Endtime Prophecy and the European Union

Faith writes: and you are also misrepresenting what I said about the statue of Europa, since all I said and all anybody I've quoted has said is that it's an image of "a woman riding a beast," nothing else.

Or we can look at what you actually said:

Faith writes: Christians immediately recognize this image as "the woman who rides the beast" in the Book of Revelation

Faith writes: Such integrity.

I expect none from you and you have never failed to meet that standard.

So the fact that we recognize the statue as the woman who rides the beast means to you that we see ten heads and a cup and all that. Funny, to me it just means a statue of a woman riding a beast which just because it is a woman riding a beast reminds us of the one in Revelation. But of course it MUST be what YOU think it is, not what WE think it is.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: blah blah

Yes, yes.
Best to gloss over your lies and pretend you didn't say them.
You are fortunate that honesty is not something that your god requires of you.

What I SAID and what you think I meant are two different things and you are merely insisting on YOUR idea of what I said and haven't the basic integrity to admit the difference.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, is it that your knowledge of the Biblical image ends with "a woman riding on a beast" or do you just choose to ignore the parts that don't fit ?

Anyone familiar with the actual images would recognise the statue as being Europa and nothing to do with Revelation.

Look, I never said and none of the people I referenced said that the statue was a replica of the creature in Revelation, it's a simple equation of a woman on a beast with that idea. The statue could be a woman riding a lion, a woman riding a dragon, a woman riding a bear, the same idea would occur to us if not to you. You can insist all you want that it SHOULD be something else but that's again just you insisting it should be something else when it's merely what I said it is. And really, that should have been obvious from the first, simple and obvious. You wouldn't make that connection but we do whether you like it or not.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Look, I never said and none of the people I quoted said that the statue was a replica of the creature in Revelation, it's a simple equation of a woman on a beast with that idea.

---

So when you said that they "recognise" is as the woman riding a beast from Revelation, you mean that they know perfectly well that it is quite different in every other respect, but choose to make the identification regardless. I'd class that under choosing to ignore much of the Biblical description.

quote:

---

You can insist all you want that it SHOULD be something else but that's again just you insisting it should be something else when it's merely what I said it is.

---

I don't insist on the statues being anything. I do suggest that people who are actually familiar with the Bible can't honestly recognise either statue as an image from Revelation because they obviously aren't.

I can concede that my wording could have been better but that doesn't give you license to insist I meant something I didn't mean. Obviously the statue immediately reminds a bunch of us of the image in Revelation and you are just getting all nitpicky about my use of the word "recognize." Is "reminds" better or do you want to pick that to death as well?

quote:

---

I can concede that my wording could have been better but that doesn't give you license to insist I meant something I didn't mean. Obviously the statue immediately reminds a bunch of us of the image in Revelation and you are just getting all nitpicky about my use of the word "recognize." Is "reminds" better or do you want to pick that to death as well?

---

I can only go on what you say. I can't read your mind and decide that you meant something else. Now I can guess that people might be vaguely reminded of Revelation and yet dismiss it because of the obvious differences - and the far better match with Europa. But that isn't what you mean at all.

Faith writes: What I SAID

I quoted what you said.

Carry on with your lying - you seem good at it.
Your god must be proud.

Still no honesty from you. How simple it would be to merely concede that I meant what I meant and not what you think I should have meant, but I guess that's just too hard for you.

What does he being a historian have anything to do with biblical interpretation?

Well if you post crap it will be pointed out to you.
ABE

And you pick THAT out of three big paragraphs to complain about?

Oh the Queen of misrepresentation strikes again. You did not write "three big paragraphs". You wrote 3 tiny sentences. Two of which extolled the writing of Josephus. Everything else was cut and paste.

Number 3 is the main interpretation of most other commentators. Henry quotes Josephus, the Jewish historian in that paragraph.

Edited by Theodoric, : Pointing out more of Faiths misrepresentations

I did a bit of online research and found your summation of Josephus to be far from conclusive nor even a majority view.

What are you claiming?
What is wrong with my summation of Josephus?
Why should we give his biblical interpretation any weight?

Sometimes I wonder why so many people try so hard to disprove the obvious.

Oh please stop being so cryptic. What are you trying to claim I am doing?

Faith writes: How simple it would be to merely concede that I meant what I meant and not what you think I should have meant, but I guess that's just too hard for you.

I can't read your mind so I'll go by what you wrote:

quote:

---

Christians immediately recognize this image as "the woman who rides the beast" in the Book of Revelation

---

Faith writes: ...all I said and all anybody I've quoted has said is that it's an image of "a woman riding a beast," nothing else.

What you wrote was a lie.
That makes you a liar.

If it was just a case of it being "mis-wrote" then you would have simply corrected it.
Instead you blamed me: "But of course it MUST be what YOU think it is, not what WE think it is."
That is not you admitting a mistake - that is you trying to hide the fact that you got caught lying.

If your god likes liars then he must fucking love you!

Faith writes: Common charity should forbid such hubris, such chutzpah, but that's in short supply these days among the Bible debunkers.

I'm not a Bible debunker. I'm simply pointing out what the Bible says, as opposed to your baseless made-up version.

Faith writes: There's really little point in trying to explain the true understanding. It's available in any orthodox Commentary.

But not in the Bible.

Edited by ringo, : Spellinge.