whirlwind Posted October 11, 2007 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 113 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/06/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/22/1946 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I agree, they are very different wars, in different locations but they will happen at the same time....when Christ returns.Respectfully, that is not true. They are not in the same locations, and do not happen at the same time. I'm not certain if this was in reply to my post but if it was...I didn't say they would be in the same area. I said they were different wars and were in different locations. I do, however, believe they will be fought at the same time. .............Whirlwind They will not fought at the same. Ezekiel 38 and 39 occurs before the antichrist, and the war of Armageddon occurs in the biblical land of Israel at Megiddo and is led by the Beast in an attempt to destroy Jerusalem and is destroyed at the second coming of Christ. Thank you for your reply. Why do you believe Ezekiel 38 & 39 happens before the anti-christ has made his appearance in Jerusalem? Armageddon happens after he has been there for a time and, as you stated, is fought there. The battle of Hamangog and battle of Armageddon, are both fought by God just before the last trump. The anti-christ is in Jerusalem convincing the world that he is Christ but where is the house of Israel? The house of Judah and house of Israel are not the same. Ezekiel 37:16 "Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upn it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: The children of Israel that are "companions" to Judah are Benjamin and some of Levi. They remained with Judah when the tribes split. They are the "Jews." Those of the 10 tribes that split are not Jews but are the house of Israel. 17.And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. 22.And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: All 12 tribes will be one again. The question is.....where is the house of Israel today? Where they are is where the battle will take place and that is not in Jerusalem where the battle of Armageddon will be fought. So, where will that battle be and who will fight it? Ezekiel 38:2 "Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, 3.And say, Thus saith the LORD God; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal: The battle of Armageddeon is fought in Jerusalem against the anti-christ but this battle is fought against Russia and I believe it is in America but both are fought by God Himself so all will see and know: Ezekiel 38:23. Thus will I magnify Myself, and sanctify Myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the LORD. .........Whirlwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted October 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted October 11, 2007 All 12 tribes will be one again. The question is.....where is the house of Israel today? . . . I believe it is in America That's an interesting take, whirlwind. But what evidence do you have for the "house of Israel" being in America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted October 11, 2007 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 113 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/06/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/22/1946 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I can't answer the "earthquake" argument the REAL question I'd love to have answered is this: the battle is fought on HORSEBACK; and that's not metaphorical, it's clearly stated several times...we're talking MILLIONS OF HORSES...where to they all come from? how do they get food? It could be but it is more likely, to me, to be modern day vehicles. If you were the writer, back in those days, and shown the vision, how would you describe them so others could understand? ............Whirlwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted October 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I can't answer the "earthquake" argument that's right, you can't, but you can tapdance around it Hey, at least I'm admitting what I can't answer. Your answers to the inconsistencies amount to making excuses, but do not clarify anything. we're talking GLOBAL earthquake....AN EARTHQUAKE THAT SHAKES THE *ENTIRE* EARTH...EVERY MOUNTAIN IS *GONE*...little insignificant details like that...listen to what you're saying! <snip> the REAL question I'd love to have answered is this: the battle is fought on HORSEBACK; and that's not metaphorical, it's clearly stated several times...we're talking MILLIONS OF HORSES...where to they all come from? how do they get food? So, why are the horses metaphorical but not the mountains? Using your own logic - every mountain of the Earth? How will the Himalayan Mountains, the Rocky Mountains, the Appalachian Mountains, etc. turn to rubble? have you ever watched the History Channel? do historians... Yeah - and I don't trust their resources for accurate Biblical interpretation. you guys are so preoccupied with Jerusalem, The Bible focuses more on Jerusalem than any other place on Earth, does it not? but I cannot overlook the differences, either, as just being "two different perspectives," because these differences are too vast. it's a massive battle, just because the exact same language and subjects aren't used doesn't mean you have to make up a whole new war with global earthquakes so you can be like Shiloh (wrong) The problem with your argument is that you center your interpretation solely on the earthquakes and then make up excuses for why the rest of the pieces don't fit together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted October 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted October 11, 2007 because you're impossible So are you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 touche Shiloh proved you were wrong in the first post. Anyone with average biblical literacy and an understanding of grammar can see it. Anyone with a sniff of humility and some intellectual honesty would admit it. I'm laughing pretty hard at the ridiculous contortions of scripture you arrive at just because of an overwhelming desire to have every detail of God's plan fit in that nice tidy little box....and can't remember when I've seen more spiritual arrogance on display. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted October 11, 2007 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 113 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/06/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/22/1946 Share Posted October 11, 2007 that is Hal Lindsey's argument, but the context is very clear, this is GOD talking here, and the term "like" is not used...it's not a metaphor...it is what it is Ezekiel 38 I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army - your horses, your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords --- You will come from your place in the far north, you and many nations with you, all of them riding on horses, a great horde, a mighty army. my personal opinion is the previous events of the Tribulation leave the world essentially destroyed...in a state where fossil fuels are lo longer available, and the machines of war are hulks of metal...it's like God renders all that stuff useless and brings it right back to OT style warfare in a wonderful paradox theat mocks man's "accomplishments"...I doubt there will be electricity, either everything we take for granted could be wiped out so easily...think about it...think about one little hurricane can do Saying I say or think anything like Hal Lindsey is frightening in itself. You are the only one I ever heard of that believes that prophesy was about real horses. There are two tribulations. The first, of course, is that of anti-christ when he comes pretending to be the true Christ. It won't be a time of upheaval at all but rather a big love fest....one of peace and prosperity: Daniel 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. After he has woven his web of deceit and lies then the true Christ arrives and His time of "tribulation" will probably take 15 minutes.....so, I don't think we will need to worry about the things you wrote above (fossil fuels, etc.), at least that is my hope and belief. ..........Whirlwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 The problem is that if the war of Ezekiel 38 and 39 and Armageddon, were the same war, we would see the same type of descriptions. The basic problem from a biblical standpoint amounts to hermeneutics. If the war depicted in Ezekiel was the same as Armageddon, the Bible would make direct references to Armageddon as a fulfillment of this propehcy in Ezkiel. The Bible is very consistent. When it wants to demonstrate that a certain event is a fulfillment of prophecy, it will reference that prophecy and this true 100% of the time in Scripture. The book of Revelation NOWHERE references Ezekiel 38 adn 39, it does not cite or quote from it in anyway with respect to there being in connection between Ezekiel's prophecy about Magog/Gog and Armageddon. You do not have the right to force a connection where no connection is presented by the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Oct 11 2007, 06:23 PM) The problem is that if the war of Ezekiel 38 and 39 and Armageddon, were the same war, we would see the same type of descriptions. we do....a global earthquake that flattens everything cannot occur twice Global earthquake???? For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoken, Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel; So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground. And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord GOD: every man's sword shall be against his brother. (Ezekiel 38:19-21) The prophet is using hyperbole as is often used with these kinds of passages such as Jer 4:24. It is not talking about a global earth quake that will level every mountain on earth. You are really reaching for that one. What is being spoken of is the worldwide reaction and awe not only at the massiveness of the attack by Magog/Gog, but at the even more stunning and awe inspiring deliverance that will cause God's Name to be sanctified in the earth. All of nature, both rational and irrational will react to what will be done in front of them. The same kind of language is used all over Scripture about the mountains melting away at God's presence, and it is never understood literally. It is simple hyperbolic language that is not uncommon at all to the Scriptures and is easily recognized by those of us who study and utilize hermeneutics on a regular basis. QUOTE If the war depicted in Ezekiel was the same as Armageddon, the Bible would make direct references to Armageddon as a fulfillment of this propehcy in Ezkiel. The Bible is very consistent. When it wants to demonstrate that a certain event is a fulfillment of prophecy, it will reference that prophecy and this true 100% of the time in Scripture. the descriptions are very consistent They are not at all consistent. Magog's army is Ezekiel 38 and 39 is a relatively small (when compared to ALL nations) coalition of nations that attacks israel from the North. It mentions nothing about the second coming, it does not mention Megiddo, it does not mention anyone coming from the east, it does not mention the Euphrates drying up, neither Gog or Magog qualify as "the beast," Ezkeiel does not mention the dividing or conquering of Jerusalem, I could go on and on about where the two wars are too inconsistent to be considered the same war. although the term "Armageddon" does not occur in the OT prophets, there are clear references to a large valley in Israel, and amassing of the world's armies Joel 2 very same signs referenced in Ezekiel and Revelation...same event No, because it is the wrong valley. This really makes my point. You are reaching for every straw you can get your hands on. The Valley of Jehoshaphat is not Megiddo. Just because there might be similar imagery does not mean that is the same event being described. You need a lot more than that. You need exact prophetic references. If Revelation's account of Armageddon is the same event as depicted in Ezekiel 38 and 39, there would be a direct reference to that exact prophecy. Every time the bible references prophecy it is accompanied by phrase like, "this is what was spoken of the prophet..." We see no such direct references anywhere in Revelation, and there too many dissimlarities for anyone to come to the conclusion that the two wars are one and same. this "magog's war" stuff is pure extra Biblical fiction, you're trying to make a distinction (which is nothing more than a subset of the global conflict) that God Himself rejects in scripture You have failed to demonstrate that Magog and Armageddon are the same event. You cannot even deal with the substance of the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted October 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted October 11, 2007 in reality, however, he made up a term that does not exist in scripture, The word "rapture" doesn't appear in the Bible, either. But I saw you using it as Biblical truth. So why does using a non-Biblical term to describe a event make a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts