Seismic activity as a sign of the last days

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Perhaps there is conflicting opinion, who can say?

I looked at yoctobytes link and then at the article they were quoting. In that article they have more of the quote. Here it is, the bold is my emphasis:

“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. But even though the global earthquake rate is on the rise, the number of quakes can still be explained by random chance, said Parsons and co-author Eric Geist, also a USGS researcher. Their findings were published online June 21 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

https://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2016/04/17/why-is-the-planet-being-struck-by-so-many-large-earthquakes/

I've posted a link to the actual paper below, unfortunately wiley want paying for it, but the abstract can be read for free and contains the sentence: "If aftershocks within at least one rupture length from main shocks/foreshocks are filtered, then we find no evidence of global scale M ≥ 5.2–5.6 (depending on parameters) clustering since 2010 that demands a physical explanation."

So the bloggers are trying to make a story where there isn't one.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060513/full

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What weak and wimpy namby pambyism is this, Jesus is described in scripture as a warrior, a vengeful warrior and you paint him like hes Trixie the pixie come to take them on a Sunday school picnic to Noddy land, get a grip!

Jesus is described in scripture as a warrior

Not in any of the four Gospels I've read he isn't. Is this a reference to the Old Testament or just another piece of loose rhetoric? Whether he existed or not the description in the Bible is of a man of peace, not of a violent man. His instruction is to "Turn the other cheek", not to lay waste to countries.

Originally posted by finnegan
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.

1914 doesn't even enter into it, except in the JWs bizarro dogma.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk

Do you ever feel irked by web sites that have duped you and fed into what they know you sincerely want to believe is true?

Originally posted by DeepThought

Jesus is described in scripture as a warrior

Not in any of the four Gospels I've read he isn't. Is this a reference to the Old Testament or just another piece of loose rhetoric? Whether he existed or not the description in the Bible is of a man of peace, not of a violent man. His instruction is to "Turn the other cheek", not to lay waste to countries.

The bible contains sixty six books, not only four gospels and lucky for you I am an expert in all matters scriptural.

I saw heaven opened, and look! a white horse. And the one seated on it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on war in righteousness. His eyes are a fiery flame, and on his head are many diadems. He has a name written that no one knows but he himself, and he is clothed with an outer garment stained with blood, and he is called by the name The Word of God. Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen. And out of his mouth protrudes a sharp, long sword with which to strike the nations, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron. Moreover, he treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his outer garment, yes, on his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. Rev 19 11-16

Originally posted by Suzianne
1914 doesn't even enter into it, except in the JWs bizarro dogma.

then you will proffer an alternative explanation of the text.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It could apply to any number of conflicts throughout the ages. The Ottoman wars of the middle ages for example.

and you would fail because the Ottoman conquests were not truly global unlike the first world war in which 95 percent of the earths population were involved or directly affected. Furthermore since that time war escalated in which the second world war was even more devastating in human terms until our present time where its been estimated that there are only 11 countries not openly engaged in some kind of conflict,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/world-peace-these-are-the-only-11-countries-in-the-world-that-are-actually-free-from-conflict-9669623.html

Yes truly we are living in an epoch of wars that began with 'the Great war' as Jesus stated, 'You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet.' - Matt 24:6

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and you would fail because the Ottoman conquests were not truly global unlike the first world war in which 95 percent of the earths population were involved or directly affected. Furthermore since that time war escalated in which the second world war was even more devastating until our present time where its been estimated that there are only 11 coun ...[text shortened]... that you are not alarmed, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet.' - Matt 24:6

The text does not mention anything being "global".

The JW are extrapolating again, just like most of the NWT.

Anything to appear like you guys are the only ones who "know" the date. Don't you guys also claim that Jesus has already returned?

And where does Jesus mention 'a Great war'?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The bible contains sixty six books, not only four gospels and lucky for you I am an expert in all matters scriptural.

I saw heaven opened, and look! a white horse. And the one seated on it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on war in righteousness. His eyes are a fiery flame, and on his head are many diadems. He has a name w ...[text shortened]... garment, yes, on his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. Rev 19 11-16

If no one knows his name then it cannot be Jesus since we know Jesus' name.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The text does not mention anything being "global".

Yes it does, 'For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom', Matt 24:7 - refers to international warfare, please note the rather glaring and obvious clues nation against nation i.e International warfare. Its elementary.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If no one knows his name then it cannot be Jesus since we know Jesus' name.

Oh dear, please read the text again, the rider is clearly termed 'The Word of God.' Also Faithful and true - another reference to Jesus.

Man people can be so unreasonable these days.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes it does, 'For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom', Matt 24:7 - refers to international warfare, please note the rather glaring and obvious clues nation against nation i.e International warfare. Its elementary.

You are extrapolating again.

Even "international" doesn't mean "global".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes it does, 'For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom', Matt 24:7 - refers to international warfare, please note the rather glaring and obvious clues nation against nation i.e International warfare. Its elementary.

I hope you're not suggesting that WW1 was the first example of "international warfare"?

Originally posted by Suzianne
You are extrapolating again.

Even "international" doesn't mean "global".

No i have clearly demonstrated that the writer makes reference to international warfare, that is what nations fighting against nations is, international warfare and even though you keep repeating the same empty sentiments it cannot nor does not negate the fact. We also note that you have FAILED miserably to provide an alternative interpretation being content to pander your opinions as if they have some efficacy in themselves.

I think it refers to a global conflict that is why the writer makes reference to international warfare, if you have another interpretation of what 'nation against nation and kingdom against kingdom', means then let it be heard.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No i have clearly demonstrated that the writer makes reference to international warfare, that is what nations fighting against nations is, international warfare and even though you keep repeating the same empty sentiments it cannot nor does not negate the fact. We also note that you have FAILED miserably to provide an alternative interpretation being content to pander your opinions as if they have some efficacy in themselves.

Is the word "global" in the Bible? Yes or no.