The End Time Prophecy in Revelation 16:12 has been Fulfilled

[Tazarah]

2 big holes. 1. The river has dried out before, 2. the battle already happened.

1. When has the river dried up before? You posted two links, both of which I've already posted in the OP as well as post #28 of this thread and both of the links verify that the river is becoming more and more dry as time goes on.

2. You posted a link from 2017 (which I already posted) and then you claimed it was from 1970, when it clearly says it was posted in 2017.

3. The battle that you keep saying already happened is not what the bible speaks about. The bible is not talking about a battle in one specific location, it's talking about a worldwide battle with handfuls of other ramifications and factors -- none of which happened or were observed in the year 1918 during your "battle of meggido".

 

[blü 2]

I can't even take you seriously anymore at this point. You're making false claims and then demanding that I prove them for you. Either prove that the river has never dried up before like you've asserted, or stop talking.

The only claim I've made is this.

Your argument only works if the drying up of the Euphrates is unique.

You haven't shown that the drying up of the Euphrates is unique.

Therefore your argument has a great big hole in it.


To this we can add Kangaroo Feathers' point #76 above. "The battle already happened".

Which is to say, even if the drying up is unique, which you've yet to show, the "prophecy" is not satisfied.


Fix your argument with accurate facts or forget it.

 

[Tazarah]

The only claim I've made is this.

Your argument only works if the drying up of the Euphrates is unique.

You haven't shown that the drying up of the Euphrates is unique.

Therefore your argument has a great big hole in it.


To this we can add Kangaroo Feathers' point #76 above. "The battle already happened".

Which is to say, even if the drying up is unique, which you've yet to show, the "prophecy" is not satisfied.


Fix your argument with accurate facts or forget it.

There is only a hole in my argument if you can somehow prove that the river has dried up before. I've been waiting for you to do so. You can't put an imaginary hole in an argument when you can't even prove the imaginary things that you're saying.

On top of that, the points that Kangaroo Feathers' has raised have all been debunked. Nothing that he/she says can be substantiated by the biblical scriptures and he/she does not even read the links that they post (see post #81). They have proven nothing.

 

[Cooky]

Wouldn't it have been a much better prophecy if you could have told us this time last year?

On the other hand, if it were meant to be a "prophesy" rather than a sign, the year would have been revealed. My Church does not dabble in prophesy... But signs are signs.

 

[Cooky]

Correction, so the forces of “kings of the east” could cross it.

Anyway going of the titles of your articles, they are presumably all about military activity on the eastern side, with none crossing.

And besides the lack of foresight of the prophecy is showing. Modern armies cross oceans let alone rivers. Troop carriers can literally deploy paratroopers from the sky, they have no need to wait for mere rivers to dry up to attack

So does this mean you're calling it coincidence?

 

[Cooky]

You might as well call America a kingdom. It's not.

You do realize that the bible has been translated from other languages, where the kingdom and nation might be interchangeable, right?

 

[blü 2]

There is only a hole in my argument if you can somehow prove that the river has dried up before.

Don't try and dump your homework on me. As it stands, it's already a FAIL since you've FAILED TO SHOW that the event is unique.

I'm not arguing that it IS unique or that it's NOT unique.

I'm pointing out that IF it's NOT unique then your argument fails liminally.

And since you haven't shown that, YOU HAVEN'T MADE YOUR ARGUMENT.

So 1. Show it's unique

And 2. Show that Kangaroo Feathers' point is wrong

and we can then move on to consider whether the concept of supernatural foreknowledge is a coherent concept in reality.

Don't tell me it's my job to make your argument work. It's not. It's yours, and, just to be perfectly clear, as it stands it's a FAIL.

So fix it or forget it.

 

[Cooky]

Let me know when you find evidence proving that the Euphrates has dried up before, since that's the only thing that your argument rests upon. It's not my job to validate your arguments for you.

Well, I spent time searching, and there is no evidence of the Euphrates ever drying up, therefore, we can only conclude that it has never happened before.

 

[Cooky]

Don't try and dump your homework on me. As it stands, it's already a FAIL since you've FAILED TO SHOW that the event is unique.

I'm not arguing that it IS unique or that it's NOT unique.

I'm pointing out that IF it's NOT unique then your argument fails liminally.

And since you haven't shown that, YOU HAVEN'T MADE YOUR ARGUMENT.

So 1. Show it's unique

And 2. Show that Kangaroo Feathers' point is wrong

and we can then move on to consider whether the concept of supernatural foreknowledge is a coherent concept in reality.

Don't tell me it's my job to make your argument work. It's not. It's yours, and, just to be perfectly clear, as it stands it's a FAIL.

So fix it or forget it.

There is no evidence anywhere that the Euphrates has ever dried up before. Therefore it has never dried up before.

...So we cannot use this imaginary scenario.

 

[blü 2]

There is no evidence anywhere that the Euphrates has ever dried up before. Therefore it has never dried up before.

Source?

 

[Cooky]

Source?

You cannot prove a negative. It is impossible.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You do realize that the bible has been translated from other languages, where the kingdom and nation might be interchangeable, right?

That would require, inherently, that the Bible was written with limited understanding, and not being able to diacern different types of nation-states. Or, as is the common defense, if we assume metaphor then we can rightly apply the passage to anythi g given the vagueness and ambiguity, amd certainly kingdoms of the East would include more than China

 

[Cooky]

That would require, inherently, that the Bible was written with limited understanding, and not being able to diacern different types of nation-states.

But what if they didn't have a word for it then? I mean, they would only have been able to use words that were available in Aramaic or Greek during that age, right?

 

[Tazarah]

Don't try and dump your homework on me. As it stands, it's already a FAIL since you've FAILED TO SHOW that the event is unique.

I'm not arguing that it IS unique or that it's NOT unique.

I'm pointing out that IF it's NOT unique then your argument fails liminally.

And since you haven't shown that, YOU HAVEN'T MADE YOUR ARGUMENT.

So 1. Show it's unique

And 2. Show that Kangaroo Feathers' point is wrong

and we can then move on to consider whether the concept of supernatural foreknowledge is a coherent concept in reality.

Don't tell me it's my job to make your argument work. It's not. It's yours, and, just to be perfectly clear, as it stands it's a FAIL.

So fix it or forget it.

So in other words, you can't prove that it isn't "unique". You're just rambling.

My point exactly.

 

[Tazarah]

Well, I spent time searching, and there is no evidence of the Euphrates ever drying up, therefore, we can only conclude that it has never happened before.

Exactly

 

[Tazarah]

That would require, inherently, that the Bible was written with limited understanding, and not being able to diacern different types of nation-states. Or, as is the common defense, if we assume metaphor then we can rightly apply the passage to anythi g given the vagueness and ambiguity, amd certainly kingdoms of the East would include more than China

The greek word used for "king" in Revelation 16:12 is:

Strong's G935 - basileus (βασιλεύς)

Here is the outline of biblical usage:

1. leader of the people, prince, commander, lord of the land, king
   [URL='https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g935']
   https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g935[/URL]

 

[Etritonakin]

Luke 21:24 is not talking about a future event. Luke 21:24 is speaking about 70 AD and the siege of Jerusalem. It says that the Israelites fell and were taken as captives into all nations. It already happened. Zechariah 14 is a prophecy speaking about what will happen once the Israelites are placed back into the holy land after being gathered from the lands of their captivities (Jeremiah 30:7-11, Ezekiel 20:34-38).

Luke 21:24 is definitely talking about a future event

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

 

[Tazarah]

Luke 21:24 is definitely talking about a future event

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

No, it's referring to 70 AD. Even the mainstream bible scholars and commentators all agree that it's Luke 21:24 is speaking about 70 AD.

The verses following Luke 21:24 are explaining the signs that will come to let us know that the times of the gentiles are coming to an end.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

1. When has the river dried up before? You posted two links, both of which I've already posted in the OP as well as post #28 of this thread and both of the links verify that the river is becoming more and more dry as time goes on.

2. You posted a link from 2017 (which I already posted) and then you claimed it was from 1970, when it clearly says it was posted in 2017.

If you posted those two links previously then you know the river dried out previously

3. The battle that you keep saying already happened is not what the bible speaks about. The bible is not talking about a battle in one specific location, it's talking about a worldwide battle with handfuls of other ramifications and factors -- none of which happened or were observed in the year 1918 during your "battle of meggido".

Oh, so you think the Bible is wrong when it says the battle is at Megiddo? Good to know. Any other bits of the Bible you think are wrong? Just so we know?

 

[Tazarah]

If you posted those two links previously then you know the river dried out previously

No it has not. The link from 2009 says that the river was drying up and the link from 2017 said that it was drying up even more. You're trying to claim that the river dried up before, was somehow refilled, and then dried up again -- which is not the case.

Secondly, you tried to claim that one of the links was from 1970 when it was actually from 2017.

Oh, so you think the Bible is wrong when it says the battle is at Megiddo? Good to know. Any other bits of the Bible you think are wrong? Just so we know?

Where does the bible say this? Book, chapter and verse? Thanks.