Are we near those times?

Run_to_da_hills

Tim Robbins wrote:

Is the four corners the reference the reason why some people used to believe the world was flat?

The word translated "corners," as in the phrase above, is the Hebrew word, KANAPH. Kanaph is translated in a variety of ways. However, it generally means extremity.

The Bible actually teaches a spherical shape for the earth. In Isaiah 40:22 God is said to sit above “the circle of the earth” (the Hebrew word for circle can also mean a sphere).

In Luke 17:34–36 Christ's Second Coming is portrayed as occurring while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities which means a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.

BrianCalgary

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Why the change of tense half way through?

Because John is reporting on what he saw which would make the report in the past tense.

Tzetze

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

The Prophet Zachariah reveals the effects of Nuclear war when he wrote: "And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth." (Zachariah 14:12).

Effects of Nuclear War? Sounds more like effects of "the consumption" to me.

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

The Bible actually teaches a spherical shape for the earth. In Isaiah 40:22 God is said to sit above “the circle of the earth” (the Hebrew word for circle can also mean a sphere).

I think it's more likely that when the ancient Hebrews referred to 'the circle of the earth' they were referring to the spherical plane surrounding the earth on which the stars all reside and the sun moves through.

How can god be said to be located in one particular place when at the same time he's everywhere. (Don't forget he can't go anywhere, because he's already everywhere - he also can't do anything because the definition of 'doing' requires an opposition, if nothing can oppose god, then he can't do anything)

Run_to_da_hills

Tzetze wrote:

Effects of Nuclear War? Sounds more like effects of "the consumption" to me.

I doubt if this is any type of infectious disease such as TB as this would rapidly spread indiscriminately around the globe through air travel, remember this is specifically against all those who fought against Jerusalem.

Tzetze

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

I doubt if this is any type of infectious disease such as TB as this would rapidly spread indiscriminately around the globe through air travel, remember this is specifically against all those who fought against Jerusalem.

A nuke that can disciminate between targets at ground zero? Technology sure has come a long way.

Run_to_da_hills

Tzetze wrote:

A nuke that can disciminate between targets at ground zero? Technology sure has come a long way.

"Iran's new hard-line president called yesterday for Israel to be "wiped off the map" the first time for many years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for the Jewish state's eradication". (Daily Telegraph 27/10/2005)

There are many Arab leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who would do just that if they had the chance. The IDF are perhaps one of the most ruthless defence forces on this planet and will hit back indiscriminately on anyone who threatens them and they have the power.

MooseJam

Mr Ahmadinejad will have his own nukes soon enough, then we shall see

Scofflaw

1. the call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" is a mis-translation.

2. Iran is about 15-20 years away from usable nuclear weapons, barring tech transfer from someone like China, Pakistan (or another US ally).

I've been on these forums long enough not to be surprised at the repetition of such neocon war-PR, but I am still disappointed.

regards,
Scofflaw

Run_to_da_hills

Scofflaw wrote:

2. Iran is about 15-20 years away from usable nuclear weapons, barring tech transfer from someone like China, Pakistan (or another US ally).

Or some of the stuff that went AWOL from the former Soviet Union.

MooseJam

I'd like to see the four horsemen of the apocolypse, I'm sure they would be quite a sight, I think they are only symbolic though right ? and there won't actually be any horsemen come the apocolypse

Scofflaw

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

2. Iran is about 15-20 years away from usable nuclear weapons, barring tech transfer from someone like China, Pakistan (or another US ally).

Or some of the stuff that went AWOL from the former Soviet Union.

If I were disposed to worry about nuclear war in the Middle East, I would be more likely to worry about the Israeli arsenal. Iran at least is an IAEA signatory, unlike Israel.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Run_to_da_hills

Scofflaw wrote:

If I were disposed to worry about nuclear war in the Middle East, I would be more likely to worry about the Israeli arsenal. Iran at least is an IAEA signatory, unlike Israel.
cordially,Scofflaw

Israel is quite capible of cracking an egg with a sledge hammer as it did with Lebanon last year. They have over 200 warheads and thats enough.

MooseJam wrote:

I'd like to see the four horsemen of the apocolypse, I'm sure they would be quite a sight, I think they are only symbolic though right ? and there won't actually be any horsemen come the apocolypse

Back in Biblical times the quickest mode of transport was the horse, (Chariot) and boat, these were also used in battle. Anything that John mentioned in his dream would have been described in the knowledge and the language of his day. I believe he is triying to describe some of implements of modern warfare, I doubt if any modern battle would be faught on horseback!.

Possibly describing a tank
And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt (Revelation 9:17-19).


Possibly describing a Helicopter.
" And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. " And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. " And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. " And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months. (Revelation 9:1-11)

Galvasean

No offense Run_To-Da_Hills, but I think you may be trying a bit to hard to find similarities here.

Stark

No he's bang on the mark with these new lionhead tanks and manface helicopters that the military have these days.

and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.

The Mad Hatter

Tzetze wrote:

How can god be said to be located in one particular place when at the same time he's everywhere. (Don't forget he can't go anywhere, because he's already everywhere - he also can't do anything because the definition of 'doing' requires an opposition, if nothing can oppose god, then he can't do anything)

Hm...I think this is a justifiable image, but I can't really explain why...

I have an image of someone choosing to exist in all places, but more so in one.

Still, I imagine that 'sitting above the world' is a bit more figurative than that anyhow; more meaning 'observing', rather than literally 'sitting up there'.

I don't really understand the second point that I've quoted. Firstly, I don't see how 'doing' something requires something to oppose it, and secondly, according to Christo-Judaism/Judaeo-Christianity (whichever you like), God did have some rather major opposition in the early days, and apparently there's some pretty constant plotting going on.

MooseJam

Stark wrote:

No he's bang on the mark with these new lionhead tanks and manface helicopters that the military have these days.

and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.

just beautiful ...

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

If I were disposed to worry about nuclear war in the Middle East, I would be more likely to worry about the Israeli arsenal. Iran at least is an IAEA signatory, unlike Israel.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah yes, Israel, that little bastion of aggressive secularism in the midst of a sea of militant theocracies. The one that's supported by Western theocrats and despised by Western secularists.

Funny old world, isn't it?

PDN

MooseJam wrote:

I'd like to see the four horsemen of the apocolypse, I'm sure they would be quite a sight, I think they are only symbolic though right ? and there won't actually be any horsemen come the apocolypse

Yes, the four horsemen of Revelation 6 are certainly symbolic.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Ah yes, Israel, that little bastion of aggressive secularism in the midst of a sea of militant theocracies. The one that's supported by Western theocrats and despised by Western secularists.

Funny old world, isn't it?

Yes, I suppose it makes as much sense as anything else, particularly US foreign policy. Or perhaps not - it's one I've never satisfactorily been able to figure out, unless you count Israel as really the US's surrogate in the Middle East.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MooseJam

PDN wrote:

Ah yes, Israel, that little bastion of aggressive secularism in the midst of a sea of militant theocracies. The one that's supported by Western theocrats and despised by Western secularists.

Funny old world, isn't it?

I read somewhere one of the reasons the USA is such a firm suporter of Israel is because the fundamentalist Christians there view the existence of the state of Israel as a precursor to the 'second coming'

Scofflaw

MooseJam wrote:

I read somewhere one of the reasons the USA is such a firm suporter of Israel is because the fundamentalist Christians there view the existence of the state of Israel as a precursor to the 'second coming'

Yes (see here for the Jack Chick summary), and the dedication of the Jewish lobby, plus the fact that it's habit at this stage. It still seems too watertight - it's political suicide to even suggest that Israel might be wrong.

still puzzled,
Scofflaw

PDN

MooseJam wrote:

I read somewhere one of the reasons the USA is such a firm suporter of Israel is because the fundamentalist Christians there view the existence of the state of Israel as a precursor to the 'second coming'

More likely it is because of strong Jewish influence within the US. More Jews live in the US than in any other country (including Israel). US Jewish population is 5 million (46% of World Jewish population). 13% of US Senators are Jewish, as are many leading figures in finance and media (and we all know that money and publicity rank highly in politicians' priorities).

Interestingly, despite all we hear about the Christian right and its support of Israel, 87% of US Jews vote Democrat.

Tzetze

Zionism?

Not all Jews are Zionists, but are all Zionists Jews?

The difference between the Jewish soul ... and the soul of all the Gentiles ... is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal. — Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak HaCohen Kook (1865-1935)

robindch

moosejam wrote:

I read somewhere one of the reasons the USA is such a firm suporter of Israel is because the fundamentalist Christians there view the existence of the state of Israel as a precursor to the 'second coming'

Yes, a large chunk of american fundamentalist christians do support Israel, but most of that support is 'energized' with a view to delivering votes to the Republican (mostly) party. The support doesn't really seem to influence anything very specific.

Rather, it seems to be a fairly shadowy organization called AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) which actually wields the political clout and gets congressmen and senators to vote in the correct way. The wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

seems to describe the organization fairly well.

bill_ashmount

BrianCalgary wrote:

Whose side are you going to be on when the final battle happens?

I'll be going up against God, he'll probably beat me, but i'll try my best

DublinWriter

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sure. Revelation 20

If you are a student of the Bible, you'll surely know you're on very shaky ground when you use the Book of Revelation for point scoring.

For starters, it wasn't actually written by "John the Devine" and it's inclusion in the overall cannon of the Bible has been hotly debated by scholars for centuries, not least many within the Catholic church itself.

Me? I really don't need to go into the mystical relm to know we are at the end times, I just look outside my front door.

Modern Civilisation depends on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will run out in 20 years, ergo modern civilisation will end. QED and thanks for stopping by.

DublinWriter

robindch wrote:

Yes, a large chunk of american fundamentalist christians do support Israel

Go choke on the irony considering that Chirst is revered as a minor Prophet in Islam, yet totally passed-over (no pun intended) in the Judaic cannon.

BrianCalgary

DublinWriter wrote:

If you are a student of the Bible, you'll surely know you're on very shaky ground when you use the Book of Revelation for point scoring..

First off I'm not trying to score points. Revelation through the ages has been interpreted to point to times that are to happen, others have said that it has happened in the first century and the fall of Jerusalem.

There is not much debate on the thousand year reign of Christ and the final battle. The debate as to when it happens is on, but not the if. So, the fial battle is a certainty.

DublinWriter wrote:

For starters, it wasn't actually written by "John the Devine" and it's inclusion in the overall cannon of the Bible has been hotly debated by scholars for centuries, not least many within the Catholic church itself..

I loved this quote from Here: http://www.spiritandtruth.org/questions/1.htm

To conclude that it is possible, or even likely that God gave Revelation through "another John" who happened to be alive during the same period, who is virtually unknown to the historical record, ministered in the same area, claimed to be on the same island that history witnessed the apostle John was banished to, never bothered to differentiate himself in the text from the most famous John of all history, and was unknown to the earliest Church Fathers is questionable logic.

So the author was the Apostle John.

DublinWriter wrote:

Me? I really don't need to go into the mystical relm to know we are at the end times, I just look outside my front door.

Modern Civilisation depends on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will run out in 20 years, ergo modern civilisation will end. QED and thanks for stopping by.

Yes modern civilization relies on fossil fuels especially oil. Past civilisations relied on wood and here; buffalo dung for heat and energy. So mankind has the ability to explore other options for energy and are.

The Book of Revelation is a book of warning and a book of hope.

It warns us against what happens when we turn from God. It warns of the terrible spiritual battle that we are engaged in, and finishes with the hope of eternal rest, peace and joy in the presnece of God as we are restored to original purpose.

DublinWriter

BrianCalgary wrote:

So the author was the Apostle John.

From Wiki:
"
Although the traditional view still has many adherents, some modern scholars[citation needed] believe that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos refer to three separate individuals. Certain lines of evidence suggest that John of Patmos wrote only Revelation, not the Gospel of John nor the Epistles of John. For one, the author of Revelation identifies himself as "John" several times, but the author of the Gospel of John never identifies himself directly. While both works liken Jesus to a lamb, they consistently use different words for lamb when referring to him — the Gospel uses amnos, Revelation uses arnion.[9] Lastly, the Gospel is written in nearly flawless Greek, but Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities which indicate its author may not have been as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel's author.[citation needed]
"

I would also refer you to an edition of the Radio 4 programme 'In Our Time' chaired by Melvyn Bragg around 2003 which discussed the authorship of the Book of Revelation at length. Dig around on the net and you'll find it.

Dispute about the authorship of the Book of Revelation aside, even more fascinating is the whole episode of Nicene Creed of the fourth century where the various books as published in the current Bible were sanctioned and others dismissed, in particular the Gospels of Mary and Judas.

If you really think the Bible is all that wonderful then ask yourself if you agree with sexual intercourse with minors (Old Testament: Song of Solomon) and the stoning to death of those who eat shellfish (Old Testament: Leviticus).

If you dare to step back even further from the forest, I'd recommend you go watch a movie called 'Zeitgeist'.

Sure, go believe in an invisible man in the sky who is all infinite love, yet will cast you into a pit of fire for all eternity if you don’t follow his ten rules; that’s fine, but it just scares me senseless that leaders of the so-called free world openly state that they receive direct orders from him in terms of whether or not they should invade foreign countries.

I sincerely hope that by 2012 people will abandon their current superstition based believes and turn towards a more humanist and basic code of morality, but I’m not holding my breath.

PDN

DublinWriter wrote:

Dispute about the authorship of the Book of Revelation aside, even more fascinating is the whole episode of Nicene Creed of the fourth century where the various books as published in the current Bible were sanctioned and others dismissed, in particular the Gospels of Mary and Judas.

I am heartily sick of posts on these boards that refer to the Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed yet betray a total ignorance of what happened at Nicea.

PLEASE, if you want to refer to Nicea then try reading a history book, a theology book - in fact any book other than The Davinci Code that refers to Nicea will tell you that the Council did not form a Canon of Scripture and did not suppress any other Gospels.

If you aren't up to reading a real book then at least go to Wikipedia and get a basic understansing of what the Council of Nicea was really all about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea