Biblical Prophecy and World War III

spiritualwarrior77

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2012
862
10
✟8,797.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Except, as we've discussed, they don't meet in secret, otherwise you wouldn't know about it. You'd prefer, maybe, a world where the movers and shakers don't periodically get together and talk about what's going on?

Seriously, just because groups exist that havn't invited you to join, doesn't mean they're out to get you.

Firstly, it is only recently the world at large has found out about the Bilderbergers. And the contents of those meetings are still off limits to the press. David Rockefeller (one of the BIG movers and shakers) had this to say:
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

He went on to explain:

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle

You trust these people?!?!? Do you know anything about the Rockefeller Dynasty?

Secondly, it is illegal for the politicians of the country you live in (the US) to meet in secret without public disclosure. This has been going on for years without a single arrest. And you're OK with this?!?!?

You stagger me, BB!!!!
 
Upvote 0

spiritualwarrior77

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2012
862
10
✟8,797.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
If satanist run the world would I get initiated into the power elite if I converted to satanism or do you have be born into special bloodlines or whatnot?

The Illuminati families are bloodline. Nothing you can do will change that.
But, they have their minions woking for them. If you are willing to sell your soul, compromise yourself and destroy your conscience you will gain certain powers. Your life will be a misery but you be made to think you are having a good time.
You'll just be scum to them but they'll feed your ego lies and make you feel special.
Satanism is a blast :sick:
 
Upvote 0

interpreter

Senior Member
Mar 4, 2004
6,309
157
77
Texas
✟7,377.00
Faith
Anglican
Yeah, Bush is such a good Christian he thought bombing the living daylights out of thousands of Iraqis was a good thing... :doh:

David.
Getting rid of Hussein and a lot of Al Qaida fighters was a good thing. We did not intentionally harm one non-combatant.
 
Upvote 0

Illuminaughty

Drift and Doubt
May 18, 2012
4,617
133
✟20,609.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Upvote 0
U

UnamSanctam

Guest

So.....you're saying that the US should've stayed out of WW2, because of the rate of civilian casualties amongst the Germans (which was several magnitudes higher than anything before or since)? Or is that something totally different because the victims were Europeans, and the POTUS was a Democrat?
Also - how do you feel about the war against Yugoslavia in 1999 - where there were also many civilian casualties amongst the Yugoslavs?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Illuminaughty

Drift and Doubt
May 18, 2012
4,617
133
✟20,609.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
So.....you're saying that the US should've stayed out of WW2
I Wasn't making a statement directly about ww2 at all. I was making a statement about "accidental" deaths.

Or is that something totally different because the victims were Europeans, and the POTUS was a Democrat?
Ifa scenario came along and those were the only differences from the Gulf War? If that were the case it wouldn't be "totally different". Of course comparing wimpy little Iraq to the Axis powers who nearly took over a few continents doesn't make a lot of sense to me. what would have happened had we refrained from attacking Iraq for the second time? What would have happened had our countries refrained from attacking Hitler? Can you really see no difference between the two hypothetical situations there?

Also - how do you feel about the war against Yugoslavia in 1999 - where there were also many civilian casualties amongst the Yugoslavs?
I wasn't a big fan of the US getting involved. What does any of that have to do with the actual point I made though? "We tried our best" doesn't bring people back from the dead . Mothers are still without children and vice versa. We still launched missiles into cities. We still mowed down civilians with guns by directly aiming at them as in the video above. Americans still bombed and killed Canadian soldiers there. Can't white wash the horror by saying "we didn't mean it".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

spiritualwarrior77

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2012
862
10
✟8,797.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Getting rid of Hussein and a lot of Al Qaida fighters was a good thing. We did not intentionally harm one non-combatant.

Al Qaida?...

Dont you mean Al CIAda? :o

Al Qaida are a CIA creation... always were... they have served there purpose well!

Quo bono... who benefits?!?!
 
Upvote 0
U

UnamSanctam

Guest
I Wasn't making a statement directly about ww2 at all. I was making a statement about "accidental" deaths.

Ifa scenario came along and those were the only differences from the Gulf War? If that were the case it wouldn't be "totally different". Of course comparing wimpy little Iraq to the Axis powers who nearly took over a few continents doesn't make a lot of sense to me. what would have happened had we refrained from attacking Iraq for the second time? What would have happened had our countries refrained from attacking Hitler? Can you really see no difference between the two hypothetical situations there?

I wasn't a big fan of the US getting involved. What does any of that have to do with the actual point I made though? "We tried our best" doesn't bring people back from the dead . Mothers are still without children and vice versa. We still launched missiles into cities. We still mowed down civilians with guns by directly aiming at them as in the video above. Americans still bombed and killed Canadian soldiers there. Can't white wash the horror by saying "we didn't mean it".

The point was that accidental civilian casualties SIMPLY HAPPEN in war - no matter how much we try to avoid it. And post-Vietnam, Western powers have been REALLY trying to avoid civilian casualties.
Saying: "Because there are civilian casualties, we shouldn't go to war" is candy-bottom and out of touch with how the world actually works.
Either civilian casualties means we should stay out of wars (therefore also WW2), or it doesn't. As my famous compatriot Søren Kierkegaard said: "Either, or" (though in a different context..)

Tertium non datur.
 
Upvote 0

Illuminaughty

Drift and Doubt
May 18, 2012
4,617
133
✟20,609.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Saying: "Because there are civilian casualties, we shouldn't go to war" is candy-bottom and out of touch with how the world actually works.
I didn't say that. If my country was invaded I would probably support a resistance against the occupier even if it did cause civilian causality. Just like the Afghan and Iraqi resistance fighters are doing for example. If the country was directly attacked then a response would probably necessary.

Civilian deaths are a very good reason to make war the last option on the table. It's a good reason not to play world police officer. We didn't have to invade Iraq the last time we did it. I'm no safer today than I was before the take over. If anything it makes us more hated and thus in greater danger. Now we have around 100,000 causalities and trillions in debt and neither the US or Canada are safer than before we did it. Was it really worth it?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
U

UnamSanctam

Guest
I didn't say that.

You kinda did.

If my country was invaded I would probably support a resistance against the occupier even if it did cause civilian causality.

So, you're just a hypocrite?

Just like the Afghan and Iraqi resistance fighters are doing for example.

So....those cowards who blow themselves up in the middle of town squares and markets because they don't like the government the people have chosen, and would prefer to return/enact a Taliban-like regime? You really admire those? I mean....really?

Civilian deaths are a very good reason to make war the last option on the table. It's a good reason not to play world police officer.

Ah, so the civilian casualties means that the US should've stayed out of WW2, and not "played world police officer"?

We didn't have to invade Iraq the last time we did it.

No one ever HAS to do anything. There's always a choice. Secondly - "we" haven't invaded Iraq more than once. Gulf War One (actually, two, if you count the Iran-Iraq war) wasn't an invasion of Iraq, but a liberation of Kuwait.

Was it really worth it?

That's a legitimate question, albeit an irrelevant one for the discussion at hand, which is about whether or not civilian casualties means that war should not be undertaken.

I believe that if the cause is just (as I believe the toppling of the Taliban, and of Saddam Huessein both were - though for different reasons), then war should be an option on the table. It should NOT be the first option, no, and it wasn't in either of those cases. But it should not be excluded either.
I'm happy that the US didn't say: "Oh, we can't take part in the war in Europe, because that would mean civilian casualties" during WW2. Because if it hadn't, I'd be speaking either German or Russian now, and I'm not certain which of those would be worse...like a choice between contracting the plague or cholera.
 
Upvote 0

Illuminaughty

Drift and Doubt
May 18, 2012
4,617
133
✟20,609.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
You kinda did.
Please quote that statement from my post.


So, you're just a hypocrite?
Only based on the things you are reading into what I posted. You seem to be responding to what you think I really mean rather than to what the post actually said. I actually mean exactly what I said.

So....those cowards who blow themselves up in the middle of town squares and markets because they don't like the government the people have chosen, and would prefer to return/enact a Taliban-like regime? You really admire those? I mean....really?
I can understand why people would revolt against an occupying military. IMO that tends to be one of the few legitimate reasons to use to force. I don't necessarily agree with all the tactics individuals may be using. If something like that happened here I would probably support the resistance. I was using that as an example of justified fighting because you seemed to think I was implying that there was never a legitimate reason for fighting. I was showing how such an assumption about my view was wrong.

Ah, so the civilian casualties means that the US should've stayed out of WW2, and not "played world police officer"?
You are the one who keeps bringing up WW2. I made no reference to it save to imply that the situation then had little to do with the Iraq war scenario and even this was in response to you bringing it up. It's comparing apples to oranges.

Re-read my first post in response to that post talking about us not trying to kill civilians. There was no general statement about "all wars" or "never fighting because of civilian causalities". These are all things you read in to it.

wasn't an invasion of Iraq, but a liberation of Kuwait.
The second time we went to war ,and then occupied Iraq, had nothing to do with "liberating Kuwait." Iraq was no longer in Kuwait. It had to do with control over the flow of oil though publicly it was based on the supposed threat of Iraqi WMDs that were blown out of all rational proportion. When we didn't find anything of note we changed the main purpose to "liberating Iraq". Liberating Iraq wasn't enough to whip Americans up into a war frenzy at first they had to play on peoples fear.

That's a legitimate question, albeit an irrelevant one for the discussion at hand, which is about whether or not civilian casualties means that war should not be undertaken.
I never said that. Why don't you quote that part of my last post? You want to me to defend things I never said.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
M

Megagog

Guest
You kinda did.

So....those cowards who blow themselves up

I don't think that a person who blows themselves up is really uh, under the category of cowardly. Think about it, how much C4 would you be afraid to have strapped to your chest?

I don't like them, but they're not cowards.

No one ever HAS to do anything. There's always a choice. Secondly - "we" haven't invaded Iraq more than once. Gulf War One (actually, two, if you count the Iran-Iraq war) wasn't an invasion of Iraq, but a liberation of Kuwait.

You're wrong, we held position in southern Iraq. Secondly, how is bombing Iraqi targets not an invasion of their air space?

I'm happy that the US didn't say: "Oh, we can't take part in the war in Europe, because that would mean civilian casualties" during WW2. Because if it hadn't, I'd be speaking either German or Russian now,

Gross over-exaggeration and underestimation of American military and industrial power.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
The guy claimed that he had very good evidence on how a particular family of organic compounds in our body gives rise to certain types of behavior and he went as far as claiming he had found compounds which are essential to cell division that bind to certain protein in the brain that supposedly gives rise to sinful behavior. Implying that every cell of our body is wired for sin and it's impossible to evict it.
I doubt that in the highest.

I was 15 at the time, and couldn't really understand the details.

At some point he made a claim that towards the end of 2012, Israel will attack Iran, thereby starting the third world war (WWIII). The war is supposed to be the most brutal and longest in history which at the end will give rise to a world government encompassing entire globe and supposedly biblical prophecy says this.
He got all that from cellular chemistry?

My inquiry is this:
1) Is anyone familiar with those prophecies? What exactly do they say? Can you post any thorough articles, analysis of those texts so i can study it in detail.
2) Are views like this common among any Christian branches?
There are some Christian groups, particularly in the US, who believe that the end of days, the rapture, the judgement, etc, are variously imminent, and the 2012 myth is a focus point for those groups who seek to time their oh-so imminent apocalypse.

It's not unheard of, but it's happened time and again in history, and these doomsday prophecies always, without fail, turn out to be false.

3) Are there any reliable online sources discussing any type of future online prophecies?
Reliable ones will show how these prophecies are fake, self-fulfilling, or otherwise not what their supporters claim them to be. Unrealiable sites will be full of shiny .gifs and antiquated data that speciously supports any number of apocalyptic, psychic, UFO, bigfoot, ghost, and demon activity. Go figure.

In any case, if the points are not clear, feel free to provide some reasonable input.

Thank you[/quote]
 
Upvote 0

Red Gold

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2019
3,175
781
77
Baden-Baden in the Black Forest, Germany
✟95,433.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
At some point he made a claim that towards the end of 2012, Israel will attack Iran, thereby starting the third world war (WWIII). The war is supposed to be the most brutal and longest in history which at the end will give rise to a world government encompassing entire globe and supposedly biblical prophecy says this.

And now in April 2022 we can see that this "prophecy" was complete rubbish - as most of those pseudo-prophecies are.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Red Gold

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2019
3,175
781
77
Baden-Baden in the Black Forest, Germany
✟95,433.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yes there are Biblical prophecies about coming wars against Israel.

The Books of Daniel in the Old Testament and Revelation in the New Testament do show such conflicts.

As for it being in 2012...well it sure could be... God tells us that we won't know the day and hour, but the signs will warn us when it is near the time. I don't believe in coincidences and when I see over 10 cultures that have some type of "end times" or changes in the world and end of normal living all pointing to December 2012... well, there sure could be something to that. (The Mayan calendar is not the only one...)

One major battle against Israel will be from the countries to the North... chiefly China and Russia. It's interesting to note that China has built a massive roadway so it can move it's military to the South...and the road is ONLY for it's military.

Up until just recently, Turkey has been favorable towards Israel... now it's attitude has changed. Just as Egypt's has changed... and the muslim brotherhood has begun to take over the world (much like they did in eons past, taking over the world and slaughtering Christians, giving rise to the crusades back against them for survival.) The muslim brotherhood began and funds Hamas and other groups that call for the decimation of Israel. :(

Dr Jack Van Impe (JVIM.com) is an expert in prophecies in the Bible.... and will personally answer questions if you contact him. He wrote a great book on the prophecies in Daniel, as well.


*written in April 2012*

And how does it look now?

Btw: This question goes to EVERYBODY in the forum - not just to the poster years ago.
 
Upvote 0

Matt5

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2019
879
334
Zürich
✟132,797.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
  1. [22.June.2022] Deal or No Deal, Iran-Israel War Is Coming to the Middle East | The National Interest
  2. [16.June.2022] Israel and Iran: Five minutes to Armageddon? | The Hill
  3. [10.June.2022] Israel-Iran Shadow War on Verge of Exploding into the Open | Military.com
  4. [02.June.2022] Israel and Iran Are Risking the World’s Next Major War | The Daily Beast
  5. [19.June.2022] Israel’s Shadow War With Iran Goes Nonnuclear | WSJ via Archive
You can follow along here.

1. "It seems increasingly likely that Israel will strike Iran to prevent the Islamic Republic from acquiring nuclear weapons."
2. "Israel and Iran are rapidly approaching an inflection point over Tehran’s nuclear program, and what was the atomic equivalent of a controlled clash between the two countries is now devolving into an unconstrained chain reaction."
3. "In recent weeks, the [Israeli] spy agency has resumed its campaign of targeted killings of Iranians -- just one front in a shadowy war that Israel and Iran have been fighting on land, sea, air, in cyberspace and through proxies since 1982. And that war is heating up on several other fronts as President Joe Biden prepares to visit the Middle East later this month."
4. "Two countries that have long clashed are tempting fate with escalations that could soon spiral well beyond their borders."
5. "The killing of Iranian Col. Hassan Khodaei outside his Tehran home signaled a major shift in Israel’s strategy toward Iran. The Jewish state’s apparently considerable efforts on Iranian soil had formerly been directed at the Iranian nuclear program. But Jerusalem seems to have adopted a broader definition of the challenge it faces—and the measures it will adopt to address it."

My comment:

A war between Israel and Iran (via proxies) has been brewing for a long time. Now that Iran is nearing the point of no return on nuclear weapons, Israel has said it is going to act by attacking Iran. It looks like soon.

In the mean time Israel has changed strategies by killing more Iranians on Iranian soil. Before that Israel was only targeting Iran's nuclear program and also beating up Iran in Syria.

Given all Israel has done to Iran, it appears that Iran just needs an excuse to start a big war with Israel via Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. It should be unlike anything we have ever seen before.

Will this start World War 3?

IMO, the answer is yes. Why?

It is likely that Israel will be forced to use nuclear weapons to save itself in the next war. This is Isaiah 17. According to the Russian nuclear doctrine, if a Russian ally (Syria) gets nuked then Russia can nuke back. Only it is going to nuke America instead. This looks a lot like Isaiah 18: A powerful friend of Israel gets wiped out after Israel plants its flag on the mountains of the West Bank. Note that Isaiah 18:3 tells the entire world to stop and pay attention:

Isaiah 18:3 All you inhabitants of the world, you who live on the earth: when a banner is hoisted on the mountains, look! When the shofar is blown, listen!

[That's referring to Isaiah 17.]

How many times does the Bible tell the entire to stop and pay attention?

We have other clues that America is about to get off'd:

Does anybody remember the ultimatum from Russia on 17.Dec.2021? It basically said this:

"In a word, Russia is demanding that NATO commit suicide, and that the United States be reduced to the role of a regional power."

Source: What Does the Russian Ultimatum to the West Mean? | Desk Russie
More: World War 3: How worried should you be? | Bible Prophecy News

That means the current Russia-Ukraine war is merely the starting point for a much bigger war that will certainly lead to direct conflict between NATO and Russia.

Some other verses in the Bible indicating trouble for America:

Daniel 7:4 describes the condition in America today. Daniel 7:5 describes what comes next.

Daniel 7 (My comments in parentheses.)
4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings (America): I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked (sequestration and New START), and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man (destabilized), and a man's heart was given to it (the religion of equality, aka Woke-ism.)

5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear (Russia), and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs (3 defeated nations) in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh (nuclear attack.)

In the movie the Big Short, everybody thought the housing market was solid because everybody else did. But nobody bothered to actually look, except for a few weirdos. And what those weirdos found was frightening.

You believe you are safe (from nuclear attack) because everybody around you feels safe. But did any of you bother to look? Well, I did. You are most definitely not safe from nuclear attack. There just needs to be a good excuse for an attack.

What you may not realize is that America is vulnerable to military defeat. Sequestration cut too much of the military and the New START treaty made our nuclear forces inadequate as an effective deterrent. In effect, it's wings have been plucked. Not entirely because it can still respond with its nuclear forces but those nuclear forces are not nearly enough.

Notice how destabilized America has become since Trump. That's because of the rise of the religion of equality. Yes, it's a religion. And this new religion (new heart) has replaced Christianity (old heart) as the dominant force in the West.

In Daniel 7:5, Russia rises up to devout much flesh, but first something has to happen - the three ribs. It's not clear what the three ribs mean but one can guess that they are part of one or more obliterated nations.

Here I show how Revelation's seals 3 and 4 are actually Isaiah 17 and 18. Seals 1 and 2 are covered too.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Matt5

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2019
879
334
Zürich
✟132,797.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Bible does not say anything about World War III.

One doesn't need the Bible to figure out that World War 3 is at the doorstep. Just read the news:

A Fight Over Taiwan Could Go Nuclear | Foreign Affairs
Medvedev: NATO's involvement in Russia-Ukraine conflict brings risk of 'full-fledged nuclear war' | Fox News
Russia Warns of "Full-Fledged Nuclear War" Over Ukraine - 19FortyFive
Demand for bunkers soars as Russia raises spectre of nuclear war
Russia Ambassador to U.S. Says NATO Not Taking Nuclear War Threat Seriously

I guess you want the Bible to specifically say, World War III? It doesn't do that, but it mentions two wars that take out 1/4th and 1/3rd of the planet's population respectively.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums