Riddle of Armageddon Meaning Solved: Solution Hiding in Plain Sight.

[miamited]

Daniel wrote a prophecy of a period of time that he referenced as 70 sevens. There is, to my knowledge, no other place in Scripture that references a time span of 70 sevens. It is only mentioned in the brief passage of Daniel chapter 9.

 

[for_his_glory]

That's the amillennialism heresy that Christ is already reigning in heaven, we're already living in the kingdom, which is the official stance upheld by major protestant denominations, and also the reason they don't teach prophecy since they think it's all ancient history already fulfilled. It is your prerogative to believe that, but it's just an illusion. If the kingdom is already here and we're already reigning with Christ, then I dare you, change the Lord's prayer into this - "thy kingdom HAS come, thy will IS done."

I am so glad you are so superior in your knowledge of the word of God that you are way above everyone knowing everything. Instead of criticizing everyone, why don't you quit adding to and taking away from what others present as I very seldom see you posting scriptures to support what you say. My mother taught me if you have nothing good to say about another, then don't say anything at all.

 

[for_his_glory]

What thousand years? You said there was no thousand years.

And I still hold to what I said about 1000 years even though I should have mentioned that. It really does not matter if it is literal or symbolic, but that we are with the Lord.

 

[for_his_glory]

Hi for_his_glory Ok. I am curious why you write the word 'most' when you seem to think that it must be 'everytime'.

Most, many, some, what is the difference as it doesn't happen every time. Why not answer my question as I asked if there are cross references for Rev 20:1-6 then please share them with me so I can study them.

 

[for_his_glory]

Daniel wrote a prophecy of a period of time that he referenced as 70 sevens. There is, to my knowledge, no other place in Scripture that references a time span of 70 sevens. It is only mentioned in the brief passage of Daniel chapter 9.

We can discuss this if you want to start a new thread and tag me into it as this thread is about Armageddon as I am also guilty for going off topic.

 

[miamited]

Most, many, some, what is the difference as it doesn't happen every time. Why not answer my question as I asked if there are cross references for Rev 20:1-6 then please share them with me so I can study them.

Hi for_his_glory

I'm guessing that you don't see the fallacy of your reasoning for not believing in the literal 1,000 year reign of Christ, when you make that claim. You are basing your reason for not believing that it's a literal 1,000 years on your belief that everything is supposed to be confirmed somewhere else in the Scriptures.

A 1000 years in Rev 20 is not literal years, but only symbolic of a certain period of time as nowhere else in scripture other than Rev 20 does it mention a literal 1000 year reign of Christ here on earth,

Yet you don't see the problem with your saying that 'most' such things are confirmed elsewhere in the Scriptures. Ok.

We can discuss this if you want to start a new thread and tag me into it as this thread is about Armageddon as I am also guilty for going off topic.

You apparently also don't seem to be making the connection that the prophecy of the 70 sevens of Daniel is also not confirmed anywhere else in Scripture. Ok.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I am so glad you are so superior in your knowledge of the word of God that you are way above everyone knowing everything. Instead of criticizing everyone, why don't you quit adding to and taking away from what others present as I very seldom see you posting scriptures to support what you say. My mother taught me if you have nothing good to say about another, then don't say anything at all.

What's the point of "posting scriptures to support what I say" when everytime I do so you wave it off as "symbolic", even though the "a thousand years" is repeated multiple times for emphasis? If you take scriptures so seriously, then live up to your sacred belief, either stop praying the Lord's prayer as it is written in Scriptures, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done", or update it to fit your belief - "thy kingdom HAS come, thy will IS done."

 

[for_his_glory]

What's the point of "posting scriptures to support what I say" when everytime I do so you wave it off as "symbolic", even though the "a thousand years" is repeated multiple times for emphasis? If you take scriptures so seriously, then live up to your sacred belief, either stop praying the Lord's prayer as it is written in Scriptures, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done", or update it to fit your belief - "thy kingdom HAS come, thy will IS done."

Never said "thy kingdom HAS come, thy will IS done". There is no sense discussing anything with you so we are done. You have a blessed day.

 

[for_his_glory]

Hi for_his_glory

I'm guessing that you don't see the fallacy of your reasoning for not believing in the literal 1,000 year reign of Christ, when you make that claim. You are basing your reason for not believing that it's a literal 1,000 years on your belief that everything is supposed to be confirmed somewhere else in the Scriptures.

Yet you don't see the problem with your saying that 'most' such things are confirmed elsewhere in the Scriptures. Ok.

You apparently also don't seem to be making the connection that the prophecy of the 70 sevens of Daniel is also not confirmed anywhere else in Scripture. Ok.

Why must it be a fallacy just because you do not agree. I never ask anyone to believe in what I post, but to only take the scriptures I give and let each one read and study them for themselves.

 

[miamited]

Why must it be a fallacy just because you do not agree. I never ask anyone to believe in what I post, but to only take the scriptures I give and let each one read and study them for themselves.

Hi for_his_glory That's not what I'm talking about. The fallacy is that you say that you don't believe that the 1,000 rear reign is literal based on your understanding that if it were, it would be mentioned somewhere else in the Scriptures. But then you say that only applies 'most' of the time. So, what if this is one of those times not covered by your understanding that 'most' of the time these things are repeated or mentioned somewhere else in the Scriptures. I mean your explanation does allow for that possibility, right? So, that's a possibly fallacious understanding based on your own explanation. It has nothing to do with my not agreeing with you.

I then offered you an event of time, much like the 1,000 year reign is an event of time, that wasn't repeated or mentioned anywhere else in the Scriptures. Which should logically deny that your understanding that the 1,000 year reign isn't a real explanation of a period of time because it isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Scriptures.

That's all I'm saying. It has nothing to do with my not agreeing with you, even though I don't.

 

[for_his_glory]

Hi for_his_glory That's not what I'm talking about. The fallacy is that you say that you don't believe that the 1,000 rear reign is literal based on your understanding that if it were, it would be mentioned somewhere else in the Scriptures. But then you say that only applies 'most' of the time. So, what if this is one of those times not covered by your understanding that 'most' of the time these things are repeated or mentioned somewhere else in the Scriptures. I mean your explanation does allow for that possibility, right? So, that's a possibly fallacious understanding based on your own explanation. It has nothing to do with my not agreeing with you.

I then offered you an event of time, much like the 1,000 year reign is an event of time, that wasn't repeated or mentioned anywhere else in the Scriptures. Which should logically deny that your understanding that the 1,000 year reign isn't a real explanation of a period of time because it isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Scriptures.

That's all I'm saying. It has nothing to do with my not agreeing with you, even though I don't.

If you and Carry_Your_Name would notice the first time I mentioned the 1000 years, I said from the git go that it was my opinion as I compared this with all those scriptures I gave about the number 1000. Now pages later the both of you come against me for what is only an opinion and that is what is upsetting coming from someone who calls themselves a Christian. We all have different understandings of certain scriptures and if we can not share them without getting negative feedback then where is the love for one another.

We all are ever learning as no one knows everything that is contained in the word of God. We are to be here to lift up and edify one another, not to tare down each other because we do not agree with them. I am just going to leave the both of this with you and will move on. God bless the both of you.

 

[miamited]

Hi for_his_glory

I'm sorry. I was just responding to your posts. Your last post seemed to be saying that this whole issue was over my not agreeing with you and that's not what my responses have meant to convey. You made some claims as to why you believed the way you did and I answered with explanations, that I believe, were appropriate. However, if you are uncomfortable with my responses, I'm certainly willing to move on.

God bless.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Never said "thy kingdom HAS come, thy will IS done". There is no sense discussing anything with you so we are done. You have a blessed day.

Why not? It’s your big idea that we’re already living in the kingdom, Jesus is already reigning in heaven, isn’t it?