The Antichrist and the Number 666

[Ploughboy]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

He was talking about the king of Babylon, not God's invented "Adversary"

He was comparing the king of Babylon to Satan's pride which led to his fall. Its Isaiah and his prophecies were real deep. Nowhere in the context of Lucifer can we literally get the king of Babylon. Isaiah is using figurative speech as a comparison to Lucifer. 

[Wistman]

1 hour ago, cerberusxp said:

Jesus was born in late June.

 

OOOH!!!   That means he was what, Gemini or Cancer?????  We need exact date and time of day.

Now it all begins to make sense.

[Ploughboy]

2 hours ago, Saru said:

Ploughboy, please avoid posting huge swathes of copied and pasted text/scripture, thank you.

Ok. I only did that because I was being accused on not referencing anything when, as you can see if you check out my work, its all referenced and referenced very well as I am an obsessive about well referencing things I quote. I never quote what I don't own and I always reference things well. Sorry for posting so much but I was annoyed with the allegations which is why I posted it again. I also copy-paste from my own FB page where I typed it all in originally. Most of the material you see in my work on the beast out of the earth you will not be able to find on the internet. You can buy them online but won't find free books online. Some of it you can but not all of it. I also type stuff in because books have things like extra footnotes that you don't always get online. 

[danydandan]

7 minutes ago, Ploughboy said:

He was comparing the king of Babylon to Satan's pride which led to his fall. Its Isaiah and his prophecies were real deep. Nowhere in the context of Lucifer can we literally get the king of Babylon. Isaiah is using figurative speech as a comparison to Lucifer. 

Yeah you could argue that I suppose. Depends on how literal you take the Bible I suppose.

[Wistman]

John Boswell and other philologist/historians have gone to great pains to show how much the original language(s) of the Bible have been distorted and mistranscribed, often seemingly with purpose, by the many many translations, not to mention how it's been edited and compiled again and again over the centuries.  To take a certain translation and believe it word for word is a mistake.  Just my two cents.

[danydandan]

16 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

John Boswell and other philologist/historians have gone to great pains to show how much the original language(s) of the Bible have been distorted and mistranscribed, often seemingly with purpose, by the many many translations, not to mention how it's been edited and compiled again and again over the centuries.  To take a certain translation and believe it word for word is a mistake.  Just my two cents.

Exactly, there are over 400 different versions and translations.

[Jodie.Lynne]

10 hours ago, Ploughboy said:

You guys are gonna have to learn how to use you brains. I'm not gonna be your common sense nor can I be. 

Yeah, I've seen this aggressive stance before. I betcha he is going to start talking about how atheism is a belief system soon.

[XenoFish]

8 hours ago, Ploughboy said:

I also copy-paste from my own FB page

Hmmm.....

[Jodie.Lynne]

On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 11:21 PM, kmt_sesh said:

Foul, you say? Sir, I take issue with that. You're stereotyping all mummies.

I'm delightful at parties.

If you ignore the dust and wrapping scraps left all over.

[jaylemurph]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Hmmm.....

As my information specialist friends say, "Garbage in, garbage out."

--Jaylemurph 

[XenoFish]

Just now, jaylemurph said:

As my information specialist friends say, "Garbage in, garbage out."

--Jaylemurph 

By the comment he reminded me of that guy, CodeBreaker I think his name was. He was a religious fanatic or Jesus freak. Not saying it's the same person under a new name, but I'm gonna see where all this goes.