Nope, I’m saying men spoke a prophecy and said it came from God when it did not.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The End Time Prophecy in Revelation 16:12 has been Fulfilled
- Thread starter Tazarah
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible prophecy revelation
Cooky
Veteran Member
His argument does not fail. You invented a scenario that nobody can deny due to there not being any records of it.
...What do you want him to do, go drill some holes for core samples in the riverbank? Then get back with you..? Just to prove a baseless claim?
Cooky
Veteran Member
And what scripture do you cite to back up this claim? Being this is the Scriptural Debates section.
Revelation 16:12 as it was interpreted before the facts
Really, because I went through all three pages of the concordance and in every instance it was translated either king or kings, what did I miss?
ETA for anyone who doubts me here is a link to all 3 pages for the word referred to: G935 - basileus - Strong's Greek Lexicon (KJV)
Last edited:
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Luke 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
Plenty of other things in Luke 21 show it has not happened yet
Same time and events... this is that power and glory......
Then the LORD will go out to fight against those nations, as He fights in the day of battle. 4On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half the mountain moving to the north and half to the south. ......................................... Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with Him.a 6On that day there will be no light, no cold or frost. 7It will be a day known only to the LORD, without day or night; but when evening comes, there will be light. 8And on that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it toward the Eastern Seab and the other half toward the Western Sea,c in summer and winter alike. 9On that day the LORD will become King over all the earth—the LORD alone, and His name alone. 10All the land from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem will be turned into a plain, but Jerusalem will be raised up and will remain in her place, from the Benjamin Gate to the site of the First Gate to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the royal winepresses. 11People will live there, and never again will there be an utter destruction. So Jerusalem will dwell securely. 12And this will be the plague with which the LORD strikes all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.
The house of Israel will go into captivity from where they are now. Some of the house of Judah go into captivity -some of Judah does not and fights at Jerusalem.
Zech 14:14Judah will also fight at Jerusalem..........
Last edited:
No, I didn't "invent a scenario". I pointed out that IF there had been a precedent then his argument failed, AND since he had not presented evidence ruling out such a precedent, his argument had that hole in it.
In other words, his conclusion should have been phrased:
IF it could be shown that the Euphrates has never previously been dry, and IF it could be shown that a battle at Megiddo in the course of a world war had happened while the Euphrates was dry [@Kangaroo Feathers' point] and IF the combatants on that occasion were the armies of kingdoms [Kangaroo Feathers' further point], THEN it would be arguable that the conditions mentioned &c.
But that isn't his claim.
Tazarah
Well-Known Member
Not true. You don't know what you're talking about. Let's take a look at the prophecy in Joel 3.
JOEL 3:1-2
"1 For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land."
According to the prophecy in Joel 3:1-2, the Israelites are already in captivity and will be in captivity until the day when God comes to gather all nations and judge them.
Tazarah
Well-Known Member
The times of the gentiles have not been fulfilled. Luke 21:25-30 lists the things that will happen once the times of the gentiles have been fulfilled.
Tazarah
Well-Known Member
I don't get why this is so hard for them to understand. They will literally grasp for straws and try to create loopholes all day when it's obvious what the text is saying.
I even showed them the greek word used for "king" in Revelation 16:12 and how it's biblical usage includes "commander", as well as "leader of the people".
Tazarah
Well-Known Member
You asserted that the Euphrates river has dried up before and that I need to prove it hasn't in order for my argument to be valid. Do you realize how completely irrational that sounds? You are the one claiming or implying that it has dried up before so when are you going to prove it? I'm saying that it hasn't dried up before, so are you going to prove me wrong? Or are you just going to keep pretending that there are imaginary holes in my argument.
Tazarah
Well-Known Member
You did not answer, and you did not answer because you know it didn't happen. When did the Euphrates river dry up in 1918 and when did eastern military forces use the Euphrates river for military purposes in 1918 like Revelation 16:12 says?
The answer is: never, and never.
Go back over my posts and read them again.
At no stage did I say that the Euphrates had dried up before. At no stage did I say that the Euphrates had not dried up before.
I said that IF it has dried up before THEN you argument fails.
Therefore YOU need to show that it has NOT dried up before.
Or modify your claim so that it's conditional in the manner I suggested to Mr Caeli at #169 above.
Tazarah
Well-Known Member
"Mr. Caeli" already debunked your silly logic. You are trying to get people to prove a negative because that's all you have to go on.
The funniest part of everything is that the prophecy in Revelation 16:12 says the river will dry up AND that the eastern forces will prepare to use the river as a pathway/location for military purposes.
You're so focused on trying to get people to prove that the river has never dried up before that you are completely ignoring the second part of the prophecy.
You're just isolating the part that you think you can raise suspicion against, but even that isn't working out for you.
That's the whole point ─ for your argument to succeed, YOU have to demonstrate that those things have happened, or not happened, IN FACT.
Assertion won't cut it. Hard evidence from history will.
And in failing to clarify those points one way or the other, the big hole in your argument remains unfixed.
Tazarah
Well-Known Member
The euphrates river has never dried up before. There is no news, information or historical writings about it every drying up until recently. Myself and others have told you this numerous times.
If you disagree, please provide information showing otherwise.
You're a very careless, or a very selective reader, no?
I point out again that it's very easy to prove a great many negatives: eg that I wasn't in Tokyo on Christmas Day 1635. That at no time in the last 20,000 years has Mount Everest been wholly submerged. That England since 1066 has never had a monarch called Igor. On and on.
And I also told you before how to show that the Euphrates has or has not run dry before ─ check history thoroughly yourself, or refer to the work of a reputable historian who's done that.
Why haven't you done that?
Has or has not, one or the other ─ I'm not championing any particular answer. I'm simply pointing out that if it's dried up on one or more earlier occasions then your argument fails. If it hasn't then you don't have that problem but you still have the problems raised by @Kangaroo Feathers.
Provide a link to reputable authority that confirms your claim.
That's exactly what you should have done in your first post without asking, and haven't done even now after your problem has been pointed out to you again and again.
You've merely asserted. You've entirely failed to demonstrate.