Originally posted by robbie carrobieDid any of the other wars between kingdoms and nations during the last 2,000 years - according to your reading of history - count as "international warfare"?
It could mean global if enough nations were involved. it certainly does not exclude it being considered global.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFYes and if you think these are a reference to Christs words then feel free to lay your theory before us or proffer some other rational explanation of Matthew 24:7 😵
Did any of the other wars between kingdoms and nations during the last 2,000 years - according to your reading of history - count as "international warfare"?
3 edits
Verse 7. - Nation shall rise against nation, etc. This part of the prediction is inapplicable to the era preceding the ruin of Jerusalem, the disturbances that occurred then (e.g. at Alexandria, Seleucia, Jamnia, and other localities mentioned by Josephus, 'Ant.,' 18:09. 8, 9; 'Bell. Jud.,' 2:17. 10; 18:1-8; 4:3. 2; and by Philo, 'Legat. ad Caium,' § 30) could hardly have been indicated in such grand terms. More to the purpose is the sketch of the period given by Tacitus, at the opening of his history, though it embraces also details belonging to a somewhat later age: "I enter upon a work fertile in vicissitudes, stained with the blood of battles, embroiled with dissensions, horrible even in the intervals of peace. Four princes slain by the sword; three civil wars, more with foreign enemies, and sometimes both at once; prosperity in the East, disasters in the West; Illyricum disturbed; the Gauls ready to revolt; Britain conquered, and again lost; Sarmatians end Suevians conspiring against us; the Dacians renowned for defeats given and sustained; the Parthians almost aroused to arms by a counterfeit Nero. Italy afflicted with calamities unheard of, or recurring only after a long interval; cities overwhelmed or swallowed up in the fertile region of Campania; Rome itself laid waste by fire, the most ancient temples destroyed, the very capitol burned by its own citizens," etc. ('Hist.,' I. 2). But the Lord's words seem to refer to times when Rome's dominion had ceased, and nation warred against nation, as in later and modern days in Europe, Asia, and parts of Africa So again the prediction must be extended far beyond events in the Jewish cycle.
http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-7.htm
Can I get a Witness? 😵
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe are not dealing in a reasonable or even a best or most likely interpretation. We are dealing in your claim that there is only one possible interperetation, that no alternative is even possible, that to mention the possibility of an alternative is to enter into the thick woods of logical fallacy.
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 marked by a global war, eart ...[text shortened]... beginning of severe pangs of distress for the system' and such an even was the first world war.
I am only claiming that the global conflict you look for might possibly, reasonably, as a possible doubt, as a plausible consideration, lie in the future and as such lie outside our knowledge in the same way that Christians could not reasonably be expected to predict the outbreak of WW1 or Spanish Flu. Yes something like that might arise - say a Mongol invasion spreading through the Steppes, China, the Middle and near East, China, touching North Africa, (neglecting Western Europe which was an impoverished wilderness of no interest to such a mighty empire) which might be considered by some a pretty international sort of a crisis - or say the bubonic plague, with a death toll that has never been matched by any earlier or subsequent disease - and some might even suggest that these were at least comparable events to those 20th Century disasters that have your attention. Still, the earlier Christians would be wrong because they failed to predict 1914 and Spanish Flu, which even a great biblical scholar like yourself can only predict with hindsight, even though of course they might well predict that something of that nature might happen at some future date, just as I predit that something of that sort of nature is capable of happening in our future.
Your lack of humility concerns me - your inability to consider the existence of alternatives. You are making far to strong a claim and faillng to provide for the possibility of error. That is a very high risk strategy and it stands on very weak foundations.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell I don't think there's a convincing reason to believe there is any valid prophesy contained in the NT about 'the end of the world'. Far from it. What is interesting, though, is how you are willing to contort yourself and your thinking in an effort to crowbar your perspective on the C21st world into a 2,000 year old text, or vice versa. You seem to have dropped the OP topic ~ earthquakes - having had that data dismantled and your source discredited. And now you are faffing about with the words "global" and "international". It's all very interesting to see how your religious beliefs affect your intellectual behaviour.
Yes and if you think these are a reference to Christs words then feel free to lay your theory before us or proffer some other rational explanation of Matthew 24:7 😵
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFso you have nothing - thankyou, neeeeext! 😴
Well I don't think there's a convincing reason to believe there is any valid prophesy contained in the NT about 'the end of the world'. Far from it. What is interesting, though, is how you are willing to contort yourself and your thinking in an effort to crowbar your perspective on the C21st world into a 2,000 year old text, or vice versa. You seem to have dropp ...[text shortened]... It's all very interesting to see how your religious beliefs affect your intellectual behaviour.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's an answer, and an honest one. You offer no insight into this world or its "end". All you have is your certainty that 'the end is nigh' and your peculiar behaviour trying to make "evidence" fit. Why won't you just concede that your seismography "evidence" was simply taken to pieces? You stated a whole thread on it. And yet you blunder. Isn't your intellectual credibility important to you as you endeavour to affect the opinions and perspectives of others?
so you have nothing - thankyou, neeeeext! 😴
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat article is a couple of years out of date. The latest figures, for 2015, are available on the Institute for Economics and Peace website that actually compiles the list, the link is below. The cost of violence, both internal and external to the US economy is over $2 trillion, and to the UK economy it is just under $140 billion. For comparison the #1 on the list (for being peaceful) is Iceland and they spend $242 million on violence. Per head of population this comes to US: $6200 per head, UK: $2160 per capita, and for Iceland: $736 per capita. So encouraging peace seems to be the cheap option.
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 a ...[text shortened]... that you are not alarmed, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet.' - Matt 24:6
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/indexes/global-peace-index
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganI am being entirely reasonable. Have I not called for alternative explanations, numerous times, from those dissenting of my own? How more reasonable can a mortal man get? Even your own explanation is based on pure conjecture, a what if, could be, its possible that scenario, which is fine but I crave something more concrete, tangible , that one can say yes without any degree of doubt, there has been unprecedented warfare which has escalated beyond anything else we have witnessed in history. Yes I agree I have my faults but I am good natured when people are reasonable, considerate of alternatives when proffered and substantiated with reason and reference.
We are not dealing in a reasonable or even a best or most likely interpretation. We are dealing in your claim that there is only one possible interperetation, that no alternative is even possible, that to mention the possibility of an alternative is to enter into the thick woods of logical fallacy.
I am only claiming that the global conflict you look fo ...[text shortened]... possibility of error. That is a very high risk strategy and it stands on very weak foundations.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtyes but it cannot nor does it negate the fact that we have witnessed in this modern epoch, unprecedented warfare.
That article is a couple of years out of date. The latest figures, for 2015, are available on the Institute for Economics and Peace website that actually compiles the list, the link is below. The cost of violence, both internal and external to the US economy is over $2 trillion, and to the UK economy it is just under $140 billion. For compariso ...[text shortened]... ems to be the cheap option.
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/indexes/global-peace-index
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI gave you an alternative. The prophesied events lie in the distant future and not in the recent past. I did not say I am right. I said it is an alternative that fits every one of your arguments except for just one - the argument that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
I am being entirely reasonable. Have I not called for alternative explanations, numerous times, from those dissenting of my own? How more reasonable can a mortal man get? Even your own explanation is based on pure conjecture, a what if, could be, its possible that scenario, which is fine bit I crave something more concrete, tangible , that one can ...[text shortened]... sonable, considerate of alternatives when proffered and substantiated with reason and reference.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFor the umpteenth time, the text in Matthew 24 does not mention the word 'global'. You're making it up.
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 a ...[text shortened]... that you are not alarmed, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet.' - Matt 24:6