Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
It doesn't and people can bend it to suit their own arguments.

I notice here:

11 Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns ( USA & Britian ) like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercises all the authority of the first beast ( League of Nations )in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed. ( It became the United nations )

...he added words (in brackets) to the text of the bible in order to sort of bolster his interpretation, because with out adding those words in brackets, there is no particular reason to believe that the USA & Britain and the League of Nations and the United Nations are being "described in Revelation".

Originally posted by FMF
Can't a verse like Revelation 13:11 be taken by any partisan or ideologue or demagogue to mean whatever they want or need it to mean?

If one does not want it to fit then I suppose it could be used to fit to anyones opinion.
But it wasn't written to fit just anything. It if was what would be the point?

Originally posted by galveston75
If one does not want it to fit then I suppose it could be used to fit to anyones opinion.

But surely you yourself "want it to fit" and therefore it "fits" your opinion?

Originally posted by galveston75
If one does not want it to fit then I suppose it could be used to fit to anyones opinion.
But it wasn't written to fit just anything. It if was what would be the point?

That was my point.

I don't mean you any offense Galveston 75.

All I am saying is that anybody can take any passage from any part of the Bible
and use it to fit their own argument.

That is why I regard the Bible as unreliable.

If it was the true handbook on how to get through this life then it would be a lot plainer.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
All I am saying is that anybody can take any passage from any part of the Bible
and use it to fit their own argument.

Revelation in particular. It was added to the canon very late in the process and suits the needs of corporate religion to a tee.

Originally posted by FMF
Revelation in particular. It was added to the canon very late in the process and suits the needs of corporate religion to a tee.

Hum. Then why can't most religious people including their priest, pastors, etc, explain hardly any of it?

Originally posted by galveston75
Hum. Then why can't most religious people including their priest, pastors, etc, explain hardly any of it?

Just like you do, they assert that they can "explain" it. And then they claim that their explanation is "authoritative" or even "self-evident". It is the perfect smoke-and-mirrors tool.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
That was my point.

I don't mean you any offense Galveston 75.

All I am saying is that anybody can take any passage from any part of the Bible
and use it to fit their own argument.

That is why I regard the Bible as unreliable.

If it was the true handbook on how to get through this life then it would be a lot plainer.

Not really. If it was plainer then there would be no need for faith and to develope a relationship with God and to learn from him.
The reason the Bible was authored as it was is to search out ones heart condition.
It was written this way to prompt one to ask God for the help to understand it.
This does a couple different things.
If one is simply looking to have a religious aspect to their life and be happy with the "milk" knowledge in the Bible, they can usually get what they are wanting. Go to church on Sundays and sing some songs and give their donation and be happy with that. But ask them serious questions such as the scripture in Revelation I just quoted and they usually have no clue and excuse themselves saying they leave that stuff up to their preacher. But in fact the preachers really don't know either.
If that is all one wants, there it is.

But the Bible clearly says " accurate knowledge leads to life".
So if ones heart is in a state to not be happy with just the "milk" knowledge in the Bible ( which is actually condemned to stay in that mindset ) that most can see, then one has to be humble and be willing to not only learn the "meat" truths in the bible but must be completely willing to let God teach you and then completely be willing to follow those teachings.

So in your eyes and probably rightly so, it seems to be unreliable from what you've seen and heard in your life.
But it is really just the opposite if one has learned the real truths that are in it.

Originally posted by galveston75
But it is really just the opposite if one has learned the real truths that are in it.

Is your stuff about the League Of Nations [1919–1946] one of "the real truths that are in [the Bible]" that you have "learned"?

Originally posted by FMF
Just like you do, they assert that they [b]can "explain" it. And then they claim that their explanation is "authoritative" or even "self-evident". It is the perfect smoke-and-mirrors tool.[/b]

But they don't. I had a Catholic Priest tell me once that he never uses the book of Revelation in his sermons as he did not understand it.
What? A man of the church and one that has a congregation to teach the bible too refuses to use a part of the Bible because he could not explain it?
A part of the Bible that is probably the most important book as it is very important because of the times we live in?
So yes for the few who dare to "try" to understand it with their ideals and philosophies but never quite get it, have used it to make up their smoke and mirror ideas. You are right with that.

Originally posted by FMF
Is your stuff about the League Of Nations [1919–1946] one of "the real truths that are in [the Bible]" that you have "learned"?

Dead on. Nothing else comes close to that explination in the Bible.

Originally posted by galveston75
But ask them serious questions such as the scripture in Revelation I just quoted and they usually have no clue and excuse themselves saying they leave that stuff up to their preacher. But in fact the preachers really don't know either.
If that is all one wants, there it is.

If a Christian disagrees with you about the USA & Britain and the League of Nations and the United Nations being "described in Revelation" as you claim, are they wrong, and you right?

Originally posted by galveston75
But they don't. I had a Catholic Priest tell me once that he never uses the book of Revelation in his sermons as he did not understand it.
What? A man of the church and one that has a congregation to teach the bible too refuses to use a part of the Bible because he could not explain it?
A part of the Bible that is probably the most important book as ...[text shortened]... quite get it, have used it to make up their smoke and mirror ideas. You are right with that.

Revelation is for you "probably the most important book" because you revel in obscurantism. That Catholic priest probably sees himself as a follower of what Christ is actually reported to have said and therefore thinks Revelation is bogus. His comment to you seemed a diplomatic way of dealing with Revelation.

Originally posted by galveston75
Dead on. Nothing else comes close to that explination in the Bible.

Revelation 13:11 is - in your opinion - about the League Of Nations [1919–1946] because you cannot think of anything else it might be about?

Originally posted by FMF
If a Christian disagrees with you about the USA & Britain and the League of Nations and the United Nations being "described in Revelation" as you claim, are they wrong, and you right?

Don't you think someone has to be right or was the Bible written to just fool us all?