God shall add unto him the plagues

[grafted branch]

I'm saying these plagues will happen during the final 7 years before the end of the age. That does not prevent God from visiting the same ills upon those whom He punishes.

Much love!

So your argument is that the seven last plagues happen twice? There can only be one set of last plagues.

In Revelation 16:13-14 after the sixth angel pours out his bowl there are unclean spirits that come out of the beast and false prophet and they go to the kings of the earth and the whole world. In Revelation 19:20 the beast and false prophet are cast into the lake of fire. If the seven last plagues happen again at the GWT then that would mean the beast and false prophet escaped the lake of fire after being thrown in it the first time.

 

[marks]

So your argument is that the seven last plagues happen twice? There can only be one set of last plagues.

In Revelation 16:13-14 after the sixth angel pours out his bowl there are unclean spirits that come out of the beast and false prophet and they go to the kings of the earth and the whole world. In Revelation 19:20 the beast and false prophet are cast into the lake of fire. If the seven last plagues happen again at the GWT then that would mean the beast and false prophet escaped the lake of fire after being thrown in it the first time.

I don't think you are understanding me.

Take the plague of darkness and pain. God is able to add that plague to all who dwell there at that time, and He is also able to give darkness and pain to someone else at a different time.

Much love!

 

[grafted branch]

I don't think you are understanding me.

Take the plague of darkness and pain. God is able to add that plague to all who dwell there at that time, and He is also able to give darkness and pain to someone else at a different time.

Much love!

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

So is your position then that only some of the plagues written in the book are added but not all the plagues are added?

 

[marks]

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

So is your position then that only some of the plagues written in the book are added but not all the plagues are added?

No, where did I say that?

Look, I take the verse to mean exactly what it says. I don't catagorize it as "makes sense" or "doesn't make sense". I believe it, because of how it's written.

Much love!

 

[BlessedPeace]

The prohibition of adding too , the curse upon those who do so to Johns revelations, no longer apply. And in fact are suspect as to authorship.

John,an apostle to the living Jesus,was told to love. His enemies and his friends .

Levying a curse on someone ,like unto what Paul said in his gospel teaching, is contrary to the love standard Jesus set.

Being both curses are similar though in different books, I'd say the Adversary wrote those. Not anyone in the spirit of the living Christ Holy Spirit.

Besides, it would mean the councils and authors of the NT were cursed when in command of publishing John's work.

Those today aren't subjects to such a curse.

 

[grafted branch]

No, where did I say that?

Look, I take the verse to mean exactly what it says. I don't catagorize it as "makes sense" or "doesn't make sense". I believe it, because of how it's written.

Much love!

Ok, then let’s look at Joseph Smith for an example along with the plague of grievous sores.

Can we agree that he added to the book during his lifetime? I think that’s would be yes.

Can we agree that he will have all the plagues added to him? Again yes.

Can we agree that he didn’t experience the literal plague of grievous sores, at least as of yet? Yes

If you are just simply saying that God is going to some how make him experience those grievous sores literally but it won’t be when they literally happen on earth then you have some kind of solution that doesn’t add up.

When will or did Joseph Smith literally have the plague of grievous sores added to him? If it takes place after the last plagues then it’s not a plague, it has to be something else because you can only have one set of last plagues.

 

[grafted branch]

The prohibition of adding too , the curse upon those who do so to Johns revelations, no longer apply. And in fact are suspect as to authorship.

John,an apostle to the living Jesus,was told to love. His enemies and his friends .

Levying a curse on someone ,like unto what Paul said in his gospel teaching, is contrary to the love standard Jesus set.

Being both curses are similar though in different books, I'd say the Adversary wrote those. Not anyone in the spirit of the living Christ Holy Spirit.

Besides, it would mean the councils and authors of the NT were cursed when in command of publishing John's work.

Those today aren't subjects to such a curse.

Just declaring the Adversary wrote it is an extremely dangerous precedence.

You could at least say something like it was only meant for the literal seven churches in the first century to whom it was written.

 

[marks]

Ok, then let’s look at Joseph Smith for an example along with the plague of grievous sores.

Can we agree that he added to the book during his lifetime? I think that’s would be yes.

Can we agree that he will have all the plagues added to him? Again yes.

Can we agree that he didn’t experience the literal plague of grievous sores, at least as of yet? Yes

If you are just simply saying that God is going to some how make him experience those grievous sores literally but it won’t be when they literally happen on earth then you have some kind of solution that doesn’t add up.

When will or did Joseph Smith literally have the plague of grievous sores added to him? If it takes place after the last plagues then it’s not a plague, it has to be something else because you can only have one set of last plagues.

This still comes down to, "I don't see how it can be, therefore, it must not mean literally." Is that right?

Did he add to the Revelation of Jesus Christ? I don't actually know, myself, can you show me where he did?

Much love!

 

[grafted branch]

This still comes down to, "I don't see how it can be, therefore, it must not mean literally." Is that right?

Did he add to the Revelation of Jesus Christ? I don't actually know, myself, can you show me where he did?

Much love!

Well Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon, which they hold equal to the Bible.



You are right in that “I don’t see how it can be”, that’s why I asked the question in the OP. There are certain things that we do accept without fully understanding, such as the trinity but if we just start accepting things without them making sense then we end up being carried about by every wind of doctrine.

 

[marks]

Well Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon, which they hold equal to the Bible.

However, John's warning applies to his book of prophecy, so I'd be looking for where he did that.

You are right in that “I don’t see how it can be”, that’s why I asked the question in the OP. There are certain things that we do accept without fully understanding, such as the trinity but if we just start accepting things without them making sense then we end up being carried about by every wind of doctrine.

I think there are many ways to "make sense" of things. I first begin with the genre and presentation and context of Scripture. When John wrote, I saw another great sign in heaven, a red dragon, I know that is a symbol. Where he wrote, the dragon, that ancient serpent, the devil, Satan, then I know what that symbol means. And I have this on Biblical authority. The Bible directly states these things.

Where there isn't such, and were we aren't using known idioms, metaphors, the like, then I take it like it is. In this case, if you add to the Revelation you've got some heavy suffering coming, as enumerated in these plagues.

When? Where? How? These questions and more! But that it will be, I have no question at all in my mind. That's how I stay grounded in the Scriptures, and not get blown around.

Much love!

 

[Hobie]

In Revelation 22:18 we see the promise that God will add the plagues that are written in this book to anyone who adds to the things (in this book).

Revelation 15:1 tells us the seven angels have the seven last plagues, then Revelation 16 describes these plagues as bowls being poured out.

I would say these plagues have to be non-literal, spiritual events that have happened to those who have added to the scriptures in the past and are now dead.

If these plagues are literal and still future events then it would seem that those who have added and are dead would have to be resurrected in order to have the plagues added to them, however I don’t know of anyone who holds the view of people being resurrected in order to experience the plagues.

How can the plagues be literal and added to someone who is now dead if they added to the book while they were alive?

Yes, and you see how that was done on the Sabbath, with the Ten Commandments with the replacement of the substitute day of worship and his lie that the Commandments are done away with, and many spread his deceptions...

 

[grafted branch]

However, John's warning applies to his book of prophecy, so I'd be looking for where he did that.

I think there are many ways to "make sense" of things. I first begin with the genre and presentation and context of Scripture. When John wrote, I saw another great sign in heaven, a red dragon, I know that is a symbol. Where he wrote, the dragon, that ancient serpent, the devil, Satan, then I know what that symbol means. And I have this on Biblical authority. The Bible directly states these things.

Where there isn't such, and were we aren't using known idioms, metaphors, the like, then I take it like it is. In this case, if you add to the Revelation you've got some heavy suffering coming, as enumerated in these plagues.

When? Where? How? These questions and more! But that it will be, I have no question at all in my mind. That's how I stay grounded in the Scriptures, and not get blown around.

Much love!

Alright, let’s look at the number 666. Some manuscripts have 616, which means someone removed a 6 and added a 1. They both took away and added, but unfortunately we don’t know exactly who did this or how it came to be.

Following your logic I could declare that the last seven plagues already literally took place when 616 was penned. Here’s your statement with a slight adjustment “When? Where? How? These questions and more! But it already happened, I have no question at all in my mind. That's how I stay grounded in the Scriptures, and not get blown around.”

Does this make sense or would it convince anyone, no. The scriptures have to make sense, otherwise you can’t have a narrow gate, we have to eliminate some ideas.

 

[grafted branch]

Yes, and you see how that was done on the Sabbath, with the Ten Commandments with the replacement of the substitute day of worship and his lie that the Commandments are done away with, and many spread his deceptions...

Are you in agreement then that the plagues are not literal?

 

[Randy Kluth]

In Revelation 22:18 we see the promise that God will add the plagues that are written in this book to anyone who adds to the things (in this book).

Revelation 15:1 tells us the seven angels have the seven last plagues, then Revelation 16 describes these plagues as bowls being poured out.

I would say these plagues have to be non-literal, spiritual events that have happened to those who have added to the scriptures in the past and are now dead.

If these plagues are literal and still future events then it would seem that those who have added and are dead would have to be resurrected in order to have the plagues added to them, however I don’t know of anyone who holds the view of people being resurrected in order to experience the plagues.

How can the plagues be literal and added to someone who is now dead if they added to the book while they were alive?

I would say that the warning does not refer precisely to the 7 plagues represented by the bowl judgments. It is a general warning that if someone does not take the book seriously, that person will suffer the same judgment that will fall upon those the book is warning are not living properly.

The 7 plagues are clearly making use of symbolism. But the judgment itself, represented by those symbols, is quite real. I don't claim to know precisely what the symbols indicate.

 

[grafted branch]

I would say that the warning does not refer precisely to the 7 plagues represented by the bowl judgments. It is a general warning that if someone does not take the book seriously, that person will suffer the same judgment that will fall upon those the book is warning are not living properly.

The 7 plagues are clearly making use of symbolism. But the judgment itself, represented by those symbols, is quite real. I don't claim to know precisely what the symbols indicate.

I think I agree with you, although Revelation 22:18 says specifically the plagues that are written in this book shall be added to those who add to these things.

If you’re saying that the plagues symbolize what happens to all unbelievers, spiritually speaking, then it does make sense that someone who intentionally adds to the book will experience what the unbelievers do.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Perhaps the Revelation 22:18 warning has the James 1:13-15 pattern in mind, where someone starts with the lust to have the Bible say something it doesn’t, when this lust gets conceived it brings forth the sin of actually adding or removing scripture, and this sin brings on the spiritual plagues, which, when it is finished, brings forth death.

In Revelation 16 we see statements such as “and they repented not to give him glory” and “and repented not of their deeds”. It would appear that there was opportunity to repent during the pouring out of the bowls but then when the final seventh bowl gets poured out, that’s when Babylon comes into remembrance before God to give her the cup of the wine of the wrath.

 

[marks]

Following your logic I could declare that the last seven plagues already literally took place when 616 was penned. Here’s your statement with a slight adjustment “When? Where? How? These questions and more! But it already happened, I have no question at all in my mind. That's how I stay grounded in the Scriptures, and not get blown around.”

That's not my logic. A "slight adjustment"? You quote me but change my words?

This is what I actually wrote:

"When? Where? How? These questions and more! But that it will be, I have no question at all in my mind. That's how I stay grounded in the Scriptures, and not get blown around."

Clearly we each come to the Bible in a different manner. And as you are now preferring to rewrite my words into something I did not say, and then respond to that, carry on, I won't get in your way.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I think I agree with you, although Revelation 22:18 says specifically the plagues that are written in this book shall be added to those who add to these things.

Well yea, the plagues are judgments unto death for the followers of the Beast. If you side with the Beast by choosing to confuse the Revelation narrative then I suppose you're destined to face the same fate as those who follow the Beast?

If you’re saying that the plagues symbolize what happens to all unbelievers, spiritually speaking, then it does make sense that someone who intentionally adds to the book will experience what the unbelievers do.

Yes, the plagues bring an end to those who follow the Beast, and destroy the world that those who follow the Beast are presently enjoying. This happens to all who follow the Beast. They will all suffer the loss of this world at the time of Armageddon, and will not just die, but also experience eternal judgment.

Perhaps the Revelation 22:18 warning has the James 1:13-15 pattern in mind, where someone starts with the lust to have the Bible say something it doesn’t, when this lust gets conceived it brings forth the sin of actually adding or removing scripture, and this sin brings on the spiritual plagues, which, when it is finished, brings forth death.

It's more than that, though it is that. The choice to follow the lusts of the world, in opposition to loving Christ, is the sin of rejecting God's word and God's life. The result will be the loss of the opportunity to live with Christ forever.

The plagues are the loss of this world for unbelievers who completely reject Christ's Salvation. By disturbing the message of the Revelation they are actually choosing to disregard its message of Salvation for Christians and judgment for those who follow this wicked world.

In Revelation 16 we see statements such as “and they repented not to give him glory” and “and repented not of their deeds”. It would appear that there was opportunity to repent during the pouring out of the bowls but then when the final seventh bowl gets poured out, that’s when Babylon comes into remembrance before God to give her the cup of the wine of the wrath.

Judgment is happening to people every day. God knows when their decision is final. Certainly those who die at Armageddon, having rejected Christ in their heart, will be lost.

 

[Hobie]

Are you in agreement then that the plagues are not literal?

When the Flood came, I think those drowning felt it was literal enough...

 

[grafted branch]

That's not my logic. A "slight adjustment"? You quote me but change my words?

This is what I actually wrote:

"When? Where? How? These questions and more! But that it will be, I have no question at all in my mind. That's how I stay grounded in the Scriptures, and not get blown around."

Clearly we each come to the Bible in a different manner. And as you are now preferring to rewrite my words into something I did not say, and then respond to that, carry on, I won't get in your way.

Much love!

That is your logic, I quoted your statement but changed it from the plagues being future to the plagues being fulfilled. Are you saying that your original statement is not flawed but when I say “When? Where? How? These questions and more! But it already happened, I have no question at all in my mind. That's how I stay grounded in the Scriptures, and not get blown around” that this is flawed?

My point was that anyone can use this type of argument but it doesn’t show why you might be right, it only shows that you are emotionally passionate about your view and that you have accepted this view without revealing to us the evidence of why this might be.

I don’t understand what the issue is, I didn’t rewrite your words so that I could respond to an altered quote, I rewrote your quote so that you could see how unconvincing it is when that same logic is applied to a different view.

 

[marks]

That is your logic, I quoted your statement but changed it from the plagues being future to the plagues being fulfilled. Are you saying that your original statement is not flawed but when I say “When? Where? How? These questions and more! But it already happened, I have no question at all in my mind. That's how I stay grounded in the Scriptures, and not get blown around” that this is flawed?

Maybe I'm coming to realize you are assuming that the plagues are added to the person immediately, and that's why you saw fit to alter my quote? You made my words say something I didn't say, and I don't play that way.

Perhaps you might want to review my posts if you want to continue this dialog. I don't see the need to continue it myself.

Much love!