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

[danieldemol]

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

You are creating a straw man here. I’m not saying that Cyrus fulfilled the prophecy in revelation, i’m saying the fact that he diverted the waters to attack Babylon means the writers of revelation had experience of the Euphrates being dried to prepare the way for a millitary crossing.

In other words they were predicting based of past experience, not pulling the knowledge from God.

 

[blü 2]

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.

You're not ignoring me, you're ignoring you.

You know very well that your argument has a great big hole in the middle, but since you're into this debate, you don't want to admit it.

Or else you can't read, but I suspect that's not the case.

 

[Tazarah]

You are creating a straw man here. I’m not saying that Cyrus fulfilled the prophecy in revelation, i’m saying the fact that he diverted the waters to attack Babylon means the writers of revelation had experience of the Euphrates being dried to prepare the way for a millitary crossing.

In other words they were predicting based of past experience, not pulling the knowledge from God.

OK so how did they know that eastern military forced would begin to use the river as a location for military purposes? Your argument still doesn't work. And on top of that, the word used for "king" in Revelation 16:12 has multiple biblical usages; commander, and leader of the people being a couple of them. Like I said, you're grasping for straws.

 

[Tazarah]

You're not ignoring me, you're ignoring you.

You know very well that your argument has a great big hole in the middle, but since you're into this debate, you don't want to admit it.

Or else you can't read, but I suspect that's not the case.

... says the person who asserts things and then tries to force others to prove them. Back to ignoring you now. You have officially lost all of your "Tazarah will take you seriously" tokens.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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

Kings ruled all the countries involved in the battle in 1918, but it's inconvenient for our cherry picking friend to acknowledge.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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?

I answered several times already. The 1918 battle fits the prophecy. Current events don't, as there are no kingdoms involved.

 

[danieldemol]

OK so how did they know that eastern military forced would begin to use the river as a location for military purposes?

It’s an interesting question, but it is a 50percent chance that the kings would come from the East as did Cyrus (according to my understanding), or that they would come from the west so I think they weren’t taking long odds on their guesswork

Your argument still doesn't work. And on top of that, the word used for "king" in Revelation 16:12 has multiple biblical usages; commander, and leader of the people being a couple of them. Like I said, you're grasping for straws.

Show me a biblical usage where it refers to an elected leader?

 

[cataway]

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.

The times of the gentiles has been fulfilled.
The Bible reveals that “a time and times and half a time,” or three and a half times, equals 1,260 days. (Revelation 12:6, 14) Therefore, double that number, or seven times, would amount to 2,520 days. On the basis of the prophetic guide of “a day for a year,” the seven times would equal 2,520 years. (Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6) By this calculation, the Gentile Times, which started in October 607 B.C.E., ended 2,520 years later in October 1914.

 

[blü 2]

... says the person who asserts things

I asserted that your argument had a hole in its middle, and I told you what that hole was.

Your reply was that I should fix your argument.

My reply was and is that it's your argument, you fix the hole in it.

Are there precedents for a drought in the Euphrates?

If there are, your argument won't work.

Is this the first time the Euphrates has run dry?

Then we can move on to the rest of your argument.

The hole is your problem to fix.

Golly, if you can't fix your own mess, you're going to make a terrible adult when you grow up.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I asserted that your argument had a hole in its middle, and I told you what that hole was.

Your reply was that I should fix your argument.

My reply was and is that it's your argument, you fix the hole in it.

Are there precedents for a drought in the Euphrates?

If there are, your argument won't work.

Is this the first time the Euphrates has run dry?

Then we can move on to the rest of your argument.

The hole is your problem to fix.

Golly, if you can't fix your own mess, you're going to make a terrible adult when you grow up.

Plus there aren't any kingdoms involved.

 

[Cooky]

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.

Do you have any idea how large and powerful the Euphrates is...? There is no way in hell that river ever dried out before.

Learn:

 

[blü 2]

Do you have any idea how large and powerful the Euphrates is...? There is no way in hell that river ever dried out before.

That fallacy is called The Argument from Incredulity.

If it can dry up now, it can have dried up before. It's not the onlooker's job to patch the holes in the argument. It's the proposer's job to present the argument complete with the evidence.

If this can be shown to be first time it's dried up then we can move on to other problems with the argument, which our observant friend @Kangaroo Feathers has noted, and to the problem of whether prophecy as supernatural foreknowledge has any basis in reality, has any credibility at all.

 

[Cooky]

That fallacy is called The Argument from Incredulity.

If it can dry up now, it can have dried up before. It's not the onlooker's job to patch the holes in the argument. It's the proposer's job to present the argument complete with the evidence.

If this can be shown to be first time it's dried up then we can move on to other problems with the argument, which our observant friend @Kangaroo Feathers has noted, and to the problem of whether prophecy as supernatural foreknowledge has any basis in reality, has any credibility at all.

It has only recently began to dry due to a multitude of several *hundreds* of dams that have been constructed in neighboring countries. Many of the dams generate electricity to entire cities.

Euphrates - Wikipedia

Only a fool would believe that such a massive waterway could have ever "dried out" in the past. It never has. I’ve done the research.

 

[blü 2]

It has only recently began to dry due to a multitude of several *hundreds* of dams that have been constructed in neighboring countries. Many of the dams generate electricity to entire cities.

Euphrates - Wikipedia

Only a fool would believe that such a massive waterway could have ever "dried out" in the past. It never has. I’ve done the research.

Then you have authority on your side, Cite and quote that authority ─ indeed, that's so obvious I can't think why you didn't include it in your post.

"Only a fool" would think prophecy was a topic worth a plugged nickel in the first place, but since the argument hasn't reached that point, and since the Argument from Incredulity isn't worth more repeated than it was the first time, let's wait for you ─ or the author of the argument ─ to present EVIDENCE.

 

[Cooky]

Then you have authority on your side, Cite and quote that authority ─ indeed, that's so obvious I can't think why you didn't include it in your post.

"Only a fool" would think prophecy was a topic worth a plugged nickel in the first place, but since the argument hasn't reached that point, and since the Argument from Incredulity isn't worth more repeated than it was the first time, let's wait for you ─ or the author of the argument ─ to present EVIDENCE.

You don't seem to comprehend that it is impossible to *prove* a negative. There can be no *facts* provided to prove that something does not exist -- you should have already understood this, otherwise you would be able to prove God does not exist.

...Nobody can *prove* that God does not exist, or it would have been done. Likewise, I cannot *prove* that a non-existant drying out of the Euphrates has ever occured... Do you get it yet?

You cannot prove a negative.

 

[blü 2]

You don't seem to comprehend that it is impossible to *prove* a negative. There can be no *facts* provided to prove that something does not exist -- you should have already understood this, otherwise you would be able to prove God does not exist.

...Nobody can *prove* that God does not exist, or it would have been done. Likewise, I cannot *prove* that a non-existant drying out of the Euphrates has ever occured... Do you get it yet?

You cannot prove a negative.

You can't invent a positive pretending a negative can't be proved.

And you can indeed prove a negative in a huge number of cases ─ that I wasn't in Tokyo on Christmas Day 1637, for instance. (This is 'proof' in the legal sense, of course ─ the demonstration that satisfies the reasonable hearer, not the mathematical sense of the word.)

And I told you how to make a plausible case for this negative ─ which must seem even more plausible to you since if the Euphrates has always been so fat with water as you claim, any absence of this water will very likely be in the records. BUT it's our friend @Tazarah the proposer's job to get his facts straight. It's not my job to repair the holes in his argument. I'm not arguing that there's no precedent ─ I'm pointing out that his argument fails unless he shows there IS no precedent.

Oh, and you forgot to cite the authority for your claim.

 

[Shad]

What does the fact that I posted this today have to do with anything?

Post hoc rationalization.

 

[Muffled]

If the events are serial then one would expect the events from the fifth angel but I believe they haven't happened yet.

 

[Muffled]

It does not refer to any military forces, it refers to the “kings” of the east.
Russia is not led by a king and Syria is led by a president.

I believe the term king can be extended to any ruler. Kings were the usual authorities when this was written.

 

[Muffled]

The shortsightedness of the Prophets is no reason to misinterpret their prophecies, a king is not a president, and the All-knowing Omniscient one could easily have explained to the ancients that in the future people would vote for their rulers had this prophecy truly come from the Omniscient.

I believe everyone likes to second guess God. So are you saying that God spoke a prophecy about something that doesn't exist just to confuse us? I don't buy that.