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

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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.

Rivers dry out and refil all the time... especially snow fed exotic rivers like the Euphrates.

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

Rev 16:16. You should probably read the whole thing some time.

 

[Tazarah]

Rivers dry out and refil all the time... especially snow fed exotic rivers like the Euphrates.
Rev 16:16. You should probably read the whole thing some time.

OK, I see what you're saying now. You can't claim that armageddon already happened just because there was a battle called "meggido". Do you not understand that there are prophecies that must be fulfilled before this even happens? You think that just because there was a battle called "meggido" means that the battle of armageddon already happened?

When in the past did the Euphrates river dry up, with eastern military forces using it as a location/pathway for military purposes?

In order for your argument to be valid, you need to prove:

1. The Euphrates river has dried up sometime in the past.

2. That after the Euphrates river dried up, eastern military forces began to use the river for military purposes.

Did both 1 and 2 happen in 1918 at your "battle of megiddo"? If not, then the "battle of megiddo" was not the fulfillment of Revelation 16:12.

 

[blü 2]

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".

The Battle of Megiddo was part of the Great War, World War One. That was seen as world-wide since the British Empire countries around the world were involved, as were Japan, China and others. True, Megiddo wasn't of itself a decisive turn in the fortunes of the war, and who's to say the defeated Islamic Turks weren't the true representatives of God, but from the usual Christian point of view, selectively mining the Tanakh for things they can use, it means that at the least there'll have been at least one previous Battle of Megiddo.

Why do you think prophecies must come true, by the way?

 

[blü 2]

You cannot prove a negative. It is impossible.

Don't be silly. Of course you can prove a negative. You simply check all relevant records of the Euphrates for the past two thousand years, and THEN report that you've found no prior instances of the river being dry. That at the least makes it reasonable to assume it's more likely there has been no precedent.

But until you've done that, you have no basis for any assumption, especially an assumption that suits what you claim ─ that's just wishing and pretending wishing is fact.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

OK, I see what you're saying now. You can't claim that armageddon already happened just because there was a battle called "meggido". Do you not understand that there are prophecies that must be fulfilled before this even happens? You think that just because there was a battle called "meggido" means that the battle of armageddon already happened?

When in the past did the Euphrates river dry up, with eastern military forces using it as a location/pathway for military purposes?

In order for your argument to be valid, you need to prove:

1. The Euphrates river has dried up sometime in the past.

2. That after the Euphrates river dried up, eastern military forces began to use the river for military purposes.

Did both 1 and 2 happen in 1918 at your "battle of megiddo"? If not, then the "battle of megiddo" was not the fulfillment of Revelation 16:12.

The battle happened already. This is historical fact. Australia (who won the battle) and New Zealand (who kind of showed up) are both Kingdoms to the East. Just like the Bible says.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Don't be silly. Of course you can prove a negative. You simply check all relevant records of the Euphrates for the past two thousand years, and THEN report that you've found no prior instances of the river being dry. That at the least makes it reasonable to assume it's more likely there has been no precedent.

But until you've done that, you have no basis for any assumption, especially an assumption that suits what you claim ─ that's just wishing and pretending wishing is fact.

Some serious cherry picking going on. He's now saying the Bible is wrong about the Battle of Megiddo!

If you have to claim the Bible is wrong to support your shoehorning, that should tell you you might be mistaken.

 

[Etritonakin]

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.

Well... they are wrong.

For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

 

[Tazarah]

The battle happened already. This is historical fact. Australia (who won the battle) and New Zealand (who kind of showed up) are both Kingdoms to the East. Just like the Bible says.

Can you answer the question? That's not what I asked.

 

[Tazarah]

Well... they are wrong.

For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Luke 21:24 and Zechariah 14 are talking about two completely different events. The prophecy in Zechariah 14 says that God will gather all nations to fight against Jerusalem and that only half the city will go into captivity, while Luke 21:24 says that the Israelites would fall and be sent as captives into all nations.

Zechariah 14 also says that God will fight for Jerusalem during the event in Zechariah 14. Luke 21:24 does not say that God will fight for Jerusalem, it says that the Israelites would fall and be taken as captives into all nations until the times of the gentiles be fulfilled -- which clearly means Luke 21:24 has already happened and is not the same event being spoken about in Zechariah 14. The times of the gentiles have not yet been fulfilled.

 

[blü 2]

Well... they are wrong.

For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Arrh, ye mean like 1920, 1820, 1720, 1620, 1520, 1420, 1320 ... ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

Latin and many others.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

L The prophecy in Zechariah 14 says that God will gather all nations to fight against Jerusalem

Like, say, a World War? Like the First World War? That had Australia and New Zealand fighting the kingdom occupying Jerusalem at Megiddo in 1918?

 

[Tazarah]

Like, say, a World War? Like the First World War? That had Australia and New Zealand fighting the kingdom occupying Jerusalem at Megiddo in 1918?

No.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the two questions I asked you earlier. Stop trying to change the subject.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Like, say, a World War? Like the First World War? That had Australia and New Zealand fighting the kingdom occupying Jerusalem at Megiddo in 1918?

I see it is sound reasoning this event is significant. Armageddon - Wikipedia

Interestingly General Allenby had considered that he was fighting the battle foretold in scripture, General Allenby actually took Jerusalem in miraculous circumstances and thus save such a holy city from much destruction. Strange the way Gods plans unfold.

Events in Jerusalem, 1917, as Foretold in the Bible - ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry

A little known fact to date is that General Allenby also had orders to Save Abdul'Baha when he Got for Haifa and Akka. Akka also fell in miraculous circumstances and Abdul'Baha was saved.

Regards Tony

 

[Altfish]

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.

Yes, but signs are clear, not shrouded in doubt and open to interpretation.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the two questions I asked you earlier. Stop trying to change the subject.

I'm not changing anything. I'm telling you what the Bible says. And you are saying the Bible is wrong. Do you often call God a liar?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I see it is sound reasoning this event is significant. Armageddon - Wikipedia

Interestingly General Allenby had considered that he was fighting the battle foretold in scripture, General Allenby actually took Jerusalem in miraculous circumstances and thus save such a holy city from much destruction. Strange the way Gods plans unfold.

Events in Jerusalem, 1917, as Foretold in the Bible - ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry

A little known fact to date is that General Allenby also had orders to Save Abdul'Baha when he Got for Haifa and Akka. Akka also fell in miraculous circumstances and Abdul'Baha was saved.

Regards Tony

All true. But you left out the most important point, the role of the Australian Light Horse.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, but signs are clear, not shrouded in doubt and open to interpretation.

Like when the Bible says soldiers from an Eastern Kingdom will fight a battle at Megiddo, and then Australians (then a kingdom from the East) show up and fight a battle at Megiddo. Pretty clear stuff (some New Zealanders were there, too, I only mention them because they're yet another Kingdom to the East, and contributing to the whole "forces from the whole World" aspect of things, for a certain value of "forces")

 

[Tazarah]

I'm not changing anything. I'm telling you what the Bible says. And you are saying the Bible is wrong. Do you often call God a liar?

Respond to post #102. You never answered those questions, you're just running away.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Respond to post #102. You never answered those questions, you're just running away.

Not running from anything. The Bible says exactly what I'm telling you it says. Not my fault you disagree with scripture.