rev.13 1

[veteran]

I love it when a member posts statements that say to another member, "study, study, study",. Statements like that suggests the member who posted the statement is "the teacher", and the person they are addressing the statement to, is "the student".....Frankly, these kind of statements are the height of arrogance....it also indicates to me ( from years of forum debate experience ) that the person who made the statement is completely empty of answers to the questions that are posed.

Perhaps Veteran, when you are REALLY ready to interpret prophecy, you will cease pawning-off repeating scripture as some sort of "interpretation" and you will also cease relegating every prophecy you repeat as something related to "the future" ( so that you don't have to fully define what that prophecy is stating ). Frankly, that's all you've done in your conversation with me concerning Rev 12. You have repeated the passages in Rev 12 and placed most of chp 12 in the future, so that you wouldn't have to interpret it....because, frankly, you can't interpret it.

Incidentally, it never states that the dragon, in fact, devoured the child. It DOES say the dragon was READY TO DEVOUR the child, but it never says the child was devoured. Indeed, it says the child wasn't devoured at all, but was "caught up to God". And the woman was also "ready to be delivered", just as Israel was waiting for a "deliverer" ( Messiah ) to come to rescue them away from bondage under the Roman yoke. That is why she was "ready to be delivered". Unfortunately, while they were waiting for a "conquering Messiah" to come, they received a "suffering Messiah". These passages have nothing at all to do with Adam & Eve, or Cain & Abel, or the garden of Eden. Eve, I'm sure, was "pained to be delivered" with Cain as well....unless God performed a C-section on Eve while under a heavenly anesthetic.....but that would have countermanded God's own statement concerning her pained conceptions in Genesis 3:16. ( Btw, who was Cain afraid of when he received his "mark"? His parents? Hardly....)

From verses 12:5 thru to verse 17 - nearly all of the chapter - Veteran pawns-off as "interpretation" repeating what is said in those passages, while relegating everything written to "the future". What an easy way to interpret scripture! In fact, like many people who claim they know prophecy, he repeats what is already presented to us as though he is interpreting something. Indeed, your form of "interpretation" is parroting scripture under the guise of some sort of interpretation. That isn't interpretation at all. Therefore - and I say this with hesitant reciprocation - you may need to do some more studying yourself, because you haven't interpreted a single piece of prophecy in Rev 12.

You're relying on your 'fleshy' reasoning in the above, which makes obvious that you need more Bible study.

 

[popeye]

Well of course....WE ALL need more study...including you. I don't know what is "fleshy" about pointing out that you don't interpret scripture, you parrot it, and call it an interpretation.

I'll leave you with Eve in pain to deliver Abel and your convoluted understanding of Rev 12. :wacko: :blink:

I leave this thread interpreting the child as Jesus Christ and consequentially, the birth of Christianity ( originating through Judaism ).

See ya in another thread, Vet....

 

[veteran]

Won't matter. There's still plenty enough Biblically learned folks here that will counter the PRETERIST doctrines of men you hold on to.

 

[popeye]

Preterist?! You need to learn the definition of "preterist" before you label me one. Not even close....I'm a pre-millennial futurist, holding to a post-trib, mid-week, pre-wrath rapturist's POV. There are very very few true Preterists anyway. Most of those who hold to that view are partial preterists / historists. Rev 12 is the ONLY chapter in The Rev where the bulk of the chapter is historical. Indeed, it's the key chapter that unlocks the chronology / orientation of the end events. It is no mistake that it was assigned the godly number 12.

 

[veteran]

The historical view of most of Rev.12 is a PRETERIST and HISTORICIST view. I've not found much difference between Preterists and Historicists.

 

[popeye]

They are correct then, about one thing, because frankly, most of Rev 12 is historical ( exceptions: verses 15,16 & 17 ). Preterists and historists regard ALMOST ALL of the prophecies historical / fulfilled.....not just one chapter....

 

[revturmoil]

Obviously, you are a younger man, understandably concerned with the rise of Islamic jihad, and the emphasis placed on it in this day and age. However, Muslims' days are numbered by prophecy and God's prediction of their eradication during the coming Gog invasion of Israel.

Obviously you have no clue as to my age. I'm a younger man pushing 60. Age has nothing to do with any of this anyway.

You base your interpretation of the end time beast on the mis-interpretation and timing of the Ezekiel 38-39 war. You base one false theory on another false theory!

What makes you think Islam will be eradicated by the Ez. 38-39 war when there are over 1.5 billion Muslim's worldwide? We can take out every Arab/Muslim nation in the Gulf/Middle-East and there would still be enough terrorist worldwide to bring us tribulation.

The church will not accept the man of sin or fulfill any prophecies related to the beast(s).

Most end-time prophecy involves the destruction of Israel, Christian's, and all non-Muslim's i.e.infidels. All the nations and people involved are Arab and/or Muslim. Not Roman or Catholic.

Every verse of end-time prophecy that deal with the origin of the beast points to Arab/Muslim nations and nothing else.

The RRE contradicts a host of scriptures and there's not one verse that supports it! If you say Rome will somehow emerge in the last days then all other verses of prophecy must also be in accord. But there is no continuity in the RRE!

I use to be a pretribulationist. I use to believe in a one world government and one world religion. I use to believe that apostasy is a defection from the truth. I use to believe in a rebuilt temple so the man of sin could authenticate himself.
I use to believe in a "peace treaty" between Isreal and the anti-christ.

But that's because I use to listen to the big shot prophecy experts.

 

[veteran]

They are correct then, about one thing, because frankly, most of Rev 12 is historical ( exceptions: verses 15,16 & 17 ). Preterists and historists regard ALMOST ALL of the prophecies historical / fulfilled.....not just one chapter....

But they are not correct, for only from Rev.12:1 to a portion of Rev.12:5 was historical. Christ's future reign with "a rod of iron" is about the future "thousand years" reign of Rev.20. Not all Historicists and Preterists deny the future existence of Christ's Millennium reign, but most of them do. You are apparently one that follows their doctrines.

 

[popeye]

Vet -

You are apparently one that follows their doctrines.

Are you sure you weren't a Marine?....Jar-Head! :huh: :blink: :wacko:

Kaopectate -

Obviously you have no clue as to my age. I'm a younger man pushing 60.

Yeah, right, and I walked with Jesus Christ too. Love the internet....you can appear to be anyone you want....

I use to be a pretribulationist. I use to believe in a one world government and one world religion. I use to believe that apostasy is a defection from the truth. I use to believe in a rebuilt temple so the man of sin could authenticate himself.
I use to believe in a "peace treaty" between Isreal and the anti-christ.

With the exception of the pre-trib stuff, you should have stuck with your first "hunch", because where you are now, is further from home than you may ever realize....until it's too late.

 

[veteran]

Vet -


Are you sure you weren't a Marine?....Jar-Head! :huh: :blink: :wacko:

Does that mean you are vehemently against the U.S. military? Are you pro-Islam, pro-Communist then?

 

[revturmoil]

Vet -


Are you sure you weren't a Marine?....Jar-Head! :huh: :blink: :wacko:

Kaopectate -


Yeah, right, and I walked with Jesus Christ too. Love the internet....you can appear to be anyone you want....


With the exception of the pre-trib stuff, you should have stuck with your first "hunch", because where you are now, is further from home than you may ever realize....until it's too late.

So now you're accusing me of lying about my age. Hey! Just because you have one doesn't mean you have to act like one!

And don't worry about getting old, death, or even growing up! It'll catch up with you somday!

You're getting to be about as disgusting as the Scribbler!

Scribbler,

You said on another thread,

You make up a false history to support a false doctrine, and assure everyone that your god is not a false god.


Either GOD is TRUE or HE is false. -- And you have presented a false god.

You're full of those kind of comments. I can't tell you how disgusting I find your arrogant frame of mind and snide and offensive comments. You need to get off of your arrogant trip, smarten up, and grow up!

 

[popeye]

"Disgusting" is a little strong considering the level of my accusation, don't ya think, Kao? Man-o-man you're "touchy".

Ya need to get thicker skin. Older folks have thick skin.

 

[BibleScribe]

...
Scribbler,
...
You're full of those kind of comments. I can't tell you how disgusting I find your arrogant frame of mind and snide and offensive comments. You need to get off of your arrogant trip, smarten up, and grow up!

Are you still slandering Christians? Hmmmmmm, as old are you are, I'd a thought that you'd be afraid of the consequences awaiting you.

 

[revturmoil]

"Disgusting" is a little strong considering the level of my accusation, don't ya think, Kao? Man-o-man you're "touchy".

Ya need to get thicker skin. Older folks have thick skin.

I don't need thicker skin. I need to get away from people who call me a liar and who call themselves Christian.

In a few days I'm leaving this forum because of you and the Scribbler. I've had enough of your evil ways!

 

[BibleScribe]

Why wait? Is there someone you haven't slandered yet? Did your father want you to lead someone else into error?


John 10:10
The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.


BibleScribe

 

[888]

and i stood upon the sand of the sea. who can tell me what this means? just those few words not all of the verse. then i'll know who understands.

I'm not saying I'm correct, but just a thought on this subject..

First I'd like to mention this scripture,

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the SAND which is upon the SEA shore..."

Keep in mind that the Great Multitude cannot be numbered.

Now the scripture before the one you mentions tells of the future in which Satan is hurled down to earth...

Revelation

"When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman(whom I believe is the bride of Christ/144,000 as the woman is described as having 12 stars on its crown/12 tribes of Israel) who had given birth to the male child.

The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach.

Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent.

But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth.(Remember the 144k is mentioned as being redeemed from the earth opposed to the Great Multitude coming out of the great tribulation)

Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring--those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.(Which I believe is the Great Multitude that comes out of the tribulation)

And the dragon stood on the SAND of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names."

So it's possible that the dragon standing on the sand symbolizes his dominion over the great multitude/Abraham's seeds. As it says the Dragon was furious at the women(bride of Christ/144k) and went to go make war with her off-spring(144k being first fruits/harvest which produces the 2nd fruits/harvest/off-spring/Great Multitude).

The SEA possibly means the rest of the people who are not believers and not accounted as Abraham's seed/SAND. Which it would make sense why the beast would come out of that group of people.

This is my thoughts on this subject.

What do you guys think?


EDIT: I should also add that there's a mix up of translations, some saying "I stood" others saying "He(dragon) stood", and others saying the "the dragon stood...".

It would make sense from what I wrote above if the correct translation was that it was the dragon who stood upon the sand.

 

[BibleScribe]

Hi 888,

Sometimes when the head gasket leaks oil, only the drip down the engine block is visible. Is the engine block leaking oil? No, it's the head gasket.


So too, when you consider Revelation 17, the identification of the woman (etc.) is made evident by the seven mountains/kings. Afterall that's the full context. So have you identified the seven mountains/kings? -- This simple determination helps the more difficult.


BibleScribe

 

[gregg]

the word says that there will be no more sea.rev.21,1 put it together

 

[veteran]

the word says that there will be no more sea.rev.21,1 put it together

Better yet, put Rev.21:1 and Gen.1:2 together, then Jer.4:28 and Rom.8:18-25, and 2 Peter 3.

 

[gregg]

Better yet, put Rev.21:1 and Gen.1:2 together, then Jer.4:28 and Rom.8:18-25, and 2 Peter 3.

no comparison unless i do a chubby checker come on baby lets do the twist