Does Israel get taken over again?

iamlamad said in post #276:

For example, no one ever, not even one person has ever shown the world when the 7 trumpet judgments came, and then followed by the 7 vials.

Click to expand...

The world won't experience the 7 last plagues of the 7 vials of God's wrath (Revelation chapters 15-16), the final stage of the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, until after the never-fulfilled Revelation chapters 6 to 15 have been fulfilled in our future. At the 1st vial, an awful sore will appear on those people who will have received the future Antichrist's mark and worshipped his image (Revelation 16:2). At the 2nd vial, the sea will become like the blood of a dead man, and every living creature in the sea will die (Revelation 16:3). At the 3rd vial, all natural, surface sources of fresh water will become blood (Revelation 16:4). At the 4th vial, mankind will be scorched with fire shot out from the sun (Revelation 16:8). This would be a solar-flare coronal mass ejection of solar plasma, which could make its way down to the surface of the earth due to the earth's magnetic field being disrupted during a magnetic-pole reversal which could occur near the end of the future Tribulation.

At the 5th vial, the whole world will be plunged into literal darkness (Revelation 16:10). At the 6th vial, unclean spirits like frogs will come out of the mouths of Lucifer (Satan, the dragon: Revelation 12:9), and the future Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast"), and the False Prophet (Revelation 16:13). And these unclean spirits like frogs will go forth and perform amazing miracles to convince the world's armies to gather together to fight against YHWH God Himself (Revelation 16:14, Revelation 19:19). The Euphrates will dry up so that the armies of "the kings of the east" (Revelation 16:12), such as the vast armies of China and India, can easily cross the riverbed and gather at the "place" called Armageddon (Revelation 16:16), which is Har Megiddo, Mount Megiddo in northern Israel. Once the armies of the east have gathered there, as only a staging area, along with all the other armies of the world (Revelation 16:14,16), they won't wage battle there. That is why the Bible doesn't refer to a "battle" of Armageddon. Instead, the armies will travel south to pillage Jerusalem, right before Jesus Christ (who is YHWH) returns from heaven and defeats them completely (Zechariah 14:2-21, Revelation 19:19-21).

At the 7th vial, right before Jesus Christ returns (Revelation 16:17,19, Revelation 19:2-21), there will be a huge earthquake which will affect the whole world (Revelation 16:18-20), and 100-pound hailstones will pummel the earth (Revelation 16:21). The 7th vial will also be when Revelation's symbolic (and worldwide) "Babylon" (Revelation chapters 17-18) will be destroyed (Revelation 16:19).

*******

iamlamad said in post #277:

How could anyone miss such an event or series of events that would pollute 1/3 of the sea and 1/3 of the fresh water?

Click to expand...

Revelation 8:8a could refer to the future collapse into the ocean of a huge, erupting volcano, possibly one of the Canary Islands. Revelation 8:8b could refer to one-third of the North Atlantic turning blood-red due to a gigantic amount of blood-red mud pouring forth from the volcano into the sea during an extended period of time. Revelation 8:9a could refer to one-third of the sea creatures in the North Atlantic dying because of there being so much mud in the water. And Revelation 8:9b could refer to one-third of the North Atlantic's ships being destroyed in port by a massive tsunami caused by the volcano's collapse into the ocean. This tsunami could destroy the eastern seaboard of the U.S.

After the volcanic activity and possible tsunami, a comet will strike the earth (Revelation 8:10-11), possibly in the U.S. and Canadian Great Lakes region. As the comet falls from the sky, it will look like a great star, or like a burning lamp in the sky (Revelation 8:10). It will strike a region of the earth which contains one-third of the world's fresh surface water (Revelation 8:10b); and it will contain some poisonous element, which will poison that water, so that many who drink from it will die (Revelation 8:11b).

jgr said:

You have expressed our affliction quite succinctly. We've abandoned our historic roots. We claim to be Protestants, but have lost sight of what we were protesting. We've ceased to seek and acknowledge prophetic fulfillment, and have denied it with speculation, presumption, and conjecture.

If the true Church of the late Medieval period had believed as you do, there would have been no Reformers or Reformation, and this forum would not exist today.

Click to expand...

I have abandoned nothing other than the foolish notion that prophecy is all fulfilled.
Yes, many do use speculation, presumption and conjecture. Just as you do in saying the 10 kingdoms are past history. Proven wrong by Daniel 7:23, where is in plainly stated that they cover the whole earth.
They will be the ten regions that the proponents of the One World Govt have already decided.

keras said:

I have abandoned nothing other than the foolish notion that prophecy is all fulfilled.
Yes, many do use speculation, presumption and conjecture. Just as you do in saying the 10 kingdoms are past history. Proven wrong by Daniel 7:23, where is in plainly stated that they cover the whole earth.
They will be the ten regions that the proponents of the One World Govt have already decided.

Click to expand...

Proven wrong by Daniel 2:39 :

And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

This was the Grecian empire. It bore "rule over all the earth." It was succeeded by the Roman empire. That too ruled the earth.

keras said:

I have abandoned nothing other than the foolish notion that prophecy is all fulfilled.

Click to expand...

Was Christ foolish?

Luke 24
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures

Acts 13
29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

jgr said:

Proven wrong by Daniel 2:39 :

And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

This was the Grecian empire. It bore "rule over all the earth." It was succeeded by the Roman empire. That too ruled the earth.

Click to expand...

Alexander's Empire did not rule all the earth. In India, his troops refused to go any further.
He died and his kingdom broke into 4, all now long gone.

That is past history, but the kingdom of Daniel 7:23-24 will end with the sovereignty, power and authority being given the holy people of the Most High, something we still await.

keras said:

Alexander's Empire did not rule all the earth. In India, his troops refused to go any further.

Maybe that was a far as humans has spread by then.​

He died and his kingdom broke into 4, all now long gone.

That is past history, but the kingdom of Daniel 7:23-24 will end with the sovereignty, power and authority being given the holy people of the Most High, something we still await.

Click to expand...

So Daniel 2:39 is in error?

jgr said:

So Daniel 2:39 is in error?

Click to expand...

No, it refers to an empire long gone.
Which is NOT the same as the one prophesied in Daniel 7:23 and Revelation 17:12......10 kings; not yet begun to reign....

Are you incapable of understanding the we do have a future? That the Lord has told us what He plans for the period leading up to the Return of Jesus?
I view those who want, for whatever reason, to abrogate the prophesies, or to believe unscriptural fables, to be committing a sin. The sin of improperly utilizing the Bible.
It is a very serious matter and could result in some disadvantage to those fail to properly comprehend the prophesies and especially for those who teach false theories.

keras said:

No, it refers to an empire long gone.
Which is NOT the same as the one prophesied in Daniel 7:23 and Revelation 17:12......10 kings; not yet begun to reign....

Are you incapable of understanding the we do have a future? That the Lord has told us what He plans for the period leading up to the Return of Jesus?
I view those who want, for whatever reason, to abrogate the prophesies, or to believe unscriptural fables, to be committing a sin. The sin of improperly utilizing the Bible.
It is a very serious matter and could result in some disadvantage to those fail to properly comprehend the prophesies and especially for those who teach false theories.

Click to expand...

Daniel 2:40 refers to the fourth kingdom, the Roman empire, which, like the third Grecian empire in Daniel 2:39, ruled the earth during its era.
Daniel 7:23 refers to the same fourth kingdom.
The ten kingdoms emerged from the dissolution of that fourth kingdom. This is confirmed fulfilled history.
We see the apex of confirmed fulfilled history in Daniel 2:44, which prophesies of the invincible spiritual kingdom that Christ would establish at His first coming during the fourth kingdom, the Roman empire.
What is a very serious matter is to reject the fulfilled historical revelation of God's dealings with mankind, and attempt to replace it with futurized fantasy, conjecture, presumption, and speculation.
Revelation is reality. Speculation is theory.
When revelation is rejected, only speculation remains.

jgr said:

None of that is in Daniel 7.

Click to expand...

Nice side step. You know where these things are written. Be bold, tell us: are these things history or future?

iamlamad said:

Nice side step. You know where these things are written. Be bold, tell us: are these things history or future?

Click to expand...

Daniel 7 is primarily history. I don't claim to understand Revelation's trumpets and vials.

Your turn.

jgr said:

This was the Grecian empire. It bore "rule over all the earth." It was succeeded by the Roman empire. That too ruled the earth.

Click to expand...

Where did you read about Greece or Rome ruling over the North Americas or Canada , Mexico or Australia , Hawaii ?

Alhough some of the various groups jgr listed had kings over them, the more common case was, as clearly stated in one of the articles jgr quoted, "Although several tribes put their military forces under the joint command of two leaders for the duration of a campaign, the different peoples generally found it difficult to combine, and they had nothing that could be called a central government."

And although three of these groups were eventually obliterated, this was not done by the Pope, but by others.

And I find it nothing short of amusing, that in listing them, it was necessary to combine the Angels and the Saxons, two different Germanic tribes, as a single kingdom, to come up with the number ten. Of course, they eventually did become united as a single kingdom, which later became known as England. But when they arrived, they were two different groups.

Thus, as in every other historicist claim I have ever examined. The historical facts alleged simply do not fit the details of the prophecy claimed to have been fulfilled.

And as a side note almost all the documentation provided is from historicist sources. And it is well known that people who are trying to prove a point tend to twist the facts "just a little" to fit the point they desire to prove.

seventysevens said:

Where did you read about Greece or Rome ruling over the North Americas or Canada , Mexico or Australia , Hawaii ?

Click to expand...

Where do you think Daniel read it?

Biblewriter said:

Alhough some of the various groups jgr listed had kings over them, the more common case was, as clearly stated in one of the articles jgr quoted, "Although several tribes put their military forces under the joint command of two leaders for the duration of a campaign, the different peoples generally found it difficult to combine, and they had nothing that could be called a central government."

And although three of these groups were eventually obliterated, this was not done by the Pope, but by others.

And I find it nothing short of amusing, that in listing them, it was necessary to combine the Angels and the Saxons, two different Germanic tribes, as a single kingdom, to come up with the number ten. Of course, they eventually did become united as a single kingdom, which later became known as England. But when they arrived, they were two different groups.

Thus, as in every other historicist claim I have ever examined. The historical facts alleged simply do not fit the details of the prophecy claimed to have been fulfilled.

And as a side note almost all the documentation provided is from historicist sources. And it is well known that people who are trying to prove a point tend to twist the facts "just a little" to fit the point they desire to prove.

Click to expand...

There will always be some disagreement regarding such matters. But the inventory of historians and scholars who are in agreement with the historical view far exceeds the number of detractors. That is evident from the body of documentation provided. One or two dissenting articles among a general consensus of many more is insufficient to establish a credible alternative case.

You will also notice the information originating from several secular sources with no motivation to "twist the facts just a little."

Of course much of the documentation is from historicist sources. Historicists specialize in history. They don't speculate on the future. They leave futurizing to the futurists. If you have a body of credible counterevidence from futurists who are recognized authorities on the history in which historicists themselves specialize, then feel free to provide it.

The Reformers did not become historicists by accident. They recognized the historical prophetic significance of the times which preceded them, and in which they themselves lived, and because of which they frequently died. Martin Luther was unwilling for an extended period to characterize the papacy as antichrist. But he ultimately arrived at a time when he realized that he had no choice.

You may recall that I've requested the names of Reformers who espoused a futurized antichrist. I've yet to receive any.

Unless and until you can provide a counterbalancing body of credible counterevidence, the historical consensus stands.

jgr said:

There will always be some disagreement regarding such matters. But the inventory of historians and scholars who are in agreement with the historical view far exceeds the number of detractors. That is evident from the body of documentation provided. One or two dissenting articles among a general consensus of many more is insufficient to establish a credible alternative case.

You will also notice the information originating from several secular sources with no motivation to "twist the facts just a little."

Of course much of the documentation is from historicist sources. Historicists specialize in history. They don't speculate on the future. They leave futurizing to the futurists. If you have a body of credible counterevidence from futurists who are recognized authorities on the history in which historicists themselves specialize, then feel free to provide it.

The Reformers did not become historicists by accident. They recognized the historical prophetic significance of the times which preceded them, and in which they themselves lived, and because of which they frequently died. Martin Luther was unwilling for an extended period to characterize the papacy as antichrist. But he ultimately arrived at a time when he realized that he had no choice.

You may recall that I've requested the names of Reformers who espoused a futurized antichrist. I've yet to receive any.

Unless and until you can provide a counterbalancing body of credible counterevidence, the historical consensus stands.

Click to expand...

In the historical sources you cited, not even one of them disputed the statement that was only made in one source you cited. The opinions of historicists are of zero value in determining whether or not a given interpretation is actually backed up by historical facts, But even though some of the sources you cited are considered historians, you did not quote, or even cite, even one original source. Although I have, in a few cases, made the mistake of citing secondary sources, I avoid doing that, as ALL secondary sources are merely citing opinions about what others have written.

It is truly possible to make up a very long list of people who took any particular position on almost any idea. But it is irrational to pretend that these people make up a majority of the scholastic world.

And I am still analyzing the original sources I have on what some of the reformers actually said.

Biblewriter said:

The opinions of historicists are of zero value in determining whether or not a given interpretation is actually backed up by historical facts

Click to expand...

They're of far greater value than the opinions of futurists about historical facts.

Biblewriter said:

But even though some of the sources you cited are considered historians, you did not quote, or even cite, even one original source.

Click to expand...

What is your definition of "original source"? Machiavelli dates to the 15th century. One would reasonably expect any citations used by encyclopedias to be as original as could be obtained.

An original source is the actual ancient writer that made the statement being relied upon. I personally devoted approximately 40 years to studying actual ancient sources. I did this to assure, first myself, and then others, that what I was stating was not simply the opinion of some modern person about ancient events. This is something that probably not even one of the sources you cited, other that Edward Gibbon, actually did.

And although my studies did not concentrate on the age you are speaking of, I picked up enough along the way to KNOW that the actual historical facts do not line up with the details of Daniel 7. All you can demonstrate is a sort of general parallel, which only works if you ignore the details of the prophecy.

Biblewriter said:

An original source is the actual ancient writer that made the statement being relied upon. I personally devoted approximately 40 years to studying actual ancient sources. I did this to assure, first myself, and then others, that what I was stating was not simply the opinion of some modern person about ancient events. This is something that probably not even one of the sources you cited, other that Edward Gibbon, actually did.

And although my studies did not concentrate on the age you are speaking of, I picked up enough along the way to KNOW that the actual historical facts do not line up with the details of Daniel 7. All you can demonstrate is a sort of general parallel, which only works if you ignore the details of the prophecy.

Click to expand...

If you can provide a more original counterbalancing body of credible counterevidence, please do so.

jgr said:

Where do you think Daniel read it?

Click to expand...

NO one who wrote biblical scripture was in America , Australia , or Mexico ,Hawaii, Antarctica , Central America , so no it was not Daniel

jgr said:

If you can provide a more original counterbalancing body of credible counterevidence, please do so.

Click to expand...

I am not going to bother with it, for two reasons. one, it makes no difference, for even if what you said is mostly correct, your own allegations do not match the prophecy. And second, you would still believe what was said by the people you want to believe.