archierieus Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Good! I appreciate that fact that you have been straightforward and acknowledged that you do not have Scriptural support for your assertion about the 'social group.' Moving right along, if you double check about 'Babylon' in Rev. 18, you will find that Babylon is described both as a woman (ch. 17 also) and a city (look at vv. 10, 16, 18) The bride of Christ is also described as a city, the New Jerusalem. both are symbolic women, both are also described as cities. Enough on this point tonight, it is quite late. More on the topic tomorrow. We shall see what Revelation says about what happens to each woman/city. Regards, Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Quote: Good! I appreciate that fact that you have been straightforward and acknowledged that you do not have Scriptural support for your assertion about the 'social group.' If your understanding of simple common English is this terrible, I don't trust anything you say about other languages. Congratulations, you just became the first person to ever get into my "ignore" list /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archierieus Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 The point, Bevin, is that you chose words, and concepts, which are not specifically stated in the original text,("the social group") and used your words and concepts as interpreting the Scripture. You did this without providing Scriptural support or documentation and, eventually, acknowledged that you have no documentation. Sounds to me like private interpretation. I do look forward to addressing what happens to the three women, and showing from Scripture that the pure woman is not the same as the harlot woman, who is not the same as the bride of Christ. Regards, Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Without going off on some tangent, what do you think of this statement? Is it possible in your estimation? "Our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and Republican government...." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bevin Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Yes, this is certainly possible. Prior to WW-I, Germany was a pleasant place to live. WW-I was a classic example of extreme political stupidity. England actually considered which side she would join on - and it was about 50:50 for allying with the Germans... After WW-I, the Brits and French with their stupid reparations nonsense created the environment that led to the rise of nationalism and the Nazi party, and thus directly into WW-II. Germany's descent is a lesson for us all. The McCarthy era in the USA similarly shows that this country can easily fall into a morass of despotism. In the USA today the erosion of the USA life-style ( caused because we no longer have a wealth-manufacturing edge over other countries) is creating discontent. The working and middle class are used to feeling wealthy and employed - and any politician by telling lies can play to this. The discontent is being both caused and fanned by rabble-rousers such as GWB and Rove and Rumsfeld. Such fanning - and its willing acceptance by about 40% of the country - shows me that it would not be difficult to abandon the principles of religious liberty and political freedom, and use the rabble to impose the will of the stupid zealots. /Bevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.