Search results

Right, it’s not what you said but we have both attempted to prove a point using flawed logic. Saying God wrote it in the Bible, therefore it’s going to happen exactly as I think it will, is flawed thinking that relies on humans not God. This type of argument does nothing to support a view...

Ok, so I can say the person that changed 666 to 616 literally experienced the actual plagues in Revelation while he was alive, thus proving that Revelation 16 is fulfilled. It’s enough that He said it is so. I don’t have any issues with believing His words are true. One of us has to be wrong...

Ok, so if it doesn’t apply to the plagues then how is it that the person who altered the number 666 and turned it into 616, experiences the literal plagues? Did they experience them before they died or are they going to be resurrected first to literally experience them?

No, I altered your quote and told you that I changed it to make a point. That point was that anyone can simply say Gods going to make something happen because that’s what the Bible says, which is essentially what you said, or at least how I understood what you said. Using this type of logic I...

I think you’re pointing to what could happen in the future to someone who alters the book of Revelation, but what are your thoughts on someone who has already alter the book and is now dead? Did they have the plagues written in Revelation added to them while they were alive? Did they follow the...

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...

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...

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

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...

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...

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.

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...

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...

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...

I think it’s a possibility but I haven’t seen anyone make the argument that the seven bowls are poured out at the GWT. Most people that think they are literal will argue that they happen prior to the millennium.

I suppose you could argue that the last plagues can happen to the dead but then they aren’t literal right? A body that has decayed or been burned to ashes can’t get literal noisome grievous sores, unless that body is resurrected first. If that’s the case then the plagues would have to happen at...

The general rule for interpreting the scriptures is if it makes literal sense then that should be the primary understanding. Since the plagues literally happening to people who have already died doesn’t make sense, we need to look at the plagues as being spiritual plagues.

Joseph Smith added when he came up with the Book of Mormon. Did he have noisome grievous sores while he was alive? I see no record of that.

Well, the first angel poured his bowl on the earth and grievous sores fell upon them that had the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. If the beast and his mark is still future how could a person who died prior to the beast have this plague added to them?

Ok, so then in Revelation 16:10 the fifth angel pours out his bowl on the seat of the beast and his kingdom, does this mean the beasts kingdom has existed ever since the book of Revelation was written? And will continue to exist until we are made perfect?