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

[Tazarah]

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

Here, let me repost it for you. Please answer questions 1 and 2 at the end.

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.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Here, let me repost it for you. Please answer questions 1 and 2 at the end.

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.

How many times are you goinjg to ask the same questions I already answered? The answer isn't going to change.

 

[Tazarah]

How many times are you goinjg to ask the same questions I already answered? The answer isn't going to change.

You never answered the question. This whole time you have been saying that Revelation 16:12 was fulfilled in 1918 at the "battle of meggido".

Did the Euphrates river dry up in 1918, and did eastern military forces use the dried up Euphrates river as a pathway/location for military purposes in 1918 like how Revelation 16:12 says would happen?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

Lest we forget all the fallen.

History will not forget Abdul'baha and the role he played in WW1.

Regards Tony

 

[danieldemol]

So does this mean you're calling it coincidence?

Nope, it is a false prophecy. There are no kings of the east waiting to cross with their troops as the waters dry up

 

[Tazarah]

Nope, it is a false prophecy. There are no kings of the east waiting to cross with their troops as the waters dry up

That's not what the prophecy in Revelation 16:12 says. If you're going to be dishonest and twist what the text says then why should anyone take you seriously?

 

[blü 2]

Did the Euphrates river dry up in 1918 [...]?

You mean you don't know?

Go to your room and don't come out till you've done your homework!

Or abandon your argument!

 

[danieldemol]

That's not what the prophecy in Revelation 16:12 says. If you're going to be dishonest and twist what the text says then why should anyone take you seriously?

Ad-hominem will get you nowhere with me. Your own translations in the OP used the word “king”

 

[Tazarah]

You mean you don't know?

Go to your room and don't come out till you've done your homework!

Or abandon your argument!

It was a rhetorical question. You're the one who makes up imaginary arguments with no factual basis, remember? That's why I've been ignoring you.

 

[Tazarah]

Ad-hominem will get you nowhere with me. Your own translations in the OP used the word “king”

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how you said the prophecy in Revelation 16:12 says that the kings of the east were "waiting to cross with their troops as the waters dry up". It doesn't say that.

Also, regarding the word "king" -- I've already explained this in post #96.

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
   
   https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g935

 

[danieldemol]

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.

The Euphrates dried enough for Cyrus the great to cross it when he had its waters diverted to trenches for military purposes during the attack on Babylon. The ancients of revelation time could have known this and made their prediction based of what they knew of history.

 

[Tazarah]

The Euphrates dried enough for Cyrus the great to cross it when he had its waters diverted to trenches for military purposes during the attack on Babylon. The ancients of revelation time could have known this and made their prediction based of what they knew of history.

The Euphrates river didn't dry up during the time of Cyrus, I've already explained this as well in post #26.

I said to another user:

Sorry, but your interpretation of the river being dried up in Isaiah is incorrect. Regarding Isaiah 44:27:

"That saith to the deep—i.e., to the Euphrates. The words find a literal fulfilment in the strategical operation by which Cyrus turned the river from its usual bed into the Sepharvaim channel, and thus enabled his soldiers to cross on foot (Herod. i. 191). Symbolically the words may mean simply the destruction of the power of Babylon, of which its river was the emblem. (Comp. Revelation 16:12.)"

Isaiah 44:27 Commentaries: "It is I who says to the depth of the sea, 'Be dried up!' And I will make your rivers dry.

 

[danieldemol]

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how you said the prophecy in Revelation 16:12 says that the kings of the east were "waiting to cross with their troops as the waters dry up". It doesn't say that.

Also, regarding the word "king" -- I've already explained this in post #96.

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
   
   https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g935

The word was understood to mean king until after the fact.
It only refers to a leader of the people in the sense that a king is a leader of the people.
‘Basileus (Greek: βασιλεύς)[n 1] is a Greek term and title that has signified various types of monarchs in history. In the English-speaking world it is perhaps most widely understood to mean "king" or "emperor". The title was used by sovereigns and other persons of authority in ancient Greece, the Byzantine emperors, and the kings of modern Greece.’

‘...Herod is Basileus (in his coins also Basileōs Herodou, "of King Herod", and by Josephus)

Regarding Jesus the term basileus acquires a new Christian theological meaning out of the further concept of Basileus as a chief religious officer during the Hellenistic period. Jesus is Basileus Basileōn (Βασιλεὺς βασιλέων = King of Kings, Revelation 17:14, 19:16) (a previous Near Eastern phrase for rulers of empires), or Basileus tōn basileuontōn (Βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων = lit. King of those being kings, 1 Timothy 6:15). Other titles involving Basileusinclude Basileus tōn Ouranōn, translated as King of Heaven, with his Basileia tōn Ouranōn, i.e. Kingship or Kingdom of Heaven, and is Basileus tōn Ioudaiōn, i.e. King of the Jews (see INRI). In Byzantine art, a standard depiction of Jesus is Basileus tēs Doxēs King of Glory’

Source: Basileus - Wikipedia

So according to my understanding it did not refer to an elected representative such as a president in its historical context.

 

[danieldemol]

The Euphrates river didn't dry up during the time of Cyrus, I've already explained this as well in post #26.

I said to another user:

Sorry, but your interpretation of the river being dried up in Isaiah is incorrect. Regarding Isaiah 44:27:

"That saith to the deep—i.e., to the Euphrates. The words find a literal fulfilment in the strategical operation by which Cyrus turned the river from its usual bed into the Sepharvaim channel, and thus enabled his soldiers to cross on foot (Herod. i. 191). Symbolically the words may mean simply the destruction of the power of Babylon, of which its river was the emblem. (Comp. Revelation 16:12.)"

Isaiah 44:27 Commentaries: "It is I who says to the depth of the sea, 'Be dried up!' And I will make your rivers dry.

Your response appears to prove that the Euphrates dried up enough for Cyrus’ soldiers to cross on foot.

Read this part of your response, "That saith to the deep—i.e., to the Euphrates. The words find a literal fulfilment in the strategical operation by which Cyrus turned the river from its usual bed into the Sepharvaim channel, and thus enabled his soldiers to cross on foot (Herod. i. 191).

 

[Tazarah]

So according to my understanding it did not refer to an elected representative such as a president in its historical context.

Elected officials did not exist back then when this was written, and the fact that they would exist in the future is irrelevant and does not in anyway negate the authenticity of the prophecy. You're grasping for straws.

 

[Tazarah]

Your response appears to prove that the Euphrates dried up enough for Cyrus’ soldiers to cross on foot.

Read this part of your response, "That saith to the deep—i.e., to the Euphrates. The words find a literal fulfilment in the strategical operation by which Cyrus turned the river from its usual bed into the Sepharvaim channel, and thus enabled his soldiers to cross on foot (Herod. i. 191).

This argument will not work because even if it were true, the "kings of the east" were not there to fulfill the prophecy.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Lest we forget all the fallen.

History will not forget Abdul'baha and the role he played in WW1.

Regards Tony

Australian Lighthorsemen single handedly won the war, and I can prove it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

This argument will not work because even if it were true, the "kings of the east" were not there to fulfill the prophecy.

Because they were there in 1918, as discussed.

 

[Tazarah]

Because they were there in 1918, as discussed.

Still trying to change the subject, huh? Let me repost this again for you:

You never answered the question. This whole time you have been saying that Revelation 16:12 was fulfilled in 1918 at the "battle of meggido".

Did the Euphrates river dry up in 1918, and did eastern military forces use the dried up Euphrates river as a pathway/location for military purposes in 1918 like how Revelation 16:12 says would happen?

 

[danieldemol]

Elected officials did not exist back then when this was written, and the fact that they would exist in the future is irrelevant and does not in anyway negate the authenticity of the prophecy. You're grasping for straws.

It is not irrelevant because this prophecy is supposed to have come from an All-Knowing Omnipotent being who would be able to tell the difference between a king and an elected representative