible but weren't for various reasons. MEN decided what the final form of the bible would be, not god.

that we arent in the everlasting kingdom of heaven is evidence that the book of revelations is crap and should never have been added in with the other christian writings that make up the new testament.

as you well know, there were many many christian writings that could have been put into the bible but weren't for various reasons. MEN decided what the final form of the bible would be, not god.

How do you know that God did not show them what should and shouldn't be placed in the Bible?

that we arent in the everlasting kingdom of heaven is evidence that the book of revelations is crap and should never have been added in with the other christian writings that make up the new testament.

Wow...such hatred and dishonesty and a total disregard of prophecy. As I pointed out, how can the end time events come to pass when Israel did not exist as a nation?

I hate to break this to most Christians but if that were so, we would already be in the Tribulation and we are not.

Also, we are to ignore those who think they know when the Lord Savior is coming back.

Yeah, back when I was into the "LEft Behind" series, I remembered the whole 2012 thing and realized that if Judgement Day really was in 2012, quite a few of us would be gone a year ago.

And about the Roman Empire stuff, and the code... maybe it was symbolic for the fall of the Roman Empire??? I don't know... why couldn't they just make the entire Bible straightforward?!?! :mad: :confused:

If you followed what is said in Revelations and compare it to what other prophets have said, you can see a stark similarity in writings. Revelations points to an anti-christ and the prophet Daniel states in his manuscript that there will be a covenant of 7 years between the anti-christ and Israel. Now if you look at the 21 Judgments, they take place over 7 years which begins with the signing of the peace treaty between the Anti-Christ and Israel. Ironically a treaty that will be violated 3.5 years later with the descretation of the Temple.

The evidence of fact is there. Yes there is some symbolism but a closer look at the words will show facts and not symbols for the judgments, the Anti-Christ, and Jesus's glorious appearing.

The thing with such apocalyptic writing is that some are literal, and some are symbols. However, there are usually clues throughout the writing as to show what is to be literally interpreted, and what is to be symbolically interpreted, and then there are usually clues throughout the writing as to how to interpret the symbols. If course, as it's interpreted, there will be 325987340698734609837609843.3 different views on it, but meh.

Yeah, back when I was into the "LEft Behind" series, I remembered the whole 2012 thing and realized that if Judgement Day really was in 2012, quite a few of us would be gone a year ago.

And about the Roman Empire stuff, and the code... maybe it was symbolic for the fall of the Roman Empire??? I don't know... why couldn't they just make the entire Bible straightforward?!?! :mad: :confused:

Left Behind is a decent read, but biblically full of errors.

How do you know that God did not show them what should and shouldn't be placed in the Bible?



Wow...such hatred and dishonesty and a total disregard of prophecy. As I pointed out, how can the end time events come to pass when Israel did not exist as a nation?
God I pray people will stop responding to your inane crap so this thread can die its well-deserved death. . .

oops, did it myself :eek:

How do you know that God did not show them what should and shouldn't be placed in the Bible?

I don't know anything about Ashmoria, but remember, very few people in General are actually Christians.

Yeah, back when I was into the "LEft Behind" series, I remembered the whole 2012 thing and realized that if Judgement Day really was in 2012, quite a few of us would be gone a year ago.

Oh I love the left behind series. Yea it is religious fiction but I still love the series. I even have all 3 movies :D

And about the Roman Empire stuff, and the code... maybe it was symbolic for the fall of the Roman Empire??? I don't know... why couldn't they just make the entire Bible straightforward?!?! :mad: :confused:

Ya know? I don't think there really is a code. You can say there is but the prophecy itself is straight forward. As to the collapse of the Roman Empire, that was predicted back in Daniel :D

The Mayan calander, which was acruate to the day though it was made almost 1000 years ago, mysteriously ends on December 12, 2012.

Actually, it doesn't. The current baktun, or 400 year period, ends on 12/12/12; that's a significant event, but far from the end of the world. The end of the world is a long ways away, to say the least. We can see what happened the last time a baktun ended by examining the year 1611; the 30 Years' War started, but other than that it was far from the end of the world. I think we'll be alright on December 13, 2012.

The thing with such apocalyptic writing is that some are literal, and some are symbols. However, there are usually clues throughout the writing as to show what is to be literally interpreted, and what is to be symbolically interpreted, and then there are usually clues throughout the writing as to how to interpret the symbols. If course, as it's interpreted, there will be 325987340698734609837609843.3 different views on it, but meh.

Hehe so very true.

I don't know anything about Ashmoria, but remember, very few people in General are actually Christians.

Ah thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

Yes I do know and I know it is Father.
start with
Romans 8:15 (NIV Bible)
"For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."

what do you think ABBA means?

i know there is one also in the gospel but im on my way out the door and dont have any more time to look for it.

start with
Romans 8:15 (NIV Bible)
"For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."

what do you think ABBA means?

i know there is one also in the gospel but im on my way out the door and dont have any more time to look for it.
Translated into modern English it means, "Swedish Rock Band, Daddy."

start with
Romans 8:15 (NIV Bible)
"For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."

what do you think ABBA means?

ABBA is an Aramic for Father :rolleys:

Left Behind is a decent read, but biblically full of errors.

Yeah.... I liked it though... Pretty cool stuff. It would have been cooler if my favorite character didn't die and if they didn't get a lot of stuff wrong. Who really expects insects to go flying around looking like some awful cross between a lion and a horse, that yells "APOLLYON! ABBADON!!!" (Greek and Hebrew words for "Devil", apparently.) Some of the symbolic stuff I think got messed up, but it's still good. :)

Yeah.... I liked it though... Pretty cool stuff. It would have been cooler if my favorite character didn't die and if they didn't get a lot of stuff wrong. Who really expects insects to go flying around looking like some awful cross between a lion and a horse, that yells "APOLLYON! ABBADON!!!" (Greek and Hebrew words for "Devil", apparently.) Some of the symbolic stuff I think got messed up, but it's still good. :)

So tell me what the 5th trumpet judgment is supposed to symbolize?

So tell me what the 5th trumpet judgment is supposed to symbolize?

No clue. I don't remember- I don't think I have that book. I read most of the kids' series at school, and actually own copies of 5 of the books... but I don't recall what everything is supposed to mean.

No clue. I don't remember- I don't think I have that book. I read most of the kids' series at school, and actually own copies of 5 of the books... but I don't recall what everything is supposed to mean.

I have all 15 books and can't wait for the last book to come out next year.

The only one that knows when the world will end is God. The Tribulation could start in the next few seconds or in hundreds of years. Nobody knows and they won't know until it happens. I don't know why everyone belives somebody when they start saying, "The world will end in 2012," or "It will be a long time before the world ends."

I should point out that I do think all 21 Judgments are to be taken literally but then that is my opinion. I know people will believe differently than me and that is a-ok by me.

I have all 15 books and can't wait for the last book to come out next year.
The last one comes out next year? Great! Maybe the whole series can then sink into oblivion :rolleyes:

The only one that knows when the world will end is God.

This is most indeed true. Something that alot of people forget.

The Tribulation could start in the next few seconds or in hundreds of years.

Luckily, I won't be here when the Tribulation happens :D

Nobody knows and they won't know until it happens.

"like a thief in the night" You are right about that :)

I don't know why everyone belives somebody when they start saying, "The world will end in 2012," or "It will be a long time before the world ends."

Human nature probably.

I have all 15 books and can't wait for the last book to come out next year.

There's 15...? You must be readign the adult Left Behind then, there's like 35 or so in the kids' series. Heh.

There's 15...? You must be readign the adult Left Behind then, there's like 35 or so in the kids' series. Heh.

Yep I am talking about the Adult version. I have the first 2 kids books and thinking about getting the rest because I do have the first 2 books.

And when I mean by 15 is that there are the 12 original books plus the 3 prequils. Just in case you didn't know :)

Yep I am talking about the Adult version. I have the first 2 kids books and thinking about getting the rest because I do have the first 2 books.

And when I mean by 15 is that there are the 12 original books plus the 3 prequils. Just in case you didn't know :)

Ah, okay. I've seen some of the books but never bought them. :p

[QUOTE=Alleghany County]
Luckily, I won't be here when the Tribulation happens :D
QUOTE]

Me either.

Ah, okay. I've seen some of the books but never bought them. :p

you should. :)

[QUOTE=Alleghany County]
Luckily, I won't be here when the Tribulation happens :D
QUOTE]

Me either.

Sweet :)

I'm off for now. If ya like to talk some more, look me up :)

Asylumny']Who has ever read this part of the bible? I did and its very interesting. What are your thoughts on it?

it is quite interesting and is a book that really catches your attention
it makes me think about how the world will end and crazy stuff
I don't take all the words in there literally because they may refer to other things or have symbolic meanings

Luckily, I won't be here when the Tribulation happens :D

So you think.

I should point out that I do think all 21 Judgments are to be taken literally but then that is my opinion. I know people will believe differently than me and that is a-ok by me.

That's pretty naive. It's apolcalyptic writing -- the Book says it in the title. A lot of it is not meant to be interpreted literally, and doing so is kinda dumb. Apolcalyptic writing is basically a massive puzzle, only some of the pieces you have to flip over to find out what they are, and some pieces you don't get until you match it with another.

So you think.

Yep for the Bible tells that if you accept the Lord Savior Jesus and live according to His word that you will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

That's pretty naive. It's apolcalyptic writing -- the Book says it in the title. A lot of it is not meant to be interpreted literally, and doing so is kinda dumb. Apolcalyptic writing is basically a massive puzzle, only some of the pieces you have to flip over to find out what they are, and some pieces you don't get until you match it with another.

Like the 4 Horsemen! I can say that is Symbolic for the Anti-Christ will conquer with Peace (the White Horse), then take it away when World War III breaks out (Red Horse), and after this massive global war there will be Plaques and famine (Black Horse), and death (Pale Horse). One thing does lead to another has history has always shown us. The earthquakes though are more than likely literal. The Two witnesses are literal, and darkening of the skies by 1/3 is probably literal to.

To call me naive for what I believe is really stupid and arrogent of you. I have not told you that what you believe is wrong to to say what I believe to be naive makes you ignorant of other beliefs.

I'm an atheist but I love the bible, I have hundruds that I stole from motel rooms.

I'm an atheist but I love the bible, I have hundruds that I stole from motel rooms.

How many have you stolen?! :eek:

How many have you stolen?! :eek:

He said "hundruds". That's like hundreds, only more.

How do you know that God did not show them what should and shouldn't be placed in the Bible?

because if god were revealing things to them they would have mentioned it.


Wow...such hatred and dishonesty and a total disregard of prophecy. As I pointed out, how can the end time events come to pass when Israel did not exist as a nation?
hatred? dishonesty? disregard?

that you want it to say what you believe in doesnt negate anything ive said or make it hateful. if the prophecy would have been true, the kingdom of israel would have been re-established. it wasnt so the prophesy is crap.

oh, and abba means dad.

because if god were revealing things to them they would have mentioned it.

Are we talking about the commission that put the Bible together or something else?


Wow...such hatred and dishonesty and a total disregard of prophecy. As I pointed out, how can the end time events come to pass when Israel did not exist as a nation?
hatred? dishonesty? disregard?

Yes for the simple reason that you ignored all the parts about Israel existing.

that you want it to say what you believe in doesnt negate anything ive said or make it hateful. if the prophecy would have been true, the kingdom of israel would have been re-established. it wasnt so the prophesy is crap.

You forgot that it never states the Kingdom of Israel. All it says was Israel. And now that it has been re-established as a nation.....

Are we talking about the commission that put the Bible together or something else?

yes. as you know, there were something like 100 books that could have been included in the bible. the book of thomas, the gospel of judas, the gospel of mary magdalene, the acts of peter. others.

the commission picked the books they thought best represented pauline christianity and supressed the rest. during the protestant reformation, protestant scholars reworked the list so that the protestant bible and the catholic bible contain different books.

in my opinion both groups should have ditched revelations.


Yes for the simple reason that you ignored all the parts about Israel existing.

thats an odd notion of hateful


You forgot that it never states the Kingdom of Israel. All it says was Israel. And now that it has been re-established as a nation.....

that doesnt negate my point in the least.

oh, and abba means dad.

Actually ABBA means father. I even looked it up myself. It is Aramic for father.

It is no more interesting or insightful than any other rambling, poorly written and poorly conceived fiction.

Actually ABBA means father. I even looked it up myself. It is Aramic for father.
here's a discussion of it that says it better than i could


When Jesus taught this prayer, He must have shocked those who were listening to Him when He said, 'Our Father'. The word for 'Father' is 'Abba', meaning 'Papa'. Keep in mind that in the Old Testament, God was addressed as Elohim, the Strong One; El Shaddai, the Mighty One; Yahweh, the unspeakable word which meant, 'I Am that I Am'.

Why did Jesus suddenly say, 'When you pray, call God Daddy, Papa, Abba, Father?' Was He no longer the Powerful, Unspeakable, Omnipotent God of the Old Testament? Did God change? No. God didn't change. We did


from http://www.rapturealert.com/theperfectprayer.html which is a discussion of the lord's prayer.

Yep for the Bible tells that if you accept the Lord Savior Jesus and live according to His word that you will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

And this has nothing to do with the timing of the Tribulation. I never said you weren't going to Heaven -- that's not my place to decide -- I simply questioned your thinking of not being there when the Tribulation happens. I, personally, don't believe in a Rapture at all.

To call me naive for what I believe is really stupid and arrogent of you. I have not told you that what you believe is wrong to to say what I believe to be naive makes you ignorant of other beliefs.

You misunderstood me. I said it was naive to take everything literally, because it's not supposed to be ALL taken literally. Seeing what you posted, you misstated your position. If it was literal, you would see a white horse decend from heaven with a sword and rule, a red horse with a sword slaughter the people, and a literal horse, etc, etc. You obviously don't think you should take everything literally. Just some misunderstandings.

here's a discussion of it that says it better than i could



from http://www.rapturealert.com/theperfectprayer.html which is a discussion of the lord's prayer.

Actually, this link proves my point as it saya ABBA is father. I would like to know though what he used to translate the word since in all the translations I have read ABBA means father as ABBA is Aramic for father.

And this has nothing to do with the timing of the Tribulation. I never said you weren't going to Heaven -- that's not my place to decide -- I simply questioned your thinking of not being there when the Tribulation happens. I, personally, don't believe in a Rapture at all.

So I guess you do not believe in what the Apostle Paul said in regards that we will not be here during the events described in Revelations?

You misunderstood me. I said it was naive to take everything literally, because it's not supposed to be ALL taken literally.

Not all of no.

Seeing what you posted, you misstated your position. If it was literal, you would see a white horse decend from heaven with a sword and rule, a red horse with a sword slaughter the people, and a literal horse, etc, etc. You obviously don't think you should take everything literally. Just some misunderstandings.

Literal can take many forms. Don't we call people who bring peace the rider on the white horse?

Actually ABBA means father. I even looked it up myself. It is Aramic for father.


Definition: Abba
Aramaic (not Arabic) word meaning "Daddy" a very intimate way to identify one's father. Jesus used the word in prayer to God. To call someone "Abba" is to indicate a very close, special, unique bond.
http://www.disciplesnow.com/catholic/article.cfm?id=189


Abba (or Aba) means "father" in most Semitic languages. Most modern Israelis (along with other semitic-speaking peoples) call their fathers Abba as one would use "Dad" or "Daddy" in English.
http://www.babylon.com/definition/Abba/English


The revelation of God lay at the heart of Jesus' teaching. Jesus called Him "Father" and taught His disciples to do the same. But the term that He used when He called God "Father" was Abba (Mark 14:36), the term of affection that children used when they addressed their father at home or spoke about him to others. It was not unusual for God to be addressed in prayer as "my Father" or "our Father." But it was most unusual for Him to be called Abba. By using this term, Jesus expressed His sense of nearness to God and His total trust in Him. He taught His followers to look to God with the trust that children show when they expect their earthly fathers to provide them with food, clothes, and shelter.
http://www.studytheword.citymax.com/page/page/3113930.htm

Actually, this link proves my point as it saya ABBA is father. I would like to know though what he used to translate the word since in all the translations I have read ABBA means father as ABBA is Aramic for father.

guess you didnt look deep enough, its not as if he is the only one who defines it that way, i quoted him for the discussion.

many people are uncomfortable with the idea of calling god not the formal FATHER but the informal DAD. it implies truly being the children of god in a way that "father" never can.

I beleive the correct name for the book is "The Revelation of St. John", not revelations...Just to be picky about it. Anyways, i do read it alot, along with all the other prophecy books of the bible. I find them to be quite interesting.

guess you didnt look deep enough, its not as if he is the only one who defines it that way, i quoted him for the discussion.

Actually, I read the entire link. No idea how he arrived at that for he never talked about it.

many people are uncomfortable with the idea of calling god not the formal FATHER but the informal DAD. it implies truly being the children of god in a way that "father" never can.

I have 2 different translations of the bible here that states that ABBA is Aramic for Father. So until such time as you can point to me where ABBA is translated into Daddy (which is false) then I'll believe you. You have not done so yet.

guess you didnt look deep enough, its not as if he is the only one who defines it that way, i quoted him for the discussion.

many people are uncomfortable with the idea of calling god not the formal FATHER but the informal DAD. it implies truly being the children of god in a way that "father" never can.


Yeah, it goes more along the lines of daddy, as you said, to show being a child of God.

So I guess you do not believe in what the Apostle Paul said in regards that we will not be here during the events described in Revelations?



When did Paul reference Revelations?

So I guess you do not believe in what the Apostle Paul said in regards that we will not be here during the events described in Revelations?

what did paul say? chapter and verse please.

Definition: Abba
Aramaic (not Arabic) word meaning "Daddy" a very intimate way to identify one's father. Jesus used the word in prayer to God. To call someone "Abba" is to indicate a very close, special, unique bond.
http://www.disciplesnow.com/catholic/article.cfm?id=189

And how did they translate it? Its nice they have the defnition but how did they arrive at it?

So I guess you do not believe in what the Apostle Paul said in regards that we will not be here during the events described in Revelations?



I wouldn't believe anything paul said, anymore that anything Joseph Smith said. Ok...well scratch that, I wouldn't believe MOST of what paul said.

So I guess you do not believe in what the Apostle Paul said in regards that we will not be here during the events described in Revelations?

Where did he say that?

Literal can take many forms. Don't we call people who bring peace the rider on the white horse?

Actually, I've never heard that expression before. :D

Where did he say that?
In that one passage, in that one book..You know...that one time.



Actually, I've never heard that expression before. :D

Makes two of us.

I take Bible Prophecy very seriously and I do take most of it literally. You may not and that is your choice but you have no proof that it is all symbolism just like I cannot prove that most of it is literal.

Do you really expect to see a man carrying a balance riding a horse? Or what about the horses that shoot fire out of their mouth? Yeah...love literalism..

Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvaion through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell ow you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, ad to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead-Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

I'll even throw in a couple of Jesus quotes: John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. Luke 21:36--Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.

Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvaion through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell ow you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, ad to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead-Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

I'll even throw in a couple of Jesus quotes: John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. Luke 21:36--Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.
romans and thessalonians were written well before revelations.

john and luke may have been written at the same time or a bit later but they refer to things that occurred far before revelations. luke is referring to the destruction of jerusalem that occurred after jesus and before luke was written.

romans and thessalonians were written well before revelations.

john and luke may have been written at the same time or a bit later but they refer to things that occurred far before revelations. luke is referring to the destruction of jerusalem that occurred after jesus and before luke was written.

Are you an expert on Bible Prophecy? No? Didn't think so. Neither am I but at least I'm not a closed minded individual

Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvaion through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell ow you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, ad to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead-Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.


Sooo, "wrath" means, the Tribulation that John writes about in his record of his vision?

Perhaps it actually means Judgement before God. I know I'd much rather suffer through 3 and a half years of tribulations than have to stand before God's Judgement without the atonement of Christ's sacrifice.


I'll even throw in a couple of Jesus quotes: John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.

No mention there of being pulled out of any tribulation.

Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.

If I'm going to be raptured, why would I need to pray to escape it?

Sooo, "wrath" means, the Tribulation that John writes about in his record of his vision?

Perhaps it actually means Judgement before God. I know I'd much rather suffer through 3 and a half years of tribulations than have to stand before God's Judgement without the atonement of Christ's sacrifice.

Luckily for me that I do have atonement of Christ's sacrifice so I would much rather be in heaven before God unleashes His judgments on this planet.

No mention there of being pulled out of any tribulation.

It stands to reason though that if there isn't a rapture then why prepare a place at all?

If I'm going to be raptured, why would I need to pray to escape it?

Because as a Christian, you believe in the Lord and you always pray to the Lord for guidance. A christian who doesn't pray isn't a Christian at all.

Are you an expert on Bible Prophecy? No? Didn't think so. Neither am I but at least I'm not a closed minded individual

you are the one who claimed that paul made a comment on the book of revelations. how could he have been commenting on a book that hadnt been written yet?

that they may both refer to events in the future doesnt mean they are referring to the same events or that they are comments on each other.

you are the one who claimed that paul made a comment on the book of revelations. how could he have been commenting on a book that hadnt been written yet?

I did not say he made a comment on the book, I said in regards to it. Maybe the phrase wasn't the best in the world, and I apolize for that. I guess I should have said in respect to. That might have been better.

When you take what Paul said and look at the Book of revelations, you notice that the church is not around during the tribulation. Jesus even said that those who have accepted Him will not be here when God's wrath comes down on earth.

that they may both refer to events in the future doesnt mean they are referring to the same events or that they are comments on each other.

And you have proof of this how?

And you have proof of this how?
my statement doesnt require proof. it either makes sense on its own or it doesnt. maybe you should read it again.

as i read them again, i dont see that the roman and thessalonian quotes need have anything to do with the end times at all.

And you have proof of this how?

What proof do you have that it isn't?

If you want to speculate without hard proof, that's your right. But you can't argue someone else's inability to do the same.

You can not PROVE any of this. Nobody has been able to prove, conclusivly, that Jesus Christ the MAN even existed, let alone the son of god, resurrected and ascended to heaven bit.

They can't even conclusivly demonstrate he was ever even ALIVE, let alone go about proving the rest.

So nobody has any proof, and getting snippy about failure to meet a burden of proof you could never hope to meet yourself isn't going to get you anywhere.

What proof do you have that it isn't?

For the simple fact that I have read the scriptures.

If you want to speculate without hard proof, that's your right. But you can't argue someone else's inability to do the same.

I'm not. I should have asked how he arrived at his conclusions. That is why I am not an English Major :p

You can not PROVE any of this. Nobody has been able to prove, conclusivly, that Jesus Christ the MAN even existed, let alone the son of god, resurrected and ascended to heaven bit.

Well..if I'm reading things right, the Muslims also think that Jesus was a prophet. So if the Muslims think that he was a prophet then it is safe to assume that Jesus was indeed a real person.

They can't even conclusivly demonstrate he was ever even ALIVE, let alone go about proving the rest.

The End time prophecies are coming true before our eyes. I could point to several that have come true.

So nobody has any proof, and getting snippy about failure to meet a burden of proof you could never hope to meet yourself isn't going to get you anywhere.

The burden of proof is in the news.

Well..if I'm reading things right, the Muslims also think that Jesus was a prophet. So if the Muslims think that he was a prophet then it is safe to assume that Jesus was indeed a real person.

At the risk of being "punny"....the hell?

The End time prophecies are coming true before our eyes. I could point to several that have come true.

Every year someone points to some scripture that and says that some prophesy is being fulfilled. THere was a website, and I wish I could find it, where someone listed all the times various religious groups were SURE that the end of the world was comming, and pointed to all sorts of prophetic texts that supported that. Every time there was some bit of prophesy that they were SURE was heralding the end times played out right before their eyes.

We're still here.

The burden of proof is in the news.

See above, given enough time I could find DOZENS of examples when various people were SURE that the end was nih, that prophesy was being fulfilled, that THIS WAS IT, FOR REAL THIS TIME!

We're still here.

You'll have to do better than that.

Every year someone points to some scripture that and says that some prophesy is being fulfilled. THere was a website, and I wish I could find it, where someone listed all the times various religious groups were SURE that the end of the world was comming, and pointed to all sorts of prophetic texts that supported that. Every time there was some bit of prophesy that they were SURE was heralding the end times played out right before their eyes.

We're still here.

Yes we are still here but that does not mean that Prophecy isn't coming true. As I said, I can point to the fullfillment of prophecy right now. It is unfolding before our eyes. We are still here because it is not yet time for God's wrath though it is vastly approaching. No one knows when that time will come. Not even the angels in Heaven know when it will occur. Only God does. That is why we are watchful for his coming for he will come like a thief in the night.

See above, given enough time I could find DOZENS of examples when various people were SURE that the end was nih, that prophesy was being fulfilled, that THIS WAS IT, FOR REAL THIS TIME!

We're still here.

You'll have to do better than that.

It isn't my job to judge what you believe just like it isn't your job to tell me what to believe. All I can do is to tell you the Good News of the Lord but the choice to recognize him is soley up to you. Do not wait to long however.

Yes we are still here but that does not mean that Prophecy isn't coming true. As I said, I can point to the fullfillment of prophecy right now. It is unfolding before our eyes. We are still here because it is not yet time for God's wrath though it is vastly approaching. No one knows when that time will come. Not even the angels in Heaven know when it will occur. Only God does. That is why we are watchful for his coming for he will come like a thief in the night.


i just dont get the point of being watchful for the end times. billions of christians have lived and died in the past 2000 years without the end times coming. they are judged based on the life that they lived. as we will be. we should be more concerned that will die tomorrow than that the end times will come in the next few years.

i just dont get the point of being watchful for the end times. billions of christians have lived and died in the past 2000 years without the end times coming. they are judged based on the life that they lived. as we will be. we should be more concerned that will die tomorrow than that the end times will come in the next few years.

That is why we should live every moment like it could be our last. I am not looking forward to the endtimes but I am not going to live my life without knowledge of events fortold in the bible. I find the prophecy to be very fascinating and that it deserves more studying.

On the Endtimes:
Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:36 NAB)

The apocolpyse already happened! We are merely living in
a Devil's dream!

I'm not out to convince people of that but to win them over to the Lord's side.
Meh ... " 'tis better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven."

On the Endtimes:
Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:36 NAB)

The apocolpyse already happened! We are merely living in
a Devil's dream!

So what generation was he talking about?

On the Endtimes:
Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:36 NAB)

The apocolpyse already happened! We are merely living in
a Devil's dream!

is it depressing or liberating to know that we are "the left behind"?

So what generation was he talking about?
Well, if he were talking about our generation he would probably say, "That" not "this".

is it depressing or liberating to know that we are "the left behind"?
It depends on how good of a friend you are to Kirk Cameron.

So what generation was he talking about?
the new testament wasnt written to us, it was written to the people who were living at the time. it was written for a contemporary audience. "this generation" means the generation living when the work was written. to believe otherwise is to believe that the author of matthew was lying to his readers.

Well, if he were talking about our generation he would probably say, "That" not "this".

And he could've been talking about the church generation as well. Which started with the apostles at pentecost. There are many ways to interpret what Jesus ment by that and those who oppose Christianity point to that verse and declare all that we believe wrong which is quite silly and ignorant of them to do so.

It depends on how good of a friend you are to Kirk Cameron.

i dont know kirk cameron at all

so....

liberating?

And he could've been talking about the church generation as well. Which started with the apostles at pentecost. There are many ways to interpret what Jesus ment by that and those who oppose Christianity point to that verse and declare all that we believe wrong which is quite silly and ignorant of them to do so.
Not really. Christ was always pretty clear in what he said.

"Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27 NAB)

"Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power." (Mark 9:1 NAB)

Far as I know, the only person who entered heaven without tasting death was Jesus. According to the story anyway.

i dont know kirk cameron at all

so....

liberating?
The answer lies within you, little buddha.

Not really. Christ was always pretty clear in what he said.

"Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27 NAB)

"Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power." (Mark 9:1 NAB)

Far as I know, the only person who entered heaven without tasting death was Jesus. According to the story anyway.
jesus fully tasted death.

it was his mother mary who never tasted death. she was bodily assumed into heaven. at least by catholic doctrine, i have no idea what other christian sects believe.

jesus fully tasted death.

it was his mother mary who never tasted death. she was bodily assumed into heaven. at least by catholic doctrine, i have no idea what other christian sects believe.
Not the second time. The bible contains no mention of the ascension of Mary.

Not really. Christ was always pretty clear in what he said.

"Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27 NAB)

"Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power." (Mark 9:1 NAB)

Far as I know, the only person who entered heaven without tasting death was Jesus. According to the story anyway.

That is one interpretation. Not one that I ascribe too but it is one nonetheless. I put the verse down to the transfiguration that was witnessed by a few of the disciples.

jesus fully tasted death.

And was ressurrected after 3 days.

it was his mother mary who never tasted death. she was bodily assumed into heaven. at least by catholic doctrine, i have no idea what other christian sects believe.

That is a first time for me hearing this.

Not the second time.

point taken

And was ressurrected after 3 days.



That is a first time for me hearing this.
the catholic church has a feast day for the assumption, the day mary was bodily assumed into heaven.

its one of those bits of faith that, to me, falls under "ok if you want me to believe that, i dont see any reason not to"

ask your minister what your denomination believes about the death of mary. i have no idea what the protestant belief is.

Not really. Christ was always pretty clear in what he said.

"Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27 NAB)

"Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power." (Mark 9:1 NAB)

this is just another example of jesus being a tricksy bastard. basically, death is more of a color than a flavor, so nobody gets to taste it at all. but when the 'kingdom of god' show shows up, mint chocolate chip ice cream will be renamed 'death' and it will be handed out for a nominal fee.

the catholic church has a feast day for the assumption, the day mary was bodily assumed into heaven.

its one of those bits of faith that, to me, falls under "ok if you want me to believe that, i dont see any reason not to"

ask your minister what your denomination believes about the death of mary. i have no idea what the protestant belief is.

Yea I think I will ask him that. That is a very interesting question to ask. Thanks for bringing this to my attention Ashmoria. :)

the catholic church has a feast day for the assumption, the day mary was bodily assumed into heaven.

do catholics also have a feast day for randomly making shit up?

do catholics also have a feast day for randomly making shit up?
the catholic church made up alot of shit over the ages but its never random.

the catholic church made up alot of shit over the ages but its never random.

i don't know man, st. augustine is the patron saint of both theologians and brewers

i don't know man, st. augustine is the patron saint of both theologians and brewers
hmmm i dont know why he would be the patron saint of brewers but im sure it wasnt by random lottery

i do know that when german monks first sent beer to whatever pope was in office at the time, the pope thought it was so awful that he OK'd it as appropriate for monks to make. a kind of penance when compared with italian wine.

do catholics also have a feast day for randomly making shit up?
It depends what part of the world you are in and what the Catholic Church had to do to assimilate.

Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvaion through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell ow you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, ad to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead-Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

I'll even throw in a couple of Jesus quotes: John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. Luke 21:36--Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.

All of those are referring to the Lord's Final Judgement of the Lake of Fire, not escaping the Tribulation.

Not the second time. The bible contains no mention of the ascension of Mary.

You would be correct. The Catholic church has a tendency to BS a lot of stuff to secure temporal power.

But this is a Calvinist speaking, so I may be biased. :D

All of those are referring to the Lord's Final Judgement of the Lake of Fire, not escaping the Tribulation.

Only the book of Revelations (as far as I know) talks about a lake of fire. So why are you saying that John 14:3 and Luke 21:36 deal with the lake of fire? I do not see the connection there.

Only the book of Revelations (as far as I know) talks about a lake of fire. So why are you saying that John 14:3 and Luke 21:36 deal with the lake of fire? I do not see the connection there.

What's your point? The Final Judgement is the Lake of Fire. All throughout the New Testement, God's Final Judgement is mentioned, but never clarified until Revelations. The Lake of Fire is the only permanent (final) judgement God dishes out.

What's your point? The Final Judgement is the Lake of Fire. All throughout the New Testement, God's Final Judgement is mentioned, but never clarified until Revelations. The Lake of Fire is the only permanent (final) judgement God dishes out.

Except that everyone appears before the Judgment seat of Christ. Even those who are saved. What the verses are talking about Mr/Ms. Derscon is that we will not be here when God launches His wrath in (to borrow a line from the witnesses from the Left Behind Series) The last terrible week of the Lord.

Luckily for me that I do have atonement of Christ's sacrifice so I would much rather be in heaven before God unleashes His judgments on this planet.


Except that there is no clear scriptural basis to believe that you will be in Heaven, unless you die first. God's Judgement as "wrath" is all over the Bible and it certainly doesn't refer to a Tribulation each time. The only reason you think these scriptures reference a Tribulation is because someone told you it does and you bought into that MAN'S doctrine.


It stands to reason though that if there isn't a rapture then why prepare a place at all?


Why? For all believers after they die and are resurrected of course. Or is Jesus only preparing a place in the afterlife for those that happened to be alive for your Rapture? That's a bummer of a lottery system there.


Because as a Christian, you believe in the Lord and you always pray to the Lord for guidance. A christian who doesn't pray isn't a Christian at all.

I didn't ask, Why pray? I asked why pray to avoid this wrath if I already have a Get Out Of Jail Free card with the Rapture.
If the Rapture is going to whisk away every believer from a time of tribulation, there would be no reason to pray to avoid it.

Except that everyone appears before the Judgment seat of Christ. Even those who are saved. What the verses are talking about Mr/Ms. Derscon is that we will not be here when God launches His wrath in (to borrow a line from the witnesses from the Left Behind Series) The last terrible week of the Lord.

I haven't read it in awhile, but unless Christ in fact uses two thrones to judge from, you are incorrect. The "White Throne of Judgement" is specifically reserved for the un-elect, those damned.

And Snow Eaters is correct. The "Tribulation" as you are referring to probably isn't a literal seven year period. Again, I haven't read it in a long while, I'll have to go back and read it sometime, but most often than not you can assume it's not literal (because its apocalyptic) unless you can point to a series of clues that show that its literal.


Now, when you say Rapture, are you saying Christ is decending from the heavens to reclaim his elect before the tribulation?

But this is a Calvinist speaking, so I may be biased. :D

they still have calvinists?

I haven't read it in awhile, but unless Christ in fact uses two thrones to judge from, you are incorrect. The "White Throne of Judgement" is specifically reserved for the un-elect, those damned.

Who precisely are the non-elect? According to Revelations 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. It goes on to say in verse 15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire

And Snow Eaters is correct. The "Tribulation" as you are referring to probably isn't a literal seven year period. Again, I haven't read it in a long while, I'll have to go back and read it sometime, but most often than not you can assume it's not literal (because its apocalyptic) unless you can point to a series of clues that show that its literal.

It is a literal seven year period. For starters, even the book of Revelations mentions 2 witnesses who will witness around the Holy City for 42 months. As well know that is roughly 3.5 years. It is around this time that the Anti-Christ will be assassinated and indwelled by Satan for another 3.5 years.

On top of that, Daniel wries in Daniel 9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. I point to this verse as meaning that they mean 7 literal years.

Now, when you say Rapture, are you saying Christ is decending from the heavens to reclaim his elect before the tribulation?

Yes. But again, who are those elect?

Who precisely are the non-elect? According to Revelations 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. It goes on to say in verse 15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire

Ah, alrighty, I thought that the White Throne of Judgement was strictly for those who were not elect.

[quote]It is a literal seven year period. For starters, even the book of Revelations mentions 2 witnesses who will witness around the Holy City for 42 months. As well know that is roughly 3.5 years. It is around this time that the Anti-Christ will be assassinated and indwelled by Satan for another 3.5 years.

You said the antichrist would be assassinated. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that. I know the Left Behind series is great, but it is not doctrinally canon; do not treat it as such. While the fourty-two months thing I can agree with you on, the other "beginning" doesn't have to necessarily be strictly seven years.

On top of that, Daniel wries in Daniel 9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. I point to this verse as meaning that they mean 7 literal years.

Fair enough. Like I said, it's been awhile since I've read my bible (:( ), so if I had anything against that, I don't know it. :D MY main thing is the start of said tribulation. I honestly don't think it's going to be as clear as you think it is.

Yes. But again, who are those elect?

Those whose names are not written in the Book of Life, composed before Time began and locked away until the Final Judgement.

they still have calvinists?

Yes, there are still some of us around! :D

Who precisely are the non-elect? According to Revelations 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. It goes on to say in verse 15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire

Ah, alrighty, I thought that the White Throne of Judgement was strictly for those who were not elect.

Its not a problem Derscon. :)

You said the antichrist would be assassinated. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that. I know the Left Behind series is great, but it is not doctrinally canon; do not treat it as such.

You are right that it isn't. I could've sworn I read it somewhere in the Bible. Guess I was wrong. Alwell. I am only Human after all :D

While the fourty-two months thing I can agree with you on, the other "beginning" doesn't have to necessarily be strictly seven years.

According to some Bible prophecy experts, tribulation will last for 7 years however, it does not start until the treaty is signed with Israel. Also do not forget that it will take Israel 3 years or so to clean up the aftermath of an assault thwarted by God. Some take this to me that between the attack and the Glorious Reappearing of the Lord Savior Jesus Christ will be around 10 years. Not saying this is correct mind you but what some people are saying.

Fair enough. Like I said, it's been awhile since I've read my bible (:( ), so if I had anything against that, I don't know it. :D MY main thing is the start of said tribulation. I honestly don't think it's going to be as clear as you think it is.

Actually, it is almost perfectly clear. Nothing can happen till the treaty is signed with Israel. This is where the rapture argument really rampts up and one that I am no true expert in. Some think the rapture will occur after the treaty with Israel is signed.

Those whose names are not written in the Book of Life, composed before Time began and locked away until the Final Judgement.

Ah. Now I understand. Thanks for clearing it up. :)

You are right that it isn't. I could've sworn I read it somewhere in the Bible. Guess I was wrong. Alwell. I am only Human after all :D

That's a shame. Your humanity, I mean.

According to some Bible prophecy experts, tribulation will last for 7 years however, it does not start until the treaty is signed with Israel. Also do not forget that it will take Israel 3 years or so to clean up the aftermath of an assault thwarted by God. Some take this to me that between the attack and the Glorious Reappearing of the Lord Savior Jesus Christ will be around 10 years. Not saying this is correct mind you but what some people are saying.

And who says they know the Divine Revelation of the Word of God any better than you do?


Actually, it is almost perfectly clear. Nothing can happen till the treaty is signed with Israel. This is where the rapture argument really rampts up and one that I am no true expert in. Some think the rapture will occur after the treaty with Israel is signed.

First off, the antichrist will not be as clear cut as he was in the Left Behind movies. It simply won't be that obvious.

Ah. Now I understand. Thanks for clearing it up. :)

No problem. :D

That's a shame. Your humanity, I mean.

I know :(

And who says they know the Divine Revelation of the Word of God any better than you do?

Well 1) most of these people are older than me LOL and 2) have studied this more than I have. I would probably listen to them a bit more than I would listen to myself but I do give equal weight to all points of view in regards to the years it could happen between.

[uote]First off, the antichrist will not be as clear cut as he was in the Left Behind movies. It simply won't be that obvious.[/quote]

Well these are the 10 keys to identifying the anti-christ according to the bible:

1. He will rise to power in the last days (well duh :D Daniel 8:19,23), 2) He will rule the whole world (again duh. Rev. 13:7) 3)His headquarters will be in Rome (rev. 17:8-9 Not totally sure if I actually by that his hq will actually be in Rome but meh) 4) He is intelligent and persuasive (Dan. 7:20. No kidding sherlock) 5)He will rule by international consent (Rev 17:12-13) 6)He will rule by deception (Dan. 8:24-25) 7)He will control the global economy (Rev 13:16-17) 8)He will make peace with Israel (Dan.9:27. So far it hasn't occured and I do not believe there will be peace until the due time for it) 9)He will break the treaty and invade Israel (Dan. 9:26) and 10)He will claim to be God (2 Thes. 2:4)

These are but only 10 keys to his identity but there are other details in regards to the Anti-Christ. So depending on your definition of obviousness, I think it will be quite obvious who the anti-christ is to those who are believers.

No problem. :D

:)

Well 1) most of these people are older than me LOL and 2) have studied this more than I have. I would probably listen to them a bit more than I would listen to myself but I do give equal weight to all points of view in regards to the years it could happen between.

Again, what's your point? Don't listen to them because they may have prestiege or they're older. This is one of the major concerns that the Protestants had with the Catholics -- laymen weren't allowed to interpret the bible. Hell, they weren't even allowed to READ it.


Well these are the 10 keys to identifying the anti-christ according to the bible:

2) He will rule the whole world (again duh. Rev. 13:7)

Right, but not necessarily rule in the way a king would rule an empire...

3)His headquarters will be in Rome (rev. 17:8-9 )

Oh, it will be. It will be. In fact, it is. :D

7)He will control the global economy (Rev 13:16-17)

The mark, you mean? I personally am not quite sure about what it's supposed to do. Eventually you won't be able to buy or sell with it, but that doesn't mean the global economy is necessarily controlled by the antichrist.


9)He will break the treaty and invade Israel (Dan. 9:26)

Are you sure the antichrist himself will invade? After all, if he rules by deception, how do you know he's in fact overtly ruling? He could end up being a puppetmaster.

10)He will claim to be God (2 Thes. 2:4)

Or if you're a Calvinist and some Lutherans, that claim has already been made, there's just a bunch of seat-warmers. :D

These are but only 10 keys to his identity but there are other details in regards to the Anti-Christ. So depending on your definition of obviousness, I think it will be quite obvious who the anti-christ is to those who are believers.

It won't be obvious to anyone, but to those "who hath wisdom," it shouldn't be too difficult a task.

Again, what's your point? Don't listen to them because they may have prestiege or they're older. This is one of the major concerns that the Protestants had with the Catholics -- laymen weren't allowed to interpret the bible. Hell, they weren't even allowed to READ it.

I listen to everyone who has studied end time events. I ignore those who think they pinned down when the end of the world comes because they aren't worth listening too but to those who have studied this and actually talk about the events in question, I listen for listening gains knowledge. To borrow a phrase from the Book of Revelations, He who have ears to hear, let him hear.

Right, but not necessarily rule in the way a king would rule an empire...

It'll be worse for Christians and those who oppose him than for anyone else.

Oh, it will be. It will be. In fact, it is. :D

I'm not talking about the Catholic Faith Mr./Ms. Derscon. I have a feeling though that the one world faith will be housed there but I do not think His HQ will be in Rome unless he's a business magnet.

The mark, you mean? I personally am not quite sure about what it's supposed to do. Eventually you won't be able to buy or sell with it, but that doesn't mean the global economy is necessarily controlled by the antichrist.

That is, in essence, controlling the economy when ya think about it. You are limiting who can buy and sell because of a mark.

Are you sure the antichrist himself will invade? After all, if he rules by deception, how do you know he's in fact overtly ruling? He could end up being a puppetmaster.

According to Daniel 9:26 The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed I think it will be his minions that do so though I think he might actually lead the initial assault. I do not know that for certain however.

Or if you're a Calvinist and some Lutherans, that claim has already been made, there's just a bunch of seat-warmers. :D

I becareful if I were you. I don't want to see you fried by a lightening bolt. :D

It won't be obvious to anyone, but to those "who hath wisdom," it shouldn't be too difficult a task.

Hence why I said that believers will recognize him.

I think I'll ressurect the Abba debate:
As a Hebrew speaker, which is very close to Aramaic, Abba does indeed mean Dad or Daddy. Father is Av.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abba
Second line of the second line.

Read it, it is completely allegorical. Babylon is Rome. The beast is Nero Caesar, back in the day they used letters instead of numbers, and is some translations the number is 616 and most it is 666, this when converted to letters via the method of the time spells out the name Nero Caesar. It is nothing but a book written to give hope to a people that were being persecuted by a tyrant. It's pretty simple. If you really want to see something strange, read the book of daniel in the Old Testament. It is the same thing, cept the babylonains are the Greeks, and the feet of clay in the statue represent the present leadership of the land of israel.

On top of that, Daniel wries in Daniel 9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. I point to this verse as meaning that they mean 7 literal years.



Wow.
You are so far out of context. I exhort you, whenever someone presents you with this, GO READ IT FOR YOURSELF!!

Daniel 9 is all about Israel in captivity and how they have not turned their hearts back to God.

Your "seven" there is usually translated as one week, but even if we accept 7 as a good translation, it does NOT say 7 years.
And IF this is indeed in our future time of tribulation, then why are we performing sacrifices and grain offerings?

And why, when Daniel is in a prophesy regarding the captivity of Israel is he launching off into an end of the world, 3000 years into the future?

We can't extract one cryptic prophetic statement out of unrelated circumstances and wave it about as if it plots out in intricate detail our future.

Well these are the 10 keys to identifying the anti-christ according to the bible:

1. He will rise to power in the last days (well duh :D Daniel 8:19,23),


Except that verse 21 tells us that this is a Greek king.


2) He will rule the whole world (again duh. Rev. 13:7)


Out of curiosity, how do you know that this Anti-christ is this beast and not the beast in verse 11?


3)His headquarters will be in Rome (rev. 17:8-9 Not totally sure if I actually by that his hq will actually be in Rome but meh) .


No mention of Rome there at all.
So I must presume you are taking the 7 moountains to somehow mean Rome?
Odd since verse 10 says that these "7 mountains" are symbolic and are 7 kings, 5 of which had ALREADY fallen, one that was current at the time and only only yet to come.


4) He is intelligent and persuasive (Dan. 7:20. No kidding sherlock)


Because a horn in Daniel's prophecy utter boasts? That's a stretch. Not to mention that the entire prophecy fits so much better with the Jews and the early Church's struggle with Rome than trying to shoe horn it into our future.


5)He will rule by international consent (Rev 17:12-13)


If this is referring to your Anti-Christ and if 10 king's without a kingdom can be called international consent.


6)He will rule by deception (Dan. 8:24-25)


Now we are back to our Greek king, not a coming Anti-Christ.


7)He will control the global economy (Rev 13:16-17)

I'll give you this one, it sure appears as though someone will control an economy at some point.


8)He will make peace with Israel (Dan.9:27. So far it hasn't occured and I do not believe there will be peace until the due time for it) 9)He will break the treaty and invade Israel (Dan. 9:26)


We're back to our scripture that is talking about sacrifices and grain offerings... given that Israel was invaded, more than once, why are we waiting for this one now?


10)He will claim to be God (2 Thes. 2:4)


And in verse 6, "And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed."
If he was restrained back then, it doesn't sound like he's our Anti-Christ, sounds more like our Adversary.


Cherry picking vague prophetic words and stringing them together makes for bad doctrine.

Read it, it is completely allegorical. Babylon is Rome. The beast is Nero Caesar, back in the day they used letters instead of numbers, and is some translations the number is 616 and most it is 666, this when converted to letters via the method of the time spells out the name Nero Caesar. It is nothing but a book written to give hope to a people that were being persecuted by a tyrant. It's pretty simple. If you really want to see something strange, read the book of daniel in the Old Testament. It is the same thing, cept the babylonains are the Greeks, and the feet of clay in the statue represent the present leadership of the land of israel.

Soo....

Who was Nero's false Prophet? When did God save Israel since Israel hadn't existed for quite sometime?

Except that verse 21 tells us that this is a Greek king.

Yes you are indeed correct that it does. I do not think I said otherwise for I was not talking about verse 21.

Out of curiosity, how do you know that this Anti-christ is this beast and not the beast in verse 11?

That is very good question. Here are a couple of answers directly from Revelations 13 itself in regards to the 1st Beast. I'll even throw in two translations that I have. From the NIV (verses 3 and 4) One of the heads of the beast seemed to have a had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?" From the NLT: I saw that one of the heads of the beast seemed wounded beyond recovery-but the fatal wound was healed! The whole world marveled at this miracle and gave alegiance to the beast. They worshiped the dragon for giving the beast such power, and they also worshiped the beast. "Who is as great as the beast?" they exclaimed. "Who is able to fight against him?"

As to the second the beast, verses 11-14 states (from the NLT)[i]Then I saw another beast come up out of the earth. He had two horns like those of a lamb, but he spoke with the voice of a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast. And he required all the eart and its people to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. He did astounding miracles, even making fire flash down to earth from the sky while everyone was watching. And with all the miracles he was allowed to perform on behalf of the first beast, he deceived all the people who belong to this world. He ordered the people to make a great statue of the first beast who was fatally wounded and then came back to life. From the NIV it says pretty much the samething just slightly different wording. Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.

These two comparisons of the first and second beast do show that the first beast in Revelations 13:3-4 is that of the Anti-Christ and that the Beast in Revelations 13:11-14 is his false prophet. I hope that this answer is what you were looking for. I do have a third translation, the NKJV if you would also like that versions verses as a better comparison to what is already written. I would be more than glad to type it out for you.

No mention of Rome there at all.
So I must presume you are taking the 7 moountains to somehow mean Rome?
Odd since verse 10 says that these "7 mountains" are symbolic and are 7 kings, 5 of which had ALREADY fallen, one that was current at the time and only only yet to come.

The two out of three translations that I have do say the word hills. That will be my NIV and NLT versions of the bible. My NKJV version does say the word mountains. Why do you think I am a tad skeptical that he'll come from Rome? In truth, Pittsburgh has hills surrounding the city. :D

Because a horn in Daniel's prophecy utter boasts? That's a stretch. Not to mention that the entire prophecy fits so much better with the Jews and the early Church's struggle with Rome than trying to shoe horn it into our future.

You are of course entitled to your opinions. Though I can see where you are coming from with it, I do not agree with it but I respect your opinion but in turn, I ask that you respect mine in return.

If this is referring to your Anti-Christ and if 10 king's without a kingdom can be called international consent.

They will be given kingdoms by the Anti-Christ himself. Revelations 17:12 The ten horns of the beast are ten kings who have not yet risen to power. They will be appointed to their kingdoms for one brief moment to reign with the beast. In verse 13 They will all agree to give him their power and authority

Now we are back to our Greek king, not a coming Anti-Christ.

Again, I can see where you are coming from and I do respect your opinions.

I'll give you this one, it sure appears as though someone will control an economy at some point.

It is inevitable even if you do not believe in Bible prophecy.

We're back to our scripture that is talking about sacrifices and grain offerings... given that Israel was invaded, more than once, why are we waiting for this one now?

Because this will be the last invasion of Israel and the Anti-Christ will lose and will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

And in verse 6, "And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed."
If he was restrained back then, it doesn't sound like he's our Anti-Christ, sounds more like our Adversary.

The anti-christ will be our adversary.

Cherry picking vague prophetic words and stringing them together makes for bad doctrine.

Since I am not "cherry picking" I do not understand where you are going with this. If I was cherry picking then yes you would be correct but I do not believe that I am "cherry picking."

Had to search to find your reply, missed it.
I'll find time to respond today.

Had to search to find your reply, missed it.
I'll find time to respond today.

It is not a problem Snow Eaters. Just take your time. I know that real life gets in the way of a lot of things.

Asylumny']Who has ever read this part of the bible? I did and its very interesting. What are your thoughts on it?

My thoughts is that a good portion of it is passed already. Given that I fit the profile of a partial-preterist, being Amillenial.

Yes you are indeed correct that it does. I do not think I said otherwise for I was not talking about verse 21.


I'm sure you must know this, but the verse divisions are not part of the scripture. The scripture was divided into verses later to make references easier.
You referenced verses 19 and 23, verse 21 is smack in the middle and provides the context for exactly what you are talking about.
You cannot claim to use 19 and 23 and ignore 21. That would be the "cherry picking" I mentioned.


That is very good question. Here are a couple of answers directly from Revelations 13 itself in regards to the 1st Beast. I'll even throw in two translations that I have. From the NIV (verses 3 and 4) One of the heads of the beast seemed to have a had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?" From the NLT: I saw that one of the heads of the beast seemed wounded beyond recovery-but the fatal wound was healed! The whole world marveled at this miracle and gave alegiance to the beast. They worshiped the dragon for giving the beast such power, and they also worshiped the beast. "Who is as great as the beast?" they exclaimed. "Who is able to fight against him?"

As to the second the beast, verses 11-14 states (from the NLT)[i]Then I saw another beast come up out of the earth. He had two horns like those of a lamb, but he spoke with the voice of a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast. And he required all the eart and its people to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. He did astounding miracles, even making fire flash down to earth from the sky while everyone was watching. And with all the miracles he was allowed to perform on behalf of the first beast, he deceived all the people who belong to this world. He ordered the people to make a great statue of the first beast who was fatally wounded and then came back to life. From the NIV it says pretty much the samething just slightly different wording. Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.

These two comparisons of the first and second beast do show that the first beast in Revelations 13:3-4 is that of the Anti-Christ and that the Beast in Revelations 13:11-14 is his false prophet. I hope that this answer is what you were looking for. I do have a third translation, the NKJV if you would also like that versions verses as a better comparison to what is already written. I would be more than glad to type it out for you.


But, since the Bible refers to them as the first beast and the second beast, why are you calling them the anti-christ and his false prophet?
The passages show them to be the first beast and the second beast. They do NOT show them to be "anti-christ" and "false prophet". That is just an interpretation shoe-horning scripture into a desired meaning.


The two out of three translations that I have do say the word hills. That will be my NIV and NLT versions of the bible. My NKJV version does say the word mountains. Why do you think I am a tad skeptical that he'll come from Rome? In truth, Pittsburgh has hills surrounding the city. :D


Regardless of hills or mountains, the passage states that these are symbolic of kings, not actual hills or mountains. So, rather than being simply skeptical of of someone that tells me this means Rome, because Rome is on 7 hills, I can say with honesty that the person making that claim has misunderstood the passage.


You are of course entitled to your opinions. Though I can see where you are coming from with it, I do not agree with it but I respect your opinion but in turn, I ask that you respect mine in return.


I'm not disrespecting your opinion, I'm challenging it.
I'm exhorting you to go to scripture for yourself and see if what you have been taught regarding End Times doctrine is consistent.


They will be given kingdoms by the Anti-Christ himself. Revelations 17:12 The ten horns of the beast are ten kings who have not yet risen to power. They will be appointed to their kingdoms for one brief moment to reign with the beast. In verse 13 They will all agree to give him their power and authority


Sure, but this means though that the claim that this anti-christ rules by international consent has no scriptural basis now. You're describing a scenario where someone TAKES power and distributes it to these 10 kings on his own whim.
That is not the same as the claim that he will rule by international consent, so why is that claim made? Even if it is/will be true, there's no scriptural basis to make the claim.


Because this will be the last invasion of Israel and the Anti-Christ will lose and will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.


Now you're stringing multiple passages together from Daniel and Revelations.
Daniel doesn't mention an Anti-christ, winning nor losing and certainly doesn't mention a Lake of Fire.
The point I was raising is that Daniel is mentioning sacrifices and grain offerings.
That is inconsistent with a prophecy of our future since we no longer perform those.


The anti-christ will be our adversary.


Satan, Lucifer, the Deceiver, our Accuser, etc, is our adversary.


Since I am not "cherry picking" I do not understand where you are going with this. If I was cherry picking then yes you would be correct but I do not believe that I am "cherry picking."

If one uses 2 verses and skip the verses inbetween as irrelevant, one is cherry picking.
If one insists that hills are actual hills when the passage already interprets its hills as symbols of kings, one is cherry picking.
If one extracts a verse or two from Daniel and says that it clearly supports a doctrine and uses Revelation to prove it without ever establishing why Daniel and Revelation are even talking about the same thing, then one is cherry picking.

I'm sure you must know this, but the verse divisions are not part of the scripture. The scripture was divided into verses later to make references easier.
You referenced verses 19 and 23, verse 21 is smack in the middle and provides the context for exactly what you are talking about.
You cannot claim to use 19 and 23 and ignore 21. That would be the "cherry picking" I mentioned.

Now it is my turn to ask you to prove yourself in regards to putting verses 19 and 23 into context with verse 21.

But, since the Bible refers to them as the first beast and the second beast, why are you calling them the anti-christ and his false prophet?
The passages show them to be the first beast and the second beast. They do NOT show them to be "anti-christ" and "false prophet". That is just an interpretation shoe-horning scripture into a desired meaning.

Take a look at it again. When you actually read what I wrote, there is only but one way to look at it. The First Beast is indeed the Anti-Christ and the Second Beast is his false prophet. I am not "shoe-horning" anything. By reading chapter 13 of the Book of Revelations, you can quite clearly see that the first beast is the Anti-Christ. If you noticed, the first beast is worshipped whereas the second beast is not.

From the KJV: And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 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.

So why would the second beast be the anti-christ if the second beast is not worshippd? Only the first beast is worshipped and thus the first beast is indeed the anti-christ and the second beast is his false prophet. There is even a clue and I have bolded and underlined it for you. The bolded and underlined statement is a clue that the second beast is indeed the anti-christ's false prophet.

Regardless of hills or mountains, the passage states that these are symbolic of kings, not actual hills or mountains. So, rather than being simply skeptical of of someone that tells me this means Rome, because Rome is on 7 hills, I can say with honesty that the person making that claim has misunderstood the passage.

I did not state the he understood it. I said that is what he interpret it to mean. Bible Prophecy is not an exact science.

I'm not disrespecting your opinion, I'm challenging it.
I'm exhorting you to go to scripture for yourself and see if what you have been taught regarding End Times doctrine is consistent.

I have. I have pointed out to you several key verses that shows that the end time doctrine is consistent. A few things are bound to be wrong, I will not argue with that, but more of it is indeed exact. The literal aspect of what is prophecied needs no interpretation. It is the symbolism that requires interpretation.

Sure, but this means though that the claim that this anti-christ rules by international consent has no scriptural basis now.

Incorrect.It does have scriptural basis now as it is in the Bible. Do I have to point out Revelations 17:12-13 again? Here it is from the KJV. And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. So yes, it does have scriptural basis. It just has not come to pass yet.

You're describing a scenario where someone TAKES power and distributes it to these 10 kings on his own whim.

Which is precisely what is going to happen. I have now shown you three different Bible Translations. Would you like a fourth or a fifth or a sixth?

That is not the same as the claim that he will rule by international consent, so why is that claim made? Even if it is/will be true, there's no scriptural basis to make the claim.

I have posted the King James version that it does have scriptural basis. Why are you sying that there is no scriptural basis to make this claim when I have shown you two other translations showing you that there is scriptural basis to make this claim?

Now you're stringing multiple passages together from Daniel and Revelations.
Daniel doesn't mention an Anti-christ, winning nor losing and certainly doesn't mention a Lake of Fire.

You are right that he does not. However in Daniel 9:26&27 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

You are right that he does not talk about the lake of fire for that is mentioned in Revelations. You are also right that he does not talk about the Anti-Christ losing which is also in the book of Revelations. I did not say otherwise.

The point I was raising is that Daniel is mentioning sacrifices and grain offerings.
That is inconsistent with a prophecy of our future since we no longer perform those.

Again. That is not accurate at all as I have just shown you.

Satan, Lucifer, the Deceiver, our Accuser, etc, is our adversary.

Care to point out where I said that he was not our adversary?

If one uses 2 verses and skip the verses inbetween as irrelevant, one is cherry picking.

Not everything is as clear cut as one makes it out to believe.

If one insists that hills are actual hills when the passage already interprets its hills as symbols of kings, one is cherry picking.

Care to point out where I said that they the bible was referring to actual hills? It has been pointed out that a few say hills and others says mountains.

If one extracts a verse or two from Daniel and says that it clearly supports a doctrine and uses Revelation to prove it without ever establishing why Daniel and Revelation are even talking about the same thing, then one is cherry picking.

Since I only used the verses that I can identify as talking about the end times, such as the verses dealing with the Peace Treaty with Israel, then that is not cherry picking.

Now it is my turn to ask you to prove yourself in regards to putting verses 19 and 23 into context with verse 21.


The entire chapter of Daniel 8 is one prophetic vision with symbols and the meanings of those symbols.

The 2 animals, ram and goat are kingdoms, Media/Persia is the ram and Greece is the goat.

The horns on each animals are the kings of these kingdoms over time with the size of the horns generally symbolising the relative power of these kings.

The first and largest goat horn that is broken is almost assuredly Alexander the Great.

The king you are trying to make into a future persion you want to call Antichrist is almost certainly Antiochus Epiphanes.
The king responsible for the "abomination of the desolation".
He entered the holy of holies, offered unclean sacrifices, sprinkled unclean water boiled with animals over the temple, dedicated the temple to Jupiter anderected a stuatue to Jupiter (Zeus) in front of it.

This would be about 160 BC or about 400 years after Daniel would have had his vision if we date Daniel to about 600 BC.

You can't just cut 19 and 23 out of the chapter and wave them about as if they belong in Revelation.


Take a look at it again. When you actually read what I wrote, there is only but one way to look at it. The First Beast is indeed the Anti-Christ and the Second Beast is his false prophet. I am not "shoe-horning" anything. By reading chapter 13 of the Book of Revelations, you can quite clearly see that the first beast is the Anti-Christ. If you noticed, the first beast is worshipped whereas the second beast is not.


I have actually read it many many times.
There are many ways to look at it, not just one.
Why do you insist on calling the first Beast 'Anti-Christ'?
Is the Bible not good enough to use the correct name?
If this is supposed to be someone called 'Anti-Christ', why doesn't the Bible call him that?

The problem here is that before you even read the Bible, you BELIEVE there will be this Anti-Christ and you believe that Daniel and Revelation reference this person. So when you read, you aren't reading to learn what the Bible is or isn't saying, you're reading to find support for what you have been told and what you already believe.


I have. I have pointed out to you several key verses that shows that the end time doctrine is consistent.

You have pointed out several verses, but those verses do not show that the end time doctrine is consistent.

Why do we even NEED an end time doctrine anyway? It won't make anyone a better follower of Christ and the Bible is deliberaterly vague on the issue.

I hit submit too soon, sorry.

Incorrect.It does have scriptural basis now as it is in the Bible. Do I have to point out Revelations 17:12-13 again? Here it is from the KJV. And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. So yes, it does have scriptural basis. It just has not come to pass yet.


Rev. 17:12-13 is not saying that anyone is ruling by international consent.
The beast's support is coming from his peers that are given power with him. The international community is much much larger than 10 leaders and no where does it say that any leaders of the International community will consent to the beast's rule.


You are right that he does not talk about the lake of fire for that is mentioned in Revelations. You are also right that he does not talk about the Anti-Christ losing which is also in the book of Revelations. I did not say otherwise.


When I asked why you believe that Daniel is talking about some future to us End Time, you started referencing concepts from Revelation as if they were in Daniel.
I simply pointed out that they aren't.


Again. That is not accurate at all as I have just shown you.


I'm not sure what you think you used to show that, but you haven't shown it.
Daniel speaks of grain offerings and sacrifices.
Therse practices are consistent with a prophecy of events happening 400 years into Daniel's future around 160 BC when grain offerings and sacrifices were still performed, but it's not consistent with our future, since we haven't had those in 2000 years.


Care to point out where I said that he was not our adversary?


I mentioned our Adversary and you took that to mean the Anti-Christ.


Not everything is as clear cut as one makes it out to believe.


That's not a meaningful statement. It doesn't support anyone's position and is just a basic truism.


Care to point out where I said that they the bible was referring to actual hills? It has been pointed out that a few say hills and others says mountains.


It doesn't matter whether it is translated as hills or mountains if it is symbolic. Since it is symbolic, and the meaning is kings and not geographical features, then anyone using this verse to attempt to understand what place the person spoken of is from will be destined to fail.

You referenced this passage as why some people believe the Anti-Christ will be from Rome.


Since I only used the verses that I can identify as talking about the end times, such as the verses dealing with the Peace Treaty with Israel, then that is not cherry picking.

You can't identify Daniel 8 as being about our future unless you only 'cherry pick' the verses you want and ignore the context.

Rev. 17:12-13 is not saying that anyone is ruling by international consent.

And when you point to a post where I said that someone is....No one is at the moment but when the end times come, the Anti-Christ will which is what I have been saying this whole time.

The beast's support is coming from his peers that are given power with him. The international community is much much larger than 10 leaders and no where does it say that any leaders of the International community will consent to the beast's rule.

So ignore biblical passages. I do not care if you do or not but the bible is clear that when the Anti-Christ comes to power, the ten kings whom he will appoint will give him consent to rule. Period.

When I asked why you believe that Daniel is talking about some future to us End Time, you started referencing concepts from Revelation as if they were in Daniel.
I simply pointed out that they aren't.

All I pointed to was the fact that Danial did talk about the end times as does the book of Revelations.

I'm not sure what you think you used to show that, but you haven't shown it.
Daniel speaks of grain offerings and sacrifices.[/qote]

Prove it using the bible itself. I have shown you that Danial has talked about the signing of the treaty ith Israel as well as the violation of said treaty.

[quote]Therse practices are consistent with a prophecy of events happening 400 years into Daniel's future around 160 BC when grain offerings and sacrifices were still performed, but it's not consistent with our future, since we haven't had those in 2000 years.

And you know this how? Sorry Snow Eaters but I believe I will take what is said in the Bible over what you are saying any day of the week. I respect your opinion but unless you have studied bible prophecy in full depth as I am doing, you might understand where I am coming from.

I mentioned our Adversary and you took that to mean the Anti-Christ.

Did it ever occur to you that the Anti-Christ will be led by Satan?

That's not a meaningful statement. It doesn't support anyone's position and is just a basic truism.

Again, not everything is as clear cut as people try to make it out to believe. You have your opinion and I have mine.

It doesn't matter whether it is translated as hills or mountains if it is symbolic. Since it is symbolic, and the meaning is kings and not geographical features, then anyone using this verse to attempt to understand what place the person spoken of is from will be destined to fail.

Have I said otherwise? No I did not. I told you I am skeptical of that interpretation.

You referenced this passage as why some people believe the Anti-Christ will be from Rome.

And I told you before and I guess needs reiterating, some people does not mean all people.

You can't identify Daniel 8 as being about our future unless you only 'cherry pick' the verses you want and ignore the context.

I do not ignore context. You also have to remember that verses can mean the samething in different eras. Daniel 8:23 for example does describe Aniochus IV Epiphanes but also does describe the anti-christ. The Anti-Christ will be a master of intrigue and he will be a fierce king. There are many similarities to what Daniel is writing in regards to Antiochus IV and the Anti-Christ. No denying that. So one can point to the last part of Daniel and can make a convincing case that Daniel is not only talking about Antiochus but also the Anti-Christ. However, Antiochus is not the anti-Christ.

And when you point to a post where I said that someone is....No one is at the moment but when the end times come, the Anti-Christ will which is what I have been saying this whole time.


?????
We're not talking about at this moment. We're talking about what the prophecy says.
Why do you suddenly think we're talking about anyone right now?


So ignore biblical passages. I do not care if you do or not but the bible is clear that when the Anti-Christ comes to power, the ten kings whom he will appoint will give him consent to rule. Period.


I'm not ignoring any Biblical passages.
The Bible is clear that the Beast will be supported by the 10 kings that the Beast appoints to power.

That is not the same as "The Anti-Christ will rule by international consent"


All I pointed to was the fact that Danial did talk about the end times as does the book of Revelations.


That's not all you did.
I asked why you believe that a passage in Daniel that seems to obviously be about an invasion of Israel in the past is actually still in the future.
Rather than point to anything in Daniel to explain, you only mentioned passages or events from Revelation.
That might help explain your belief that Revelation is set in our future, but it doesn't mean that Daniel is.


Prove it using the bible itself. I have shown you that Danial has talked about the signing of the treaty ith Israel as well as the violation of said treaty.


Prove what? That Daniel mentions sacrifices and grain offerings???
OK.
Daniel 9:27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

You quoted this passage yourself when you were using it to prove the 'week' means 7 years of tribulation.


And you know this how? Sorry Snow Eaters but I believe I will take what is said in the Bible over what you are saying any day of the week. I respect your opinion but unless you have studied bible prophecy in full depth as I am doing, you might understand where I am coming from.


I know what how?
That we don't have sacrifices and grain offerings now? Or that they did have them in the Bible?
I am only saying to you what is strictly in the Bible. There is nothing I'm saying that you have to take my word on.
And I have studied the Bible, and not just Bible prophecy, but that shouldn't be why you believe anything.


Did it ever occur to you that the Anti-Christ will be led by Satan?


Did it ever occur to me? How could it be otherwise???
Again, I made a comment about Satan, using his title of Adversary and you took it for a comment about the Anti-Christ.

The Hebrew root of the word Satan means adversary. Surely you have come across this in your studies.


Again, not everything is as clear cut as people try to make it out to believe. You have your opinion and I have mine.


But you are making it out to be very clear cut what Daniel and Revelation say.
I'm not trying to advance my opinion, I'm simply trying to highlight to you how much of the End Time doctrine is opinion and is not something you can just get from the Bible.


Have I said otherwise? No I did not. I told you I am skeptical of that interpretation.


True, you have been skeptical of it from the start. I think you can safely throw it out rather than maintain the skepticism.


I do not ignore context. You also have to remember that verses can mean the samething in different eras. Daniel 8:23 for example does describe Aniochus IV Epiphanes but also does describe the anti-christ. The Anti-Christ will be a master of intrigue and he will be a fierce king. There are many similarities to what Daniel is writing in regards to Antiochus IV and the Anti-Christ. No denying that. So one can point to the last part of Daniel and can make a convincing case that Daniel is not only talking about Antiochus but also the Anti-Christ. However, Antiochus is not the anti-Christ.

How do you know that Daniel 8:23 describes the Anti-Christ?
When you say there are similarites between Daniel 8:23 and the Anti-Christ, where have you gotten this knowledge of what this Anti-Christ will be like to compare it to Daniel 8:23 and declare it similar?

I have been looking at Daniel 9:27 Snow Eaters and there is no mention of the word grain in them. Not in the NLT, The NIV, KJV or the Modern KJV. It is not in any translation that I have so pray tell what translation are you using?

I have been looking at Daniel 9:27 Snow Eaters and there is no mention of the word grain in them. Not in the NLT, The NIV, KJV or the Modern KJV. It is not in any translation that I have so pray tell what translation are you using?

NASB, that's the default version I always begin with. Grain isn't the truly important word though.

My opinion on Revelations is the same opinion I hold on Astrology and telepathy. It’s bullshit, and I pity anyone who wastes their time and/or money on it.

My opinion on Revelations is the same opinion I hold on Astrology and telepathy. It’s bullshit, and I pity anyone who wastes their time and/or money on it.

Thank you for your highly intellectual and insightful opinion. :rolleyes:

Thank you for your highly intellectual and insightful opinion. :rolleyes:
You're welcome. Really I could be a pretentious prick and plop down a whole bunch of reason why the whole thing is not only ludicrous and somewhat unethical, but just calling it bullshit saves me some time.

The Mayan calander, which was acruate to the day though it was made almost 1000 years ago, mysteriously ends on December 12, 2012.

;)

What's really funny is that somehow this has been adopted by many christians as the day god will decide to pack in his Earth project.

nah, they probably just got borred of doing the math and decided that if they where still around, then they would let who ever existed then continue working on it. I mean geez, that would take a lot of willpower to keep going like that.

then again...*eyes the skies wearily*...they did say that we might get hit in 2012. Hopefully it doen't hit yellowstone or the San Andreas Fault.

not father, DADDY

shouldnt you know this?

Yeah, Daddy is much less formal, more familliar. Those who call their dad FAther, are not close to their dad. Those who say Daddy, Pops, etc. are much closer. Though I do say Father when I pray, whe I just turn my head to the sky and just talk, I usually say Abuana, which is Swahili for Father, I think it makes him seem even more close.

Also, Allegheny, I would like to point to the Twelve days of Christmas, it is Allegorical. Partridge in a Pear tree = Jesus, Four Calling birds = evangelists. etc. In the same way, Revelations was originally intended for education of early, pre Constantine Christians. It was meant to be a way that young christians could learn in secret.

cause the number, 666 = Nero in Hebrew, the Whore Babylon is Rome, etc. Now, do I hope it is a general roadmap of what we can expect, yes. I would love to know that God gave it to us to let us know what to expect. But there are tons of prophecies out there about the time before and after.

Now, If you could give me the book, chapter, and verse where the seven year covenent is described, that would be awesome.

Asylumny']Who has ever read this part of the bible? I did and its very interesting. What are your thoughts on it?
I've read it several times. Although John was writing about events during his time, many people have tried to interpret it as prophecy.

Never read the bible due to Aethism.

NASB, that's the default version I always begin with. Grain isn't the truly important word though.

Actually, it is quite important when you are dealing with end time prophecy but thank you for answering. *bows*

Also, Allegheny, I would like to point to the Twelve days of Christmas, it is Allegorical. Partridge in a Pear tree = Jesus, Four Calling birds = evangelists. etc. In the same way, Revelations was originally intended for education of early, pre Constantine Christians. It was meant to be a way that young christians could learn in secret.

About end time events?

cause the number, 666 = Nero in Hebrew, the Whore Babylon is Rome, etc. Now, do I hope it is a general roadmap of what we can expect, yes. I would love to know that God gave it to us to let us know what to expect. But there are tons of prophecies out there about the time before and after.

Since there are roughly 300 verses dealing with end time prophecy in the Bible, we do have a road map. I say roughly because it depends on who you read as most of them have a different number from each other. Some have less than 300 and others have more than 300.

Now, If you could give me the book, chapter, and verse where the seven year covenent is described, that would be awesome.

I have given it before. I will provide it later.

I've read it several times. Although John was writing about events during his time, many people have tried to interpret it as prophecy.

Well when words like "these events have yet to occur" kind of gives it away as prophecy.

About end time events?

Actually, it is more about the promises of Jesus. I would try to explain it, but you will have to get a New American Bible to see what catholics believe about it. Some of it is endtimes, like Christ's victory, and Armeggedon, etc. but it is really just a summation of the NT with Christ's promises included

Since there are roughly 300 verses dealing with end time prophecy in the Bible, we do have a road map. I say roughly because it depends on who you read as most of them have a different number from each other. Some have less than 300 and others have more than 300.

Well, anothrer thing is though that we have some contemporary prophets as well. and there are things that according to them, will be signs of the times.

I have given it before. I will provide it later.

Cool. The reason I want to know, is because of a prophecy by a St. in the 1100's, who predicted that the last pope would be Peter the Roman, and that there would be a great martyrdom in St. Peter's Square, leading to a 25 year period without a pope, after a great sign appears at Medgugore.

but yeah, you were right about the whole Mayan Calender thing, we have been warned that many false prophets would appear (David Koresh to name just one of MANY).

Actually, it is more about the promises of Jesus. I would try to explain it, but you will have to get a New American Bible to see what catholics believe about it. Some of it is endtimes, like Christ's victory, and Armeggedon, etc. but it is really just a summation of the NT with Christ's promises included

Some could interpret it as such. As to the versions of the Bible, I have like three or four different versions here at home and several more on my computer. It is quite fascinating reading all the different translations.

Well, anothrer thing is though that we have some contemporary prophets as well. and there are things that according to them, will be signs of the times.

I go to what the prophets themselves say about the end times. Even Jesus talked about his coming again so we shall see.

Cool. The reason I want to know, is because of a prophecy by a St. in the 1100's, who predicted that the last pope would be Peter the Roman, and that there would be a great martyrdom in St. Peter's Square, leading to a 25 year period without a pope, after a great sign appears at Medgugore.

Since I am not catholic, I would not know anything about this.

but yeah, you were right about the whole Mayan Calender thing, we have been warned that many false prophets would appear (David Koresh to name just one of MANY).

Yep, they are to be ignored and shunned.

Some could interpret it as such. As to the versions of the Bible, I have like three or four different versions here at home and several more on my computer. It is quite fascinating reading all the different translations.



I go to what the prophets themselves say about the end times. Even Jesus talked about his coming again so we shall see.



Since I am not catholic, I would not know anything about this.



Yep, they are to be ignored and shunned.

Some of the scariest ones are copming from Mary, she has told of some very horrific things that will happen, and, according to the kids at medjugore and Fatima, she is the one who is supposed to give us the final sign. The worst part though, is that it is supposed to be in the lifetimes of the kids at Medjugore that the Tribulation comes.

If that's true, it could start anytime in the next eighty years

which means I will be alive for it

If I am an old man, then let the Rapture (If it occurs) take me, if I am young, please let me be left behind so that I can help to rally the people who were lukewarm against the anti-christ.

EDIT: here are some links
http://www.crystalinks.com/papalprophecies.html
http://www.medjugorje.org/ol84_2006.pdf
http://fatima.org/essentials/message/tspart1.asp
http://fatima.org/essentials/message/tspart2.asp
http://fatima.org/essentials/message/tspart3.asp

Some of the scariest ones are copming from Mary, she has told of some very horrific things that will happen, and, according to the kids at medjugore and Fatima, she is the one who is supposed to give us the final sign. The worst part though, is that it is supposed to be in the lifetimes of the kids at Medjugore that the Tribulation comes.

If that's true, it could start anytime in the next eighty years

Well...some think it could take place within the next 40 years so who actually know? Only God knows the answer.

If I am an old man, then let the Rapture (If it occurs) take me, if I am young, please let me be left behind so that I can help to rally the people who were lukewarm against the anti-christ.

Give me heaven any day over the tribulation.

Well...some think it could take place within the next 40 years so who actually know? Only God knows the answer.

Very good point, we need to just wait for the signs He has promised, cause as Jesus said, "Only the Father knows the time"

Give me heaven any day over the tribulation.

Yeah, Heaven would be better, but I want to truly earn it if i am living in the endtimes, plus, I am planning on going into millitary Intellegence, IMHO, I think I would be better serving god down here, though it is up to him.

but hey, I am still unsure as to wether or not the rapture will actually occur. I have looked, and found nothing about it in the bible.

Very good point, we need to just wait for the signs He has promised, cause as Jesus said, "Only the Father knows the time"

Agreed.

Yeah, Heaven would be better, but I want to truly earn it if i am living in the endtimes, plus, I am planning on going into millitary Intellegence, IMHO, I think I would be better serving god down here, though it is up to him.

Well good luck with your career. What branch if I may ask?

but hey, I am still unsure as to wether or not the rapture will actually occur. I have looked, and found nothing about it in the bible.

Well it is alluded to in the Bible. It is not directly mentioned itself but it is there.

Komyunizumu']Never read the bible due to Aethism.

You really shouldn't let that stop you. I'm an Atheist myself, but I've read the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita and the writings of Zhuangzi. All of which have great wisdom and advice for living a fulfilled life, without ever having to accept any religious doctrine.

The really interesting thing about Revelations, to me, is it's history. In the early days of Christianity, many Books and Gospels were floating around. When the decision was made to form the Bible as a contiguous document, most of these wound up as part of the Apocrypha; only those with general support were included in the Bible. The Book of Revelations squeaked through due to the pressure of certain leading theologians of the time, most of whom were in the camp of the then Bishop of Rome (the term "Pope" was one of considerable controversy at that time also; many Metropolitans and Bishops saw themselves as every bit the equal of the upstart in Rome).

Of course, in the end there was schism, and the Orthodoxies split from the Catholics, over a variety of issues. One of those issues was Revelations, which the Orthodox felt was rightly Apocrypha. So when they split off, they also dropped the Book. Revelations is nowhere to be seen in Orthodox Bibles.

Well good luck with your career. What branch if I may ask?



Well it is alluded to in the Bible. It is not directly mentioned itself but it is there.


I plan on going into the NAvy. Tried to get into Annapolis, but the Senators and Representitives didn't choose me...so....

And yeah, that is my main problem, it alludes to a possibility, where as the vast amajority of prophey is fairly straightforward.

Oh well, we are just gonna have to wait and see for wether or not it will happen.