Are we living in the Biblical End times?

[numinus]

Fair enough, not exactly suitcase sized, but capable of being carried in a car. I was reading an article the other day in which they were saying that our current state of the art will not allow us to make a real "suitcase" nuke. Good to have your input, Mr. Questerr, thank you.

Can you not smuggle the individual parts of a nuke warhead and assemble it quietly while your in?

If you would only employ an iota of thought rather than saving face in any debate, you wouldn't be thoroughly humiliated repeatedly. As it stands, you have lost all intellectual credibility.

 

[vyo476]

What do you mean he didn't tell us about cars?


Here's proof - the Jesus Bus!!!!

Okay, you win. The Jesus Bus is irrefutable proof.

I guess the end times really are coming then. Everyone prepare.

 

[imonlysaying]

a reply to the original post:

as there are so many deviations along the way lol

We will reach a world government. it is a purely logical conclusion to human life.

we start as small communities where someone takes the mantle. these small communities grow into larger communities but still a group takes the mantle.............................. forward to the 21st century and BEYOND. Our world has to by logical conclusion of human behaviour become one society!!!

and at the head of every society there has to be a ruling power. I won't speculate what that will be but it will happen.

The world is now tied by economics. we are now one whether we want to be or not. If brazil suffers, we all suffer. If America or Japan or Britain or China or Russia suffer (amongst others) then we suffer more. We are now a world connected.

What happens to one happens to all in some degree.

Logically there has to be a world government. Whether this is for good or for evil I will not speculate here.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is the kind of stuff I wrote about before: you are so annoyed/angry with me that you will say anything to rebutt or argue with anything I write. Now you are actually being an apologist for slavery and you are stating that the US Constitution is irrational. Okay, Num, if you want this, then I guess I'll have to give it to you.

I am rejecting your arguments on the basis of LOGIC and REASON. You reject my argument on its percieved similarity to the reasoning of bible-beaters. Need I remind you of the correct definition of a bigot? Who's the bigot now, eh? That's it! Don't even bother to hide your straw man arguments. It suits you to be spouting one fallacy after another.

Not sure what you mean by this drivel, I'm not the one arguing vague religious-sounding dogma in an attempt to abrogate the US Constitution.

But I see you cannot be bothered to know even your own history intimately. It can be presented in a way that suits your argument, after all.

Look up the Dred Scott case before the US Supreme Court and see what the Justices said about the lack of rights of black people.

Slavery was a political expediency that even the founding fathers were aware of. To them, the situation dictated that the formation of the union is paramount to all other considerations at the time. That is why the constitution had a built-in mechanism to correct whatever errors, forseeable or not.

What has this got to do with anything? Basically you are arguing that the end justified the means. Slavery was legal, and practiced in this country for more than a century. You may excuse the slavers if you wish, but from the perspective of the hundreds of thousands of black people who died I doubt that your excuses will carry much weight. Anyone being an apologist for slavery is on the wrong side of the discussion. Slavery is the second worst crime of the American people.

And so, slavery CONTRADICTS the principles embodied in the constitution, THEN AND NOW. Anyone who applies his reasoning ability alone would see this instantly. While it needed a civil war to correct such a situation, slavery is a condition that is REPUGNANT to any thinking individual REGARDLESS of whatever law is being promulgated.

You are correct when you say that slavery is repugnant and that it contradicts the principles embodied in the Constitution. (Scary isn't it when we agree on something?) Any time one group of people is singled out for "legal discrimination" it contradicts the principles of the Constitution, doesn't it? When women were not allowed to own property? When women were not allowed to vote? When black people were enslaved? When black people were denied full citizenship? When homosexual people are denied full citizenship?

Because legislated homosexual marriages have NO RATIONAL BASIS. If it had any rational basis, then you would have stated them by now, instead of posting fallacies one after another.

This is my favorite paragraph in your post, Num, I saved it for last. The best rational basis for giving homosexual people equal rights is the US Constitution which guarantees EVERYBODY equal rights. That seems pretty rational to me. It seems pretty rational for a gay guy staying at home to care for his adopted children to be given the same rights as any other stay-at-home Dad. His children should enjoy the same legal protections and privileges as any other child.

The whole idea of the US Constitution is equality. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, equal protection under the law, no one above the law, no one below the law. Seems pretty rational to me. And you?

 

[numinus]

This is the kind of stuff I wrote about before: you are so annoyed/angry with me that you will say anything to rebutt or argue with anything I write. Now you are actually being an apologist for slavery and you are stating that the US Constitution is irrational. Okay, Num, if you want this, then I guess I'll have to give it to you.

Correct. It annoys me that someone, at this day and age, has no firm hold of his reasoning faculty.

Not sure what you mean by this drivel, I'm not the one arguing vague religious-sounding dogma in an attempt to abrogate the US Constitution.

I don't expect a liar to employ critical thought on himself anymore than a bigot admit his bigotry.

Look up the Dred Scott case before the US Supreme Court and see what the Justices said about the lack of rights of black people.

And what is the function of the supreme court, anyways - to fashion laws or to interpret them, hmmm?

Can the court interpret an irrational law rationally without encroaching the function of a co-equal branch of government? Do yourself a favor and go take a high school civics class.

What has this got to do with anything?

Everything.

Basically you are arguing that the end justified the means.

Of course! Where else does one find the justification for an action?? What ignorant nonsense!

However, a subjective end may not subvert an objective end. Just so you wouldn't mistake my statement in form and substance - as you are inclined to do with such naive fervor.

Slavery was legal, and practiced in this country for more than a century. You may excuse the slavers if you wish, but from the perspective of the hundreds of thousands of black people who died I doubt that your excuses will carry much weight.

Slavery is unconstitutional from the very beginning - if you are to go on the principles on which the constitution was founded on. Consequently, any law based on slavery was and is defective. Surely, when confronted by a defective law, any political association is obliged to correct its defects - hence the american civil war.

No one is rendering validity to slavery, except you.

Anyone being an apologist for slavery is on the wrong side of the discussion. Slavery is the second worst crime of the American people.

What nonsense! It is not my habit to apologize for the operation of facts and logic. However, it appears that you are.

You are correct when you say that slavery is repugnant and that it contradicts the principles embodied in the Constitution. (Scary isn't it when we agree on something?) Any time one group of people is singled out for "legal discrimination" it contradicts the principles of the Constitution, doesn't it?

No. Discrimination happens when there is an ARBITRARY LAW - that is, a law NOT BASED ON FACTUAL NOR LOGICAL PRINCIPLES.

When women were not allowed to own property?

Arbitrary.

When women were not allowed to vote?

Arbitrary.

When black people were enslaved?

Arbitrary.

When black people were denied full citizenship?

Arbitrary.

When homosexual people are denied full citizenship?

LMAO. Care to explain such an assertion?

This is my favorite paragraph in your post, Num, I saved it for last. The best rational basis for giving homosexual people equal rights is the US Constitution which guarantees EVERYBODY equal rights. That seems pretty rational to me. It seems pretty rational for a gay guy staying at home to care for his adopted children to be given the same rights as any other stay-at-home Dad. His children should enjoy the same legal protections and privileges as any other child.

This here, is defective logic which you are not inclined to correct.

The rights of a mother arises from being a mother in the same way that the rights of a child arises from being a child in the same way that the rights of a human being arises from being human. It is the height of ignorance to apply one right to another state of being ARBITRARILY.

And just for the record - ADOPTION IS A PRIVILEGE, the determination of which is RESERVED for the state, pending the child's status relative to parenthood.

Understand?

The whole idea of the US Constitution is equality. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, equal protection under the law, no one above the law, no one below the law. Seems pretty rational to me. And you?

Correct. Why then can you not apply it rationally, hmmm?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well, Num, I think the law of diminishing returns has kicked in. You are not convincing me with your defense of slavery and your hatred of gay men, nor does your desire to continue abrogating the US Constitution on the basis of your personal opinion sway my thinking. Any way we slice it I think you are an angry but intelligent bigot. (Feel free to call me all those nasty names that you have used so frequently--the only disappointment for me is that you didn't come up with any new ones, Hell, my own brothers call me worse things than you did.) Any how...

Perhaps a summation would be in order now that we've both had a chance to post our thoughts a few times.

My position remains that the US Constitution guarantees all consenting adults equal protection under the law--not just the majority, every consenting adult should receive the same treatment under the law. THAT is how it should be.

I'm curious though about what you think would happen if gay men were allowed to marry (you never speak about lesbians so I suppose you can't make them fit into your scenario for some obscure reason). Answer me this if you can: Pretend (I know you're good at pretending) that every single gay guy on Earth got married. Now all of them are living in tiny cottages with tea roses around the front gate. What happens now? Will all heterosexual fecundity disappear? Will you no longer be able to achieve an erection? Will women no longer be fertile? What do you see happening? Cataclysm? End of the world stuff? Why are you so afraid?

My guess is that what will happen is what has happened in the countries that already have gay marriage: Nothing. Nothing has happened, some gays got married, most didn't, men can still get hard-ons, women can still have children. You have been hysterical about FECUNDITY so what do you think will happen to it?

I'm for equal rights for all, nothing for the Nums of the world that others don't get and nothing for others that the Nums don't get. White, black, brown, yellow, blue, straight, gay, tall, short, hairy, or bald, we all get the same legal rights as everyone else.

What about you? Can you sum up succinctly, cogently, and without a lot of bolds and underlines?

 

[numinus]

Well, Num, I think the law of diminishing returns has kicked in. You are not convincing me with your defense of slavery and your hatred of gay men, nor does your desire to continue abrogating the US Constitution on the basis of your personal opinion sway my thinking. Any way we slice it I think you are an angry but intelligent bigot. (Feel free to call me all those nasty names that you have used so frequently--the only disappointment for me is that you didn't come up with any new ones, Hell, my own brothers call me worse things than you did.) Any how...

LOL

Why would I give new arguments if you haven't even begun to scratch the one's I have presented much less refuted them, hmmm?

Perhaps a summation would be in order now that we've both had a chance to post our thoughts a few times.

As if my posts aren't clear enough, you need a summary to further misrepresent?

Human rights are INHERENT in the human person. It is NOT given by law or civil society. And so there are laws made to address a specific right and so on. Marital laws are there to protect the RIGHT OF MOTHERHOOD AND THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN. They are the basis of family (and the family relations consequent to it) which IS the fundamental unit of society. It has always been like that, and from the un declarations, should remain like that.

Marriage is NOT merely a contract between two consenting adults. A contract, in its widest meaning is a 'meeting of minds'. Everyone may enter into contract with anyone, by consent ALONE. The terms of the contract determined by the consenting parties ALONE, and binds the consenting parties ALONE.

A marriage, on the other hand, as an institution meant to uphold the right to motherhood and the rights of children, involves persons (children) who never consented, who are incapable of consent, and utterly dependent on the family they are born in.

My position remains that the US Constitution guarantees all consenting adults equal protection under the law--not just the majority, every consenting adult should receive the same treatment under the law. THAT is how it should be.

The good thing about the law is that it does not suffer the idiocy of dishonest people pushing for a ridiculous agenda.

From the above explanation, a homosexual union does not meet the FORM AND SUBSTANCE of a marriage - hence a marriage of homosexuals is superfluous and an utter waste of the state's time and efforts. The ends for which homosexuals want to live their particular lifestyles are amply covered by the laws on contracts. Your alleged 4000+ privileges accorded to married couples are those that pertain to motherhood and children - aspects that are ABSENT in a homosexual union.

I'm curious though about what you think would happen if gay men were allowed to marry (you never speak about lesbians so I suppose you can't make them fit into your scenario for some obscure reason).

Lesbians may exercise their choice to get pregnant, thanks to the advances of science and regardless of the sexual choices she makes. However, the family relations that result from marriage - more specifically, fatherhood, cannot be assumed to apply to her partner. To assume such a thing violates the right of the child.

Answer me this if you can: Pretend (I know you're good at pretending) that every single gay guy on Earth got married. Now all of them are living in tiny cottages with tea roses around the front gate. What happens now? Will all heterosexual fecundity disappear? Will you no longer be able to achieve an erection? Will women no longer be fertile? What do you see happening? Cataclysm? End of the world stuff? Why are you so afraid?

What are you talking about?????

I don't give a rat's ass how another person lives his life. What I am concerned are the logical consequences of an irrational law. The thing about the law is that it is dependent on precedents to guide it. An irrational law will only produce more irrational precedents until such time that such irrationality becomes so glaring, it causes a legal crisis of monumental proportions.

You want an example of this? Slavery for one. It was an economic necessity and a political expediency at the time, nobody bothered to worry about its moral consequences and rational validity. And so, it took a civil war to correct and generations of embedded and calcified prejudice.

And here you are, asking for the same irrational law, with no more justification than it would make a minority feel happy about the choice they make.

My guess is that what will happen is what has happened in the countries that already have gay marriage: Nothing. Nothing has happened, some gays got married, most didn't, men can still get hard-ons, women can still have children. You have been hysterical about FECUNDITY so what do you think will happen to it?

The scenario you are depicting isn't dependent on the marital institution. A lot of gay men would have sore behinds, with or without gay marriages.

I'm for equal rights for all, nothing for the Nums of the world that others don't get and nothing for others that the Nums don't get. White, black, brown, yellow, blue, straight, gay, tall, short, hairy, or bald, we all get the same legal rights as everyone else.

I don't even know why I need to dignify this statement since you haven't given a right denied to homosexuals to begin with.

And as far as rights go, they do not come from the choices we make. Just because someone prefers sex in a certain way doesn't give him the right to motherhood, nor does his choice subvert the right of a child.

What about you? Can you sum up succinctly, cogently, and without a lot of bolds and underlines?

You haven't answered a single point in my argument and you have the temerity to ask me this. What ineffable nonsense!

Does a homosexual man have the right to motherhood, as defined in the various un declarations?

Isn't the right of access, co-ownership, inheritance/estate, etc. obtainable through other legal instruments, affidavits or statements?

Is there a right to adopt?

Is there any compelling reason why the state is obliged to attach a legal impetus to an otherwise unhealthy and hazardous sexual choice?

Isn't your freedom to choose this lifestyle enough, you have to obtain the government's stamp of approval through a particular law that has no basis, whatsoever?

You didn't answer before, you wouldn't answer now - except through some more idiotic rhetoric that is irrelevant to the question.

 

[invest07]

The 4 beast of Daniel

Many of you doubt the veracity of the Bible and dismiss Bible prophecies. vyo posts cartoons and he/she is not the only source of ridicule. But are you really aware of how detailed certain of these prophecies are and how precisely they were fulfilled?

Daniel lived in the Jewish nation of Judea which was conquered by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar who ruled from 605 BC to 562 BC. The kingdom of Babylon was the predominant world power by 586 BC. Nebuchadnezzar enlisted the most promising young men from Judah into his service. Daniel was one of those enlisted. Nebuchadneezzar’s grandson, Belshazzar was made co-ruler of Babylon in 553 BC. The following is taken from the book of Daniel Chapter 7, New International Version:

1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying on his bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream.
2 Daniel said: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea.
3 Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.
4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a man, and the heart of a man was given to it.
5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, 'Get up and eat your fill of flesh!'
6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.
7 "After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns.

King Nebuchadnezzar used a lion as a symbol of his empire. The lion was used for the King‘s official seals. The first beast represents the Babylonian Empire..

King Cyrus conquered the Medes and united the two tribes into the Medo-Persian Empire. The official symbol of the Medo-Persians was a bear. The Medo-Persian Empire conquered Babylon in 539BC.

Notice that the first beast is given the heart of a man. Nebuchadnezzar suffered from severe bouts of depression and eventually suffered a complete mental breakdown. Historians conclude that Neb’s mental problems led to the diminishment of Babylonian power and increased vulnerability to attack.

The second beast is a lopsided bear, as the Medes and Persians vie for power and influence among themselves. The Medes-Persians used a bear for their official seals. The 3 ribs in the beast’s mouth are 3 important conquests:

Lydia
Babylon
Egypt

The third beast represents Alexander. He rapidly conquered the Mediterranean world as far east as India in 10 years. A jaguar is a deadly animal that moves swiftly. It would move even swifter with wings. The four heads represent the eventual division of Alexander’s empire by 4 of his generals. Alexander died in 323 BC and four of his generals, Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucis and Ptolemy divided his empire. These four empires would be absorbed or conquered by the Romans.

The fourth beast represents the Roman Empire. The Roman Republic ended in 43 BC when Julius Ceasar was proclaimed absolute emperor. The Romans were the most invincible and blood thirsty of all the beasts. It has been documented that the Romans would slaughter entire populations for rebellion. They made extensive use of crucifixion and tortured insurgents publicly. The ten horns are a reference to 10 world powers that will arise during the end Times.
.
Daniel’s prophecy occurred during Belshazzar’s first year, about 552 BC. This was 13 years before the Medo-Persian conquest, 200 years before Alexander was born and 509 years before the first Ceasar was crowned.

Daniel’s prophecy has been extensively studied by secular scholars through the years and the date of authorship has withstood multiple studies.

Daniel’s prophecy, which was fulfilled in incredible detail, was just one of hundred’s of Biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled. The prophecies of the Bible may seem strange to us in 2007 AD however when considered in their contextual time, they make perfect sense.
The ultimate test of a prophecy is whether or not the predicted events actually happen and as predicted. The Bible is full of these prophecies and uis reliable. If past prophecies of the Bible have been reliable, why wouldn’t prophecies that deal with future events also be reliable?

More on Daniel to follow.





.

 

[vyo476]

Many of you doubt the veracity of the Bible and dismiss Bible prophecies. vyo posts cartoons and he/she is not the only source of ridicule. But are you really aware of how detailed certain of these prophecies are and how precisely they were fulfilled?

Daniel lived in the Jewish nation of Judea which was conquered by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar who ruled from 605 BC to 562 BC. The kingdom of Babylon was the predominant world power by 586 BC. Nebuchadnezzar enlisted the most promising young men from Judah into his service. Daniel was one of those enlisted. Nebuchadneezzar’s grandson, Belshazzar was made co-ruler of Babylon in 553 BC. The following is taken from the book of Daniel Chapter 7, New International Version:

1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying on his bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream.
2 Daniel said: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea.
3 Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.
4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a man, and the heart of a man was given to it.
5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, 'Get up and eat your fill of flesh!'
6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.
7 "After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns.

King Nebuchadnezzar used a lion as a symbol of his empire. The lion was used for the King‘s official seals. The first beast represents the Babylonian Empire..

King Cyrus conquered the Medes and united the two tribes into the Medo-Persian Empire. The official symbol of the Medo-Persians was a bear. The Medo-Persian Empire conquered Babylon in 539BC.

Notice that the first beast is given the heart of a man. Nebuchadnezzar suffered from severe bouts of depression and eventually suffered a complete mental breakdown. Historians conclude that Neb’s mental problems led to the diminishment of Babylonian power and increased vulnerability to attack.

The second beast is a lopsided bear, as the Medes and Persians vie for power and influence among themselves. The Medes-Persians used a bear for their official seals. The 3 ribs in the beast’s mouth are 3 important conquests:

Lydia
Babylon
Egypt

The third beast represents Alexander. He rapidly conquered the Mediterranean world as far east as India in 10 years. A jaguar is a deadly animal that moves swiftly. It would move even swifter with wings. The four heads represent the eventual division of Alexander’s empire by 4 of his generals. Alexander died in 323 BC and four of his generals, Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucis and Ptolemy divided his empire. These four empires would be absorbed or conquered by the Romans.

The fourth beast represents the Roman Empire. The Roman Republic ended in 43 BC when Julius Ceasar was proclaimed absolute emperor. The Romans were the most invincible and blood thirsty of all the beasts. It has been documented that the Romans would slaughter entire populations for rebellion. They made extensive use of crucifixion and tortured insurgents publicly. The ten horns are a reference to 10 world powers that will arise during the end Times.
.
Daniel’s prophecy occurred during Belshazzar’s first year, about 552 BC. This was 13 years before the Medo-Persian conquest, 200 years before Alexander was born and 509 years before the first Ceasar was crowned.

Daniel’s prophecy has been extensively studied by secular scholars through the years and the date of authorship has withstood multiple studies.

Daniel’s prophecy, which was fulfilled in incredible detail, was just one of hundred’s of Biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled. The prophecies of the Bible may seem strange to us in 2007 AD however when considered in their contextual time, they make perfect sense.
The ultimate test of a prophecy is whether or not the predicted events actually happen and as predicted. The Bible is full of these prophecies and uis reliable. If past prophecies of the Bible have been reliable, why wouldn’t prophecies that deal with future events also be reliable?

More on Daniel to follow.

What you have is a marvelous interpretation. But in the end that's all it is - interpretation. Look at how you arrived at your conclusions - you had to look for events that fit the prophecies, didn't you? If these prophecies were so air tight, wouldn't it simply have been a matter of citing specific events rather than locating historical events that fit his descriptions?

I don't have time now but later I'll go looking and see if there are any other events that can be interpreted to fit Daniel's prophecies. We'll see.

 

[vyo476]

One quick alternate interpreation before I go to class.

On your jaguar interpretation - it could just as easily apply to Hitler. Hitler's Germany employed the blitzkrieg strategy - a lightning fast attack that helped them conquer much of Europe. After the war was over Germany was initially divided four ways - between the US, Britain, France, and the USSR. This interpretation uses the same logic as yours does. Was Daniel describing two separate historical events with some similarities? Or was what he said vague enough to be applied to a variety of situtaions?

 

[invest07]

vyo

Your point about Nazi Germany is interesting but not likely given the context of the prophecy.

The beasts appeared in a certain order. Alexander the Great fits into the proper sequence and Nazi Germany does not.

And you are correct when you say that the dream represents interpretation. But you need to consider the historical context of the Middle East in the 5th century BC. The symbolism of the beasts would be readily apparent to any Babylonian or Jew living during this time.

I didn't look for events that fit. None of these interpretations are original on my part. Some of these interpretations have been discussed in the Talmud, by historians such as Josephus, and the original church scholars from the 2cd and 3rd centuries AD. There is a great deal of literature written analyzing this prophecy, over the past 2,000 or so years. The following list is of various writings on this prophecy:

2nd - 3rd Century--Irenaeus
5th Century--Augustine
7th Century--Andreas; Sargis d'Abergia
8th Century--Venerable Bede
8th - 9th Century--Eliezer * [* Jewish expositors]
9th Century--Berengaud
10th Century--Japet Ibn Ali *; Saadia *
12th Century--Rashi *; Abraham Ibn Ezra *; Peter Comestor
13th Century--Joachim of Fiore; Thomas Aquinas
14th Century--John Wycliffe; Walter Brute
16th Century--Martin Luther; Johann Oecolampadius; Philipp Melanchthon; George Joye; Hugh Latimer; Virgil Solis; Nikolaus Selinecker
17th Century--George Downham; Thomas Brightman; Joseph Mede; John Tillinghast; Henry More; William Sherwin; Thomas Beverley
18th Century--Johannes Cocceius; Heinrich Horch; Sir Issac Newton; John Willison; Thomas Newton; Hans Wood; Pierre Jurieu; Christian G. Thube; James Bicheno; Uzal Ogden; Edward King; Jeremy Belknap; Jno. H. Livingstone
19th Century--Jean G. de la Flechere; Benj. Farnham; Eliphaiet Nott; Asa McFarland; John King; John Rameyn; Elias Smith; William Miller; Jedediah Morse; Ethan Smith; William C. Davis; Timothy Dwight; Edw. D. Griffin; Aaron Kinne; Elias Boudinot; Amzi Armstrong; Robert Reid; T. R. Robertson; Joshua L. Wilson; Sam'l M. McCorkle; Alex. Campbell; Robt. Scott; Adam H. Burwell; A.L. Crandall; Rich. C. Shimeall; Edward Winthrop; Elias A. Burdick[3]
Source for this list was wikipedia

You have to admit the prophecy does draw striking correlations with actual events.

And what is wrong with interpretation? The entire theory of Macroevolution is based on interpretation. The true question to ask is whether or not the interpretation is reasonable, defensible and factually based. You may chose to reject the interpretation but that does not make the interpretation any more or less defensible.

I'm not certain about any of this and I have said this more than once in this forum. Daniel's dream is subject to inerpretation but the facts detailed in the dream are highly symbolic of very specific events, they are fairly detailed, and they occurred in precisely the manner and order prophecied. Coincidence? Maybe, but how can you be sure?

One standard in science used to judge the integrity of a theory is it's ability to make accurate predictions. If the prediction jives with observed subsequent events, the chance that this is the result of coincidence is greatly reduced.

 

[vyo476]

vyo

Your point about Nazi Germany is interesting but not likely given the context of the prophecy.

The beasts appeared in a certain order. Alexander the Great fits into the proper sequence and Nazi Germany does not.

That's only if you adhere to all your original interpretations. The final beast could refer to the Soviet Union.

Large iron teeth = Most tanks of any army in the world.

Different from all former beasts = Regardless the result, communism was a very "modern" ideology.

As for the ten horns, there is some trouble explaining them. It could refer to the diameter of the Soviet Union (roughly estimated at ten thousand kilometers).

Or perhaps your final beast refers to Israel.

It's no secret that Israel tends to do well in war ("terrifying and frightening and very powerful"). They have an exceptionally modern army ("large iron teeth") and they have continusouly absorbed other territories as a consequence of war ("crushed and devoured its victims"). A well-armed, defensive Jewish state is certainly a new thing to the world after centuries without a home and with no means of defense against discrimination ("It was different from all the former beasts"). Once again that ten horn reference is a bit of a problem, but tens can be found - when you combine the 6 Israeli administrative districts (Central, Haifa, Jerusalem, Northern, Southern, and Tel Aviv) with their four occupied territories (the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights) you can see that Israel's territory is divided ten ways ("it had ten horns").

I think that both the USSR and Israel can be made to fit this part of the prophecy displays the prophecy's moral ambiguity. Or do you look at the USSR and Israel as being moral equals?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

LOLWhy would I give new arguments if you haven't even begun to scratch the one's I have presented much less refuted them, hmmm?As if my posts aren't clear enough, you need a summary to further misrepresent?Human rights are INHERENT in the human person. It is NOT given by law or civil society. And so there are laws made to address a specific right and so on. Marital laws are there to protect the RIGHT OF MOTHERHOOD AND THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN. They are the basis of family (and the family relations consequent to it) whichIS the fundamental unit of society. It has always been like that, and from the un declarations, should remain like that.Marriage is NOT merely a contract between two consenting adults. A contract, in its widest meaning is a 'meeting of minds'. Everyone may enter into contract with anyone, by consent ALONE. The terms of the contract determined by the consenting parties ALONE, and binds the consenting parties ALONE.A marriage, on the other hand, as an institution meant to uphold the right to motherhood and the rights of children, involves persons (children) who never consented, who are incapable of consent, and utterly dependent on the family they are born in.The good thing about the law is that it does not suffer the idiocy of dishonest people pushing for a ridiculous agenda.From the above explanation, a homosexual union does not meet theFORM AND SUBSTANCEof a marriage - hence a marriage of homosexuals is superfluous and an utter waste of the state's time and efforts. The ends for which homosexuals want to live their particular lifestyles are amply covered by the laws on contracts. Your alleged 4000+ privileges accorded to married couples are those that pertain to motherhood and children - aspects that are ABSENT in a homosexual union.Lesbians may exercise their choice to get pregnant, thanks to the advances of science and regardless of the sexual choices she makes. However, the family relations that result from marriage - more specifically, fatherhood, cannot be assumed to apply to her partner. To assume such a thing violates the right of the child.What are you talking about?????I don't give a rat's ass how another person lives his life. What I am concerned are the logical consequences of an irrational law. The thing about the law is that it is dependent on precedents to guide it. An irrational law will only produce more irrational precedents until such time that such irrationality becomes so glaring, it causes a legal crisis of monumental proportions.You want an example of this? Slavery for one. It was an conomic necessity and a political expediency at the time, nobody bothered to worry about its moral consequences and rational validity. And so, it took a civil war to correct and generations of embedded and calcified prejudice.And here you are, asking for the same irrational law, with no more justification than itwould make a minority feel happy about the choice they make.The scenario you are depicting isn't dependent on the marital institution. A lot of gay men would have sore behinds, with or without gay marriages.I don't even know why I need to dignify this statement since you haven't given a right denied to omosexuals to begin with.And as far as rights go, they do not come from the choices we make. Just because someone prefers sex in a certain way doesn't give him the right to motherhood, nor does his choice subvert the right of a child.You haven't answered a single point in my argument and you have the temerity to ask me this. What ineffable nonsense!Does a homosexual man have the right to motherhood, as defined in the various un declarations?
Isn't the right of access, co-ownership, inheritance/estate, etc. obtainable through other legal instruments, affidavits or statements?Is there a right to adopt?Is there any compelling reason why the state is obliged to attach a legal impetus to an otherwise unhealthy and hazardous sexual choice?Isn't your freedom to choose this lifestyle enough, you have to obtainthegovernment's stamp of approval through a particular law that has no basis, whatsoever?You didn't answer before, you wouldn't answer now - except through some more idiotic rhetoric that is irrelevant to the question.

I see. It wasn't 4000, Num, it was 1049, you're so angry you can't even read, so how could you hold a conversation?

Adios Tonto... and the anger you rode in with.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Many of you doubt the veracity of the Bible and dismiss Bible prophecies. vyo posts cartoons and he/she is not the only source of ridicule. But are you really aware of how detailed certain of these prophecies are and how precisely they were fulfilled?

Your whole premise would be more believable had not other Christians, who were just as devout and convinced as you are, seen the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies in other times and other ways. Christians have been seeing the fulfillment of the prophecies since Biblical times. With two thousand years of history to look back on it would nearly impossible NOT to find ways to declare the prophecies fulfilled.

You want an interesting prophecy? Nostradamus predicted that a Frenchman would be the first man to fly and he even spelled Montgolfier's name correctly more than 300 years before Montgolfier flew in his hot-air balloon. Show me a prediction from the Bible that is that accurate, not something vague.

 

[numinus]

I see. It wasn't 4000, Num, it was 1049, you're so angry you can't even read, so how could you hold a conversation?

Adios Tonto... and the anger you rode in with.

Glad to see you finally concede at last.

Bull**** is finite, after all!