One will be taken,and the other left

[Glenn P]

I quoted the following words that speak of "the kings of the earth and the whole world":

"For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty...the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath...And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great"(Rev.16:14,19,21).

Once more you take your own private assumptions and sequeeze them in between the lines of this passage. I am undecided if it is habitual on your part or intentional. I will assume the former out of charity. The ... that you're shoving into this text may be a helpful device for you, but it gives incorrect impressions about the text. The first thing this text denies is that these events take place around the whole world - you quoted it yourself. Have a close read of the first verse in the passage you just cited, and then understand why you are demonstrably mistaken about this being an event that occurs in all the nations. Then look at verse 16 - the verse you chopped out of this part of God's word (what does the book of Revelation say baout removing any part of these prophecies? Naughty naughty!) It directly states that these events all happen in one place. hmmmm, I wonder where that place is? Funny how sometimes the facts are staring us in the face but our blinders prevent us from seeing them.

So let's see, the nations are all gathered to one place for a great battle, and then this place is attacked, with something symbolised by huge hailstones, which coincidentally resemble the way Jerusalem was attacked as I noted in my previous post. Add to this the fact that Jerusalem is the place where the Lord was crucified (cf Rev 11:8), and I think you'll find the book of revelation is a devastating blow to your assumptions.

In the Olivet Discourse the Lord Jesus spoke of His coming:

"When the Son of Man shall come in His glory,and all the holy angels with Him,then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory.And before Him shall be gathered all the nations"(Mt.25:32).

We then see the Lord Jesus say that those who are not His sheep will "go away into everlasting punishment"(v.46).

As with the last post, you're mixing and matching contexts again. You know full well that I was talking about the judgement of Revelation 24, and now you're importing the final judgement in another passage. Anything you might say about this text is moot.

And Tim - the fact that you consider Mickey to be doing a good job is very revealing indeed!

Glenn

[Glenn P]

I quoted the following words that speak of "the kings of the earth and the whole world":

"For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty...the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath...And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great"(Rev.16:14,19,21).

Once more you take your own private assumptions and squeeze them in between the lines of this passage. I am undecided if it is habitual on your part or intentional. I will assume the former out of charity. The ... that you're shoving into this text may be a helpful device for you, but it gives incorrect impressions about the text. The first thing this text denies is that these events take place around the whole world - you quoted it yourself. Have a close read of the first verse in the passage you just cited, and then understand why you are demonstrably mistaken about this being an event that occurs in all the nations. Then look at verse 16 - the verse you chopped out of this part of God's word (what does the book of Revelation say baout removing any part of these prophecies? Naughty naughty!) It directly states that these events all happen in one place. hmmmm, I wonder where that place is? Funny how sometimes the facts are staring us in the face but our blinders prevent us from seeing them.

So let's see, the nations are all gathered to one place for a great battle, and then this place is attacked, with something symbolised by huge hailstones, which coincidentally resemble the way Jerusalem was attacked as I noted in my previous post. Add to this the fact that Jerusalem is the place where the Lord was crucified (cf Rev 11:8), and I think you'll find the book of revelation is a devastating blow to your assumptions.

In the Olivet Discourse the Lord Jesus spoke of His coming:

"When the Son of Man shall come in His glory,and all the holy angels with Him,then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory.And before Him shall be gathered all the nations"(Mt.25:32).

We then see the Lord Jesus say that those who are not His sheep will "go away into everlasting punishment"(v.46).

As with the last post, you're mixing and matching contexts again. You know full well that I was talking about the judgement of Matthew 24/Luke 17, and now you're importing the final judgement from another passage. Anything you might say about this text is moot.

And Tim - the fact that you consider Mickey to be doing a good job is very revealing indeed!

Glenn

[Mickey]

Once more you take your own private assumptions and squeeze them in between the lines of this passage. I am undecided if it is habitual on your part or intentional. I will assume the former out of charity.

Glenn,

Thanks for the charity.However,I do not see how you can say I am making assumptions since the words themselves say "of the whole world".

"For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty...the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath...And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great"(Rev.16:14,19,21).

The ... that you're shoving into this text may be a helpful device for you, but it gives incorrect impressions about the text. The first thing this text denies is that these events take place around the whole world - you quoted it yourself.

The Lord's Olivet Discouse was in answer to the question of what would take place at the "end of the age"(Mt.24:3).Here is what He said earlier in regard to that time:

"He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age"(Mt.13:39-40).

There is no doubt that the reference is to the whole world.Even if all the "unrighteous" are gathered unto one place and receive the vengence of God,there can be no doubt that "all" of the unrighteous will recive their just due at the "end of the age".

Perhaps you would not mind answering as to when this occured?It surely did not happen in Jerusalem in AD 70.

Here we can see the things which will happen after the "signs" in the sky:

"the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood...And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb"(Rev.6:12,15,16).

Here we see that the "kings of the earth" and "every free man" and "every bondman" are hiding themselves "from the wrath of the Lamb".Remember,the signs occur "immediately after the tribulation of those days"(Mt.24:29).So these events are taking place after the great tribulation.

When did this happen in AD 70?There is no historical evidence that anything like this ever happened.

Have a close read of the first verse in the passage you just cited, and then understand why you are demonstrably mistaken about this being an event that occurs in all the nations.

Could you please tell me how this can happen in one place--"and the cities of the nations fell"(Rev.16:19).

So let's see, the nations are all gathered to one place for a great battle, and then this place is attacked, with something symbolised by huge hailstones, which coincidentally resemble the way Jerusalem was attacked as I noted in my previous post.

You said

Revelation 16:21 tells how huge hailstones would fall from heaven weighing a talent which is about 100 pounds. Now, Josephus described 100 lb. white stones coming from Roman catapults down on the Jews in Jerusalem (Jewish Wars, Book 5.6.3). Funny how a little historical information can undemrine a poplar theory!

Your ideas illustrate the difference between the way you interpret Scripture and the way that I do.I say that this event will come to pass exactly how it says"a great hail out of heaven".

It wouldn't be the first time that the Lord "rained hail" on the unrighteous (Ex.9:22,23).

But you say that it did not come from heaven but instead from Roman catapults.

As with the last post, you're mixing and matching contexts again. You know full well that I was talking about the judgement of Matthew 24/Luke 17, and now you're importing the final judgement from another passage. Anything you might say about this text is moot.

So you are saying that the Lord's coming in His glory at Matthew 24:30 is not the same coming in glory at Matthew 25:31?

"all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"(Mt.24:30)

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

I thought that the Preterists teach that Matthew 24:30 is when the Lord begins reigning as King.However,we can see that Matthew 25:31 says that then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory.

Since He began reigning in the verse at Matthew 24 and he "then" sat on His throne at Matthew 24,isn't it clear that both verses are in regard to the same coming in glory?

And since it is indeed in regard to the same coming,we can see what will happen then:

"When the Son of Man shall come in His glory,and all the holy angels with Him,then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory.And before Him shall be gathered all the nations"(Mt.25:32).

We then see the Lord Jesus say that those who are not His sheep will "go away into everlasting punishment"(v.46).

Of couse you are forced to say that the coming described at Matthew 24 is a different one from the one at Matthew 25.Otherwise,you will have to admit that His coming in the Olivet Discouse is in regard to judgment of all the nations.And since you know that that never happened in AD 70 you would be forced to admit that your ideas are wrong.

In Christ,

Mickey

[Glenn P]

Mickey

Your last post has perfectly clarified why you have a problem with what I am saying - especially your comments about the hailstones.

here's what you do: You look at the language used - great and frightening signs in the sky, the moon turns to blood, hailstones weighing 100 pounds and so forth. You say to yourself "those things didn't happen in the first century, therefore this is all about the future." You then form an eschatology based on that.

The problem is - you yourself do not believe what you said in the above post. When I pointed out that Jerusalem, the city where the Lord was crucified, was bombarded with 100 pound missiles from Roman catapults, you objected because - "I say that this event will come to pass exactly how it says"a great hail out of heaven"."

But the relaity is, Mickey, it's just false that you read the Scripture this way, and I can show you right now. Here are some examples, and after you have seen them, you will realise that you do not believe what you said above:

1) In the same book, the book of Revelation, John sees a beast composed of the parts of several different animals. You do not believe that this will be fulfilled by an animal that looks like this.

2) In the same book, John sees a lamb. You do not believe Jesus is a lamb.

3) In the same book, John sees a woman, a prostitute who rides on the back of the beast. You do not believe this will be fulfilled by a woman who does this.

4) In the same book, John saw a woman with 12 stars around her head, and when she gave birth to a child, it was chased by a dragon. You do not believe this was fulfilled by a woman with stars around her head, and you do not believe the child was chased by a dragon.

I think that's enough to make the point. Mickey, it's just untrue that you believe the visions in the book of Revelation were/wil be fulfilled exactly as they appeared in the vision.

By contrast, look at my view. It has all these things in its favour.

1) The Apostles themselves stated that the time of these things was at hand. You saw it when I quoted from peter in Acts 2 - the sun becoming dark, the moon turning to blood. Your method of interpretation makes him either insane or a liar, whereas I'm justasking you to believe the Apostles, and learn about apocalytptic imagery. If the Postles taught that these things happened in the first century while you deny it - then you, Mickey, are wrong, and the Apostles are correct.

2) I have already shown you that your crucial assumption about the Olivet discourse being about wrath against the nations is just not correct. I pointed out that I accept Jesus' words about these things happening on the earth and causing distress to the nations. This is in harmony, as I showed, with what the book of Revealtion says about the fate of apostate Jerusalem, that city where the Lord was crucified.

3) I have already pointed out that Matthew 24/Luke 17 and matthew 25, the cheep and the goats, are different contexts, speaking about different things. In Matthew 24/Luke 17 the context is an attack on Jerusalem, whereas in the latter part of Matthew 25 Jesus is talking about the last judgement on everyone. it is possible, I suppose, that you're mistakenly mixinf preterists up with the heretical so-called "hyper preterists" who teach that this last judgement happened in AD 70, but that is nothing to me, since I don't share that view.

4) You continually assert, without further argument, that because the natins are said to witness these terrible things in Jerusalem with horror, the wrath must laso bepoured out in all the nations as well. But this, as I have shown, is a non sequitur. In fact, the passage you quoted to try to prove this actually stated that the kings came to one place before these things happened. This is fine for preterism, which says it happened in Judea. In response to this you said "how could it happen in one place" - but you never addressed the exegetical evidence that you yourself quoted. The text of the Scripture you quoted says it happens in one place, and so you are duty bound to accept it.


You should have conceded a large number of points just because of the obvious and sheer weight of the Scriptural testimony. You have conceded none, which tells me you are too closed minded for me to hope for productive dialogue here. I however will concede one point, namely that Revelation 16:19 is something I have not yet found an explanation for: "The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath." But given that this is the only problem, and revery other conceivable piece of evidence, as seen in this thread, slips into line with what I have said, I'll just look around and see what people have said about this one verse until I find something that explains it. You on the other hand would be very unwise indeed to build you case on this one verse, while throwing away everything the New Testament says about the timing of these events.

In Christ

Glenn

Matthew 16:28

I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

[Mickey]

When I pointed out that Jerusalem, the city where the Lord was crucified, was bombarded with 100 pound missiles from Roman catapults, you objected because - "I say that this event will come to pass exactly how it says"a great hail out of heaven"."

But the relaity is, Mickey, it's just false that you read the Scripture this way, and I can show you right now. Here are some examples, and after you have seen them, you will realise that you do not believe what you said above:

Glenn,

The thing that you are obviously evading is the fact that the Scriptures reveal that a judgment will come upon all the unrighteous at the time of His "coming".

If these words cannot be taken in a literal manner,then they must have another meaning.Please tell me your "spiritualized" meaning of these words:

"For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth untothe kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty"(Rev.6:14).

If the words "whole world" does not mean just that,then what meaning do you place on it?

"The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one"(Mt.13:38).

What meaning do you put on the word "world" in this verse?

And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb"(Rev.6:12,15,16).

What meaning do you put on the words "every free man" and "every bondman"?

The point that you tried to make is the idea that some words or phrases cannot be taken in a literal manner.That being the case,they must have another meaning.What meaning do you give to the words and phrases that are "in bold" in the above verses?

Now I would ask you to address the following point that I raised in my last post.Your whole theology rests on the idea that the Lord's coming in His glory at Matthew 24:30 is not the same coming in glory at Matthew 25:31:

"all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"(Mt.24:30)

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

I thought that the Preterists teach that Matthew 24:30 is when the Lord begins reigning as King.However,we can see that Matthew 25:31 says that then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory.

Since He began reigning in the verse at Matthew 24 and he "then" sat on His throne at Matthew 24,isn't it clear that both verses are in regard to the same coming in glory?

And since it is indeed in regard to the same coming,we can see what will happen then:

"When the Son of Man shall come in His glory,and all the holy angels with Him,then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory.And before Him shall be gathered all the nations"(Mt.25:32).

We then see the Lord Jesus say that those who are not His sheep will "go away into everlasting punishment"(v.46).

In Christ,

Mickey

[Glenn P]

Okay, well it looks like you have quietly conceded my point about the imagery of hailstones. You can no longer offer any objection that I take these things to have occured in the first century. The same pplies to the signs in the heavens. But now to your comments:

The thing that you are obviously evading is the fact that the Scriptures reveal that a judgment will come upon all the unrighteous at the time of His "coming".

Mickey, this is demonstrably false. Far from evading the fact that the Lord will come to judge the nations, I stated this very thing directly! How cold you miss my comments on Matthew 25? The sheep and the goats - remember?

"For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth untothe kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty"(Rev.6:14).

If the words "whole world" does not mean just that,then what meaning do you place on it?

I never denied that this refers to the whole world - or at least the whole Roman empire. You already know that I don't deny this, since I have commented explicitly on this passage already. My point was that the battle itself here does not take place all over the whole world, but, as you are now forced to concede, it happens in one place. You must concede this because this text tells us so directly, so it cannot be a matter of dispute.

"The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one"

(Mt.13:38).

What meaning do you put on the word "world" in this verse?

Mickey, yet again you're attacking a straw man by implying that I think it doesn't refer to all nations. I do think this because this text in context is about the last judgement at the end of this age. Oh wait, premillennialists don't believe the last judgement will b atthe end of this age. Ah well, to bad for them eh?

And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb"

(Rev.6:12,15,16).

What meaning do you put on the words "every free man" and "every bondman"?

Probably the same meaning as you. Mickey, you're attacking straw men if you're trying to "challenge" me by using all these alleged cases where I deny it refers to the nations, when I have never said any such thing about these comments. The point in the above passage is simple. When the nations see how terrible the wrath of God is upon its victims (and we disagree about who this is, but I say it is Israel/Jerusalem), they will fall down in fear and dread. that's not a strange or convoluted understanding of what it says at all, it's very simple.

The point that you tried to make is the idea that some words or phrases cannot be taken in a literal manner.That being the case,they must have another meaning.What meaning do you give to the words and phrases that are "in bold" in the above verses?

I have now done that. But actually, the point I tried to make is that your own claim about the hailstones and signs in the heavens revealed that you were inconsistently holding to a standard of absolute literalness. You wouldn;t accet the hailstones symbolism because you said you take it all to mean just what it says. But as you now concede, apparently, that was a false retort, and you know full well that many apocalyptic images are not intended literally at all.

Moreover, after making this silent concession you failed to address the point I raised. "your entire theology," as it were, rests on the view that the terrible signs in the heaven" is a future event. How do you repond now that you know this is false, based on what I showed you from Acts 2? If this is in the past now, your house of cards colapses, since these are the events in question. peter thought they were first century happenings. Why don't you?
[quote]Now I would ask you to address the following point that I raised in my last post.Your whole theology rests on the idea that the Lord's coming in His glory at Matthew 24:30 is not the same coming in glory at Matthew 25:31:

"all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"(Mt.24:30)

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory"(Mt.25:31).

I thought that the Preterists teach that Matthew 24:30 is when the Lord begins reigning as King.However,we can see that Matthew 25:31 says that then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory.[/quote[If you infer from this that Matthew 25 is about the beginning of His reign as King, you'll have to do much better. Sitting down to preside in judgement is one thing - and the context of Matthew 25 shows us this is what is in view. beginning one's reign as king is another.

You want to mush these two passages together as one event, but my response is simply this: The context is against sush a move. In Matthew 24/Luke 17 Christ comes against Israel specifically. In Matthew 25 he comes, not in war or anything like that, but to preside over the judgement of all the world. So you just don't have a good argument that these events are one and the same.

I'll be curious to see how you respond to the above arguments.

In Christ
Glenn

[Mickey]

Okay, well it looks like you have quietly conceded my point about the imagery of hailstones. You can no longer offer any objection that I take these things to have occured in the first century.

Glenn,

Let me say this about your ideas concerning the "hailstones".You said that the raining of hailstones at Rev.16:21 is in regard to what happened in "Jerusalem" in AD 70.But the "context" concerning the hailstones demonstrates that this will take place in "Armageddon".Are you under the false impression that "Armageddon" is the same place as is "Jerusalem"?

If you realize that these are two different places then perhaps you can give me any "historical" evidence that you might have that these events happened in AD 70 at Armageddon.

I never denied that this refers to the whole world - or at least the whole Roman empire. You already know that I don't deny this, since I have commented explicitly on this passage already. My point was that the battle itself here does not take place all over the whole world, but, as you are now forced to concede, it happens in one place.

O.K.,Glenn.What evidence can you give that a battle concerning the whole Roman Empire took place at Armageddon in AD 70.Surely there would be some historical evidence of such a battle of gigantic proportions if that battle did in fact take place.

Here is your chance to prove once and all that these verses have already been fulfilled.

In Christ,

Mickey

[Glenn P]

Let me say this about your ideas concerning the "hailstones".You said that the raining of hailstones at Rev.16:21 is in regard to what happened in "Jerusalem" in AD 70.But the "context" concerning the hailstones demonstrates that this will take place in "Armageddon".Are you under the false impression that "Armageddon" is the same place as is "Jerusalem"?

Yes, at this point I am under just that impression. That it is false is merely your opinion.

O.K.,Glenn.What evidence can you give that a battle concerning the whole Roman Empire took place at Armageddon in AD 70.Surely there would be some historical evidence of such a battle of gigantic proportions if that battle did in fact take place.

Here is your chance to prove once and all that these verses have already been fulfilled.

All right! This is my chance! There are some historians - you might think they're all crazy - who think that people from throughout the Roman Empire came to this place called "Jerusalem" (prononced Jeh - roo - sah - lem) prior to AD 70. They attacked it, and basically levelled the place in AD 70. Ever heard of it? If you have, then you've just granted that people from throughout the Roman Empire were gathered together in one place to fight a battle.

In Christ

Glenn


Edit: I can't figure out why my post is in italics, despite my efforts to change it. Is it because what I write is so slanted?

[Mickey]

Yes, at this point I am under just that impression. That it is false is merely your opinion.

Glenn,

I can find no evidence whatsoever that the word Armageddon is in regard to Jerusalem.In fact,when I check various sources the opinion seems to be unamious:

"Armageddon. Gr. harmagedon,as most texts.The word = mount of Megiddo.Therefore in Palestine,not Europe."(Note at Rev.16:16;"The Companion Bible").

The word is generally interpreted as meanin "the mountain of Megiddo".Megiddo is located on the north side of the plains of Jezreel,and it is ofeten referred to in the Ot as a military stronghold (Josh.12:21;17:11;2Ki.9:27;23:29).

So it is not "Jerusalem".

All right! This is my chance! There are some historians - you might think they're all crazy - who think that people from throughout the Roman Empire came to this place called "Jerusalem" (prononced Jeh - roo - sah - lem) prior to AD 70. They attacked it, and basically levelled the place in AD 70. Ever heard of it?

How fast you forget what you said in your last post.Please allow me to remind you of your own words:

I never denied that this refers to the whole world - or at least the whole Roman empire. You already know that I don't deny this, since I have commented explicitly on this passage already.

Are you under the impression that the "Roman army" was made up of all those in the Roman Empire?

If you have, then you've just granted that people from throughout the Roman Empire were gathered together in one place to fight a battle.

Glenn,now you are speaking of "people from throughout the Roman Empire",but before you said the Scripture we are discussing was in regard to the "whole Roman Empire".

So now I guess you are denying what you previously said and now we are suppsed to believe that the words "the whole world" is in regard to "people from throughout the Roman Empire".

Edit: I can't figure out why my post is in italics, despite my efforts to change it. Is it because what I write is so slanted?

You seem to have infected me also.I can't seem to get rid of the italics either.

In Christ,

Mickey

[Glenn P]

Glenn,

I can find no evidence whatsoever that the word Armageddon is in regard to Jerusalem.In fact,when I check various sources the opinion seems to be unamious:

"Armageddon. Gr. harmagedon,as most texts.The word = mount of Megiddo.Therefore in Palestine,not Europe."(Note at Rev.16:16;"The Companion Bible").

The word is generally interpreted as meanin "the mountain of Megiddo".Megiddo is located on the north side of the plains of Jezreel,and it is ofeten referred to in the Ot as a military stronghold (Josh.12:21;17:11;2Ki.9:27;23:29).

So it is not "Jerusalem".

Actually, the testimony is just not unanimous (even just one or two good sources would have told you that there are some who do not think it refers to megiddo at all, or did you learn all of the above from a Google search?), but I grant that a majority of commentators place this location at Mt Tabor. Megiddo is, of course, not a mountain at all but a Valley.

But you take me quite wrong if you think I'm saying that the geographical location of Megiddo is the same as the geographical location of Jerusalem. All I'm saying is that "Armegeddon" in Revelation 16:16 refers to Jerusalem. Just like I think that "Babylon" in that book refers to something other than the literal geographical area of Babylon.

So why is the name Armageddon used for this battle that happens in Jerusalem? Here's what one NT scholarhad to say:

"The name Armageddon is significant because it is at Megiddo that the Jewish King Josiah was defeated and killed by an Egyptian army under the Pharaoh; and Titus had just returned from Egypt. Armageddon means Mountain of Megiddo; but Megiddo is a valley. It is the Mountain of Sion which has become Mountain of Megiddo or Mountain of defeat." (Philip Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation (SPCK), p 265)

The place name had become associated not with defeat, hence its relevance here in Rev 16:16. That is why the name Armegeddon is used even though the battle takes place in and around Jerusalem.

And there can be no doubt whatsoever that the battle is focused on Jerusalem. Just look at the clues in the text!

1) The slain will lie in the streets of the city where the Lord was crucified (Rev 11:8).
2) The attack will be on those who are said to have killed the prohets of God (Rev 15:5-6).
3) The kings of the earth are said to have committed adultery with her (e.g. Rev 18:19), reminiscent of prophetic Oracles against Israel in the OT. Israel was God's people. He was her husband.
4) God's people are told to come out of that place to avoid receiving the plagues. Who else has said this, telling people to flee the city to avoid receiving God's wrath? Jesus said this in the Olivet Discourse concerning the great tribulation.

So I think the evidence is frankly in favour of a preterist view of Revelation, and the reference to Armageddon does not rebut this understanding.

How fast you forget what you said in your last post.Please allow me to remind you of your own words:

How easily you forget what the verse that I was referring to said! Let's retace our steps, shall we? Here is the verse you quoted, and the challenge you gave:

"For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty"(Rev.6:14).
If the words "whole world" does not mean just that,then what meaning do you place on it?

OK? These spirits went out, not to gather every indivudual from the whole world, but only representative individuals from the whole world, referred to here as kings.

And so when you asked me what "whole word" referred to, I readily granted that it referred to the whole Roman Empire. I did not foget that I said this, and I never contradicted it in my last post in any way at all.

Are you under the impression that the "Roman army" was made up of all those in the Roman Empire?
Glenn,now you are speaking of "people from throughout the Roman Empire",but before you said the Scripture we are discussing was in regard to the "whole Roman Empire".

No, go back and have a look. I granted that "whole world" meant the whole ROman Empire, but look at the verse again. It doesn't say that everyone from the whole world came to the battle - just certain individuals. And so when I said that "whole world" refers to the Roman Empire, and then when I said that this means "people from throughout the Roman Empire" came to the battle, I said nothing contradictory or inconsistent in the least.

So now I guess you are denying what you previously said and now we are suppsed to believe that the words "the whole world" is in regard to "people from throughout the Roman Empire".

No, not at all. I still say "whole world" referred to the Empire in general as a whole. But Not everyone in the Empire came to battle, just as this verses says - only certain individuals.

By the way, I apologise for the rudeness in my last post - in particular the whole "Jeh roo sah lem" bit. It was unnecessary.

Glenn

[Mickey]

Glenn,

You said:

OK? These spirits went out, not to gather every indivudual from the whole world, but only representative individuals from the whole world, referred to here as kings.

Let us go back to the events leading up to Revelation 16:

First we see that the "judgment" is in regard to those who received the mark of the beast:

" If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb"(Rev.14:9,10).

It is clear that these verses are not in regard to those living in Jerusalem in AD 70:

" And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.And all who dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"(Rev.13:7,8).

So it cannot be any clearer that the words in regard to "who" will receive judgment are in regard to those who worship the beast—"all who dwell upon the earth…all kindreds,and tongues,and nations".

We can see this judgment beginning to come into existence at Revelation 16:

" And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image"(Rev.16:2).

Your idea that this judgment is in regard to only those who were living in Jerusalem in AD 70 cannot be supported by the Scriptures.

You say:

Megiddo is, of course, not a mountain at all but a Valley.

Let us go back to the prophecies from Joel.And we can see that the "judgment" which is to follow will indeed happen in a "valley" and it will be all the nations which come into judgment:

" For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,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"(Joel 3:1,2).

" Proclaim ye this among the nations; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up:
10 Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.
11 Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O LORD.
12 Let the nations be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.
13 Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great"(Joel3:9-13).

Notice the words in regard to the "sickle",and see how similar language is used in the Revelation where "judgment" is spoken of:

" And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped"(Rev.14:15).

These events refer to the things which will come to the "inhabited earth" after the "great tribulation" has come about:

" And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken"(Lk.21:25,26).

These events will occur after the "great tribulation",and we can know this is true because the Lord Jesus says that the "signs" in the heavenly sphere come after the great tribulation:

" Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken"(Mt.24:29).

In Christ,

Mickey