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

[danieldemol]

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.

Nope, I’m saying men spoke a prophecy and said it came from God when it did not.

 

[Cooky]

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.

His argument does not fail. You invented a scenario that nobody can deny due to there not being any records of it.

...What do you want him to do, go drill some holes for core samples in the riverbank? Then get back with you..? Just to prove a baseless claim?

 

[Cooky]

this is not the science section... We don't need to concern ourselves with the scientific method here.

...If people want to talk science, go to the science section.

 

[Cooky]

Nope, I’m saying men spoke a prophecy and said it came from God when it did not.

And what scripture do you cite to back up this claim? Being this is the Scriptural Debates section.

 

[Cooky]

Why are you people bothering these Christians with your atheism and scientific methods in the scriptural debates section. Have you no decency in you?

Get out of here, and don't come back. Ever again.

 

[danieldemol]

And what scripture do you cite to back up this claim? Being this is the Scriptural Debates section.

Revelation 16:12 as it was interpreted before the facts

 

[danieldemol]

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

Really, because I went through all three pages of the concordance and in every instance it was translated either king or kings, what did I miss?

ETA for anyone who doubts me here is a link to all 3 pages for the word referred to: G935 - basileus - Strong's Greek Lexicon (KJV)

 

[Etritonakin]

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.

Luke 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Plenty of other things in Luke 21 show it has not happened yet

Same time and events... this is that power and glory......

Then the LORD will go out to fight against those nations, as He fights in the day of battle. 4On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half the mountain moving to the north and half to the south. ......................................... Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with Him.a 6On that day there will be no light, no cold or frost. 7It will be a day known only to the LORD, without day or night; but when evening comes, there will be light. 8And on that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it toward the Eastern Seab and the other half toward the Western Sea,c in summer and winter alike. 9On that day the LORD will become King over all the earth—the LORD alone, and His name alone. 10All the land from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem will be turned into a plain, but Jerusalem will be raised up and will remain in her place, from the Benjamin Gate to the site of the First Gate to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the royal winepresses. 11People will live there, and never again will there be an utter destruction. So Jerusalem will dwell securely. 12And this will be the plague with which the LORD strikes all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.

The house of Israel will go into captivity from where they are now. Some of the house of Judah go into captivity -some of Judah does not and fights at Jerusalem.

Zech 14:14Judah will also fight at Jerusalem..........

 

[blü 2]

His argument does not fail. You invented a scenario that nobody can deny due to there not being any records of it.

No, I didn't "invent a scenario". I pointed out that IF there had been a precedent then his argument failed, AND since he had not presented evidence ruling out such a precedent, his argument had that hole in it.

In other words, his conclusion should have been phrased:

IF it could be shown that the Euphrates has never previously been dry, and IF it could be shown that a battle at Megiddo in the course of a world war had happened while the Euphrates was dry [@Kangaroo Feathers' point] and IF the combatants on that occasion were the armies of kingdoms [Kangaroo Feathers' further point], THEN it would be arguable that the conditions mentioned &c.​

But that isn't his claim.

 

[Tazarah]

Luke 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Plenty of other things in Luke 21 show it has not happened yet

Same time and events... this is that power and glory......

Then the LORD will go out to fight against those nations, as He fights in the day of battle. 4On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half the mountain moving to the north and half to the south. ......................................... Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with Him.a 6On that day there will be no light, no cold or frost. 7It will be a day known only to the LORD, without day or night; but when evening comes, there will be light. 8And on that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it toward the Eastern Seab and the other half toward the Western Sea,c in summer and winter alike. 9On that day the LORD will become King over all the earth—the LORD alone, and His name alone. 10All the land from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem will be turned into a plain, but Jerusalem will be raised up and will remain in her place, from the Benjamin Gate to the site of the First Gate to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the royal winepresses. 11People will live there, and never again will there be an utter destruction. So Jerusalem will dwell securely. 12And this will be the plague with which the LORD strikes all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.

The house of Israel will go into captivity from where they are now. Some of the house of Judah go into captivity -some of Judah does not and fights at Jerusalem.

Zech 14:14Judah will also fight at Jerusalem..........

Not true. You don't know what you're talking about. Let's take a look at the prophecy in Joel 3.

JOEL 3:1-2

"1 For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land."

According to the prophecy in Joel 3:1-2, the Israelites are already in captivity and will be in captivity until the day when God comes to gather all nations and judge them.

 

[Tazarah]

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.

The times of the gentiles have not been fulfilled. Luke 21:25-30 lists the things that will happen once the times of the gentiles have been fulfilled.

 

[Tazarah]

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

I don't get why this is so hard for them to understand. They will literally grasp for straws and try to create loopholes all day when it's obvious what the text is saying.

I even showed them the greek word used for "king" in Revelation 16:12 and how it's biblical usage includes "commander", as well as "leader of the people".

 

[Tazarah]

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.

You asserted that the Euphrates river has dried up before and that I need to prove it hasn't in order for my argument to be valid. Do you realize how completely irrational that sounds? You are the one claiming or implying that it has dried up before so when are you going to prove it? I'm saying that it hasn't dried up before, so are you going to prove me wrong? Or are you just going to keep pretending that there are imaginary holes in my argument.

 

[Tazarah]

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

You did not answer, and you did not answer because you know it didn't happen. When did the Euphrates river dry up in 1918 and when did eastern military forces use the Euphrates river for military purposes in 1918 like Revelation 16:12 says?

The answer is: never, and never.

 

[blü 2]

You asserted that the Euphrates river has dried up before

Go back over my posts and read them again.

At no stage did I say that the Euphrates had dried up before. At no stage did I say that the Euphrates had not dried up before.

I said that IF it has dried up before THEN you argument fails.

Therefore YOU need to show that it has NOT dried up before.

Or modify your claim so that it's conditional in the manner I suggested to Mr Caeli at #169 above.

 

[Tazarah]

Go back over my posts and read them again.

At no stage did I say that the Euphrates had dried up before. At no stage did I say that the Euphrates had not dried up before.

I said that IF it has dried up before THEN you argument fails.

Therefore YOU need to show that it has NOT dried up before.

Or modify your claim so that it's conditional in the manner I suggested to Mr Caeli at #169 above.

"Mr. Caeli" already debunked your silly logic. You are trying to get people to prove a negative because that's all you have to go on.

The funniest part of everything is that the prophecy in Revelation 16:12 says the river will dry up AND that the eastern forces will prepare to use the river as a pathway/location for military purposes.

You're so focused on trying to get people to prove that the river has never dried up before that you are completely ignoring the second part of the prophecy.

You're just isolating the part that you think you can raise suspicion against, but even that isn't working out for you.

 

[blü 2]

You did not answer, and you did not answer because you know it didn't happen. When did the Euphrates river dry up in 1918 and when did eastern military forces use the Euphrates river for military purposes in 1918 like Revelation 16:12 says?

The answer is: never, and never.

That's the whole point ─ for your argument to succeed, YOU have to demonstrate that those things have happened, or not happened, IN FACT.

Assertion won't cut it. Hard evidence from history will.

And in failing to clarify those points one way or the other, the big hole in your argument remains unfixed.

 

[Tazarah]

That's the whole point ─ for your argument to succeed, YOU have to demonstrate that those things have happened, or not happened, IN FACT.

Assertion won't cut it. Hard evidence from history will.

And in failing to clarify those points one way or the other, the big hole in your argument remains unfixed.

The euphrates river has never dried up before. There is no news, information or historical writings about it every drying up until recently. Myself and others have told you this numerous times.

If you disagree, please provide information showing otherwise.

 

[blü 2]

"Mr. Caeli" already debunked your silly logic. You are trying to get people to prove a negative because that's all you have to go on.

You're a very careless, or a very selective reader, no?

I point out again that it's very easy to prove a great many negatives: eg that I wasn't in Tokyo on Christmas Day 1635. That at no time in the last 20,000 years has Mount Everest been wholly submerged. That England since 1066 has never had a monarch called Igor. On and on.

And I also told you before how to show that the Euphrates has or has not run dry before ─ check history thoroughly yourself, or refer to the work of a reputable historian who's done that.

Why haven't you done that?

You're so focused on trying to get people to prove that the river has never dried up before

Has or has not, one or the other ─ I'm not championing any particular answer. I'm simply pointing out that if it's dried up on one or more earlier occasions then your argument fails. If it hasn't then you don't have that problem but you still have the problems raised by @Kangaroo Feathers.

 

[blü 2]

The euphrates river has never dried up before. There is no news, information or historical writings about it every drying up until recently. Myself and others have told you this numerous times.

Provide a link to reputable authority that confirms your claim.

That's exactly what you should have done in your first post without asking, and haven't done even now after your problem has been pointed out to you again and again.

You've merely asserted. You've entirely failed to demonstrate.