Originally posted by robbie carrobieSadly my prolixity may have concealed from you the key question in my post, to which you have not replied:
'Hardly considered'??? Dear sir, its there in writing ! imposing and exegesis on scripture where none is explicitly stated in the text??? I don't think so because there is NO OTHER way to interpret it. It logically or rationally cannot be interpreted as a local conflict and the only other rational and reasonable interpretation is that the author int ...[text shortened]... tive understanding.
It most certainly is the Bible you are being asked to give credence to.
===="...Please explain to my why it might not refer to a moment in the distant future - perhaps two thousand years in the future, about which we can know nothing at this time but which will, sure enough, fully and perfectly coincide with the biblical predications in all their glory." ===
After all, Christians prior to 1914 had no idea what was in their future.
This has a bearing on your insistence that there is NO OTHER possible, logical, rational or reasonable alternative to your interpretation.
3 edits
Originally posted by finneganWhy could it simply not be the first truly global conflict, it seems much more rational to me rather than speculate about what is not known rather than utilise what is known. It could not possibly be some point on the future because the time frame is clearly marked as 'the beginning of pangs of distress', as Christ states marked by a global war, earthquakes, food shortages etc now the very first global war took place in 1914 and if it was accompanied by just that. Famine and pestilence, like the Spanish flu etc If we are to allow for some speculative event in the future then it would be practically impossible to reference the time frame, for who was to say, 'oh there may be another war and another beginning of pangs of distress in 2000 years'. So No I reject your speculation and conjecture, it must be made with reference to 'the beginning of severe pangs of distress for the system' and such an even was the first world war.
Sadly my prolixity may have concealed from you the key question in my post, to which you have not replied:
===="[i]...Please explain to my why it might not refer to a moment in the distant future - perhaps two thousand years in the future, about which we can know nothing at this time but which will, sure enough, fully and perfectly coincide with the bib ...[text shortened]... there is NO OTHER possible, logical, rational or reasonable alternative to your interpretation.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut we passed that one AND the second one and we are still intact and in fact lives are ten time better now then they ever were back then, better education, better medicine, better living standards, lower death rate and so forth.
why could it simply not be the first truly global conflict, it seems much more rational to me rather than speculate about what is not known rather than utilise what is known. It could not possibly be some point on the future because the time frame is clearly marked as 'the beginning of pangs of distress', as Christ states by a global war, earthquakes ...[text shortened]... e beginning of severe pangs of distress for the system and such an even was the first world war.
So for you to be calling earthquakes signs of last days is just bonkers. Like the wise man said, "this too shall pass''.
Isis notwithstanding.
5 edits
Originally posted by sonhousenonsense, take a look at the planet, its being raided by greedy capitalists, pollution is at unsustainable levels, we have the hottest ocean temperatures on record, deforestation on an unprecedented scale and because you live in the west and dont go to bed hungry you think its a bed of flippin roses? Heart disease is still the number one killer as it was in 1930 and simply because you live longer is proof of nothing. What are you going to do when extreme temperatures make food scarce with a world that is growing vastly, tell them that its ok, you can live longer, only if you can get food and clean water, man how terribly spiritually myopic.
But we passed that one AND the second one and we are still intact and in fact lives are ten time better now then they ever were back then, better education, better medicine, better living standards, lower death rate and so forth.
So for you to be calling earthquakes signs of last days is just bonkers. Like the wise man said, "this too shall pass''.
Isis notwithstanding.
Earthquakes and their increased frequency are simply part of a composite sign that would indicate the beginning of the last days and its tedious to have to repeat it again and again for people whose comprehension is rather in want.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut the stuff in your first paragraph is utterly unconnected with seismic activity. What is more, as several posters have adequately demonstrated, there is no evidence of a statistically significant increase in earthquakes.
nonsense, take a look at the planet, its being raided by greedy capitalists, pollution is at unsustainable levels, we have the hottest ocean temperatures on record, deforestation on an unprecedented scale and because you live in the west and dont go to bed hungry you think its a bed of flippin roses? Heart disease is still the number one killer as it ...[text shortened]... s tedious to have to repeat it again and again for people whose comprehension is rather in want.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell we might be in for a rude awakening for sure, climate wise but I suspect we will survive the coming catastrophe's and learn from it, maybe a thousand years later Earth recovers.
nonsense, take a look at the planet, its being raided by greedy capitalists, pollution is at unsustainable levels, we have the hottest ocean temperatures on record, deforestation on an unprecedented scale and because you live in the west and dont go to bed hungry you think its a bed of flippin roses? Heart disease is still the number one killer as it ...[text shortened]... s tedious to have to repeat it again and again for people whose comprehension is rather in want.
It would recover a hell of a lot faster if somehow every human on the planet kicked the bucket.
And it will be our own fault.
So maybe 100 million years later it will be shown the extinction of humans paved the way for a better intelligent life form just like the extinction of dinosaurs paved the way for humans even though it took 65 odd million years.
Maybe the next batch of intelligent species will be from bats. Maybe spiders, who knows.
One thing for sure. Nobody on Earth will mourn the extinction of humans, more like a sigh of relief.
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtthese point have been covered on numerous occasions it s tedious to have to do so again and again so either you are talking pants or Tom Parsons a research geophysicist with the U.S Geological survey doesn't know what he's talking about.
But the stuff in your first paragraph is utterly unconnected with seismic activity. What is more, as several posters have adequately demonstrated, there is no evidence of a statistically significant increase in earthquakes.
"We have recently experienced a period that has had one of the highest rates of great earthquakes ever recorded," said lead study author Tom Parsons, a research geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Menlo Park, California.
Now if I was a betting man, which I am not, I would wager that you are talking frilly pantaloons, AGAIN!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhere's the famine?
nonsense, take a look at the planet, its being raided by greedy capitalists, pollution is at unsustainable levels, we have the hottest ocean temperatures on record, deforestation on an unprecedented scale and because you live in the west and dont go to bed hungry you think its a bed of flippin roses? Heart disease is still the number one killer as it ...[text shortened]... s tedious to have to repeat it again and again for people whose comprehension is rather in want.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieReference?
these point have been covered on numerous occasions it s tedious to have to do so again and again so either you are talking pants or Tom Parsons a research geophysicist with the U.S Geological survey doesn't know what he's talking about.
"We have recently experienced a period that has had one of the highest rates of great earthquakes ever recorded ...[text shortened]... was a betting man, which I am not, I would wager that you are talking frilly pantaloons, AGAIN!
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes, but so what, the sign is composite and its just like an atheistic sapling to attempt to take them out of context and view them in isolation, the thing we need to appreciate is that these composite parts would exist together to form a whole, therefore we have a global conflict and food shortages, and earthquakes etc etc its not and/or but and/and
There were numerous famines before 1914 also.