Prophecy for Buzsaw

But as we've seen, the sort of banking you've described was not in the least unlikely; it had been in use, in specific applications, for 400 years.Predicting then that the same techniques would be used more generally, and possibly universally, is not a great leap of the imagination.

In other words, since you believe that certain events are coming and represent the fulfilment of that prophecy we should add your ideas to the prophecy itself. Of coruse that is not a valid argument.
And, worse, it is a clear defiance of Revelation 22:18

quote:

---

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book

---

(KJV)Do you REALLY believe that Revelation is valid prophecy ? If you do then why would you doom yourself by disobeying such a clear warning ?

Lets stick on the subject of hurricanes to keep it simple; we can move on to other disasters later.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/hurricane/facts.htmlThe 10 deadliest hurricanes to hit the US since 1900 were (in order of casualties):
1900, Galveston: ~8,000
1928, Florida: 1,836
1919, Florida & Texas: ~600
1938, New England: ~600
1935, Florida: 408
1957 - Audrey: 390
1944, Northeastern US: 390
1909, Lousiana: ~350
1915, Louisiana: ~275
1915, Texas: ~275Notice something? They're all near the *start* of the century.
Well, what about monetary damage? Adjusted for inflation, we get (from 1900 to 2000):1992, Andrew (34.95 b$)
1989, Hugo (9.74 b$)
1972, Agnes (8.60 b$)
1965, Betsy (8.52 b$)
1955, Diane (5.54 b$)
1979, Frederic (4.97 b$)
1999, Floyd (4.67 b$)
1938, New England (4.75 b$)
1996, Fran (3.67 b$)Lastly, hurricane strength at landfall, 1900 to 2000:
1935, Florida
1969, Camile
1992, Andrew
1919, Florida & Texas
1928, Florida
1960, Donna
1900, Galveston
1909, Lousiana
1915, Lousiana
1961, CarlaWe note the following trends.
1) The rate of deaths (what would seem the ultimate punishment from God) has gone *far down*.
2) The rate of damage has gone *moderately up* (in comparison to the rate of dropping death rates).
3) Hurricane strength has gone *slightly down* (same comparison for scale)We also observe that the US population has become increasingly common in hurricane-risk areas for example:U.S. Census Bureau: Page not foundLets look at Florida, by far the most hurricane struck state:
Date: florida pop / US pop / percent
1990: 12.9 mil / 249 mil / 5.2%
1980: 9.7 mil / 227 mil / 4.3%
1970: 6.8 mil / 203 mil / 3.3%
1960: 4.9 mil / 179 mil / 2.7%
1950: 2.7 mil / 151 mil / 1.8%
1940: 1.9 mil / 132 mil / 1.3%
1930: 1.4 mil / 123 mil / 1.1%
1920: 0.97 mil / 106 mil / 0.92%
1910: 0.75 mil / 92 mil / 0.82%
1900: 0.53 mil / 76 mil / 0.70%(Pretty dramatic, isn't it?)Combined with the fact that much more of the US population has shifted into hurricane-prone areas (especially Florida), the following conclusions can be reached:1) Record-strength hurricanes overall have gotten *mildly rarer* as the century progressed.
2) Death rates have gone *way down* - especially in comparison to the increased population density in at-risk areas - most likely due to better preparedness and building codes.
3) Property damage has gone moderately up, most likely due to how much more heavily developed hurricane-risk areas are.Care to challenge any of these?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Lets take this further. I don't have time to do a state by state breakdown, but lets just assume for the sake of argument that all at-risk states grew like Florida did in comparison to the rest of the country (I know that the number two hurricane-prone state, Texas, did, at the very least; also, most of these hurricanes did hit Florida. The big exception is the 1938 New England hurricane, and using this criteria, it *downplays* the damage since New England's growth has been slower than Florida's; realistically, it was worse than Andrew).Using our "most devastating storms' list, and using the population for the start of the decade that it occurred in, we get population-proportional damages of:1992, Andrew (4.71 b$)
1938, New England (3.02 b$)
1965, Betsy (2.21 b$)
1955, Diane (2.15 b$)
1972, Agnes (1.82 b$)
1989, Hugo (1.60 b$)
1979, Frederic (1.05 b$)
1999, Floyd (0.63 b$)
1996, Fran (0.49 b$)(notice how the older ones that were on the list jumped way up?)Now, these are just the ones from the "most damaging storms list". Many old hurricanes that didn't make the list would be way up there on this population-proportional list (they simply didn't damage much in raw dollar terms because there weren't many people around whose stuff could be destroyed). Several of the ones on here - most notably Floyd and Fran - would clearly be gone, and be replaced with some of the devastating hurricanes from the '00s, '10s, and '30s. All in all, I think you'll find that damage has stayed proportional with relative population (while deaths have *dramatically* been cut in proportion to population, and even when not in proportion to population). And meanwhile, as mentioned in the previous post, hurricane strengths have, if anything, decreased over the century.If you want more precision, I'll take the time to get the growth rates for *all* states involved, and linearly interpolate dates instead of just using the number for the start of the decade. And I could also prove what currently appears to be the case (that many of the ones that weren't on the worst storms list would be on the population-proportional list) by looking up the damage figures for all old cat 4/5 hurricanes to hit the US.This message has been edited by Rei, 09-23-2004 01:14 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Oh, and Buz: Be sure to check out this thread.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Yah sure, CF. LOL. It's taken a couple of milleniums for it even to come into focus as a possibility on a global basis. Nobody back then had any idea man could harness electricity, telephony and wireless, etc. That also took nearly a couple of milleniums to think up. It's nuts to think precious metal would ever be replaced as medium of exchange. After all, all they were doing is making up a note to the effect that someone owed someone else some precious metal coins. That's a far cry from global computerized marks and numbers.

Which is irrelevant, because those things aren't predicted in the Bible. You seem to have a staggering inability to separate the concept from the implementation. In a culture with other mediums of exchange besides metal? Why on Earth would that be the case? But the metal coins were merely stand-ins for livestock, oils, preserved meats and grains, and other barterable items. The only reason they were "precious" in the first place was because they were easily minted into trade tokens.So what you're telling me is, in a society that had developed an abstract trading economy, banking, money changing, and bookkeeping, it would have been impossible to imagine a system where finances were abstracted, banked, changed, and kept in books?How dumb do you think people were back then, Buz? You honestly believe that nobody could have seen the writing on the wall? That bookkeeping was an easier way to deal with large sums of money than coinage?How dumb do you think I am, to believe that nobody could imagine something that had been in front of them for 400 years?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-23-2004 11:06 PM

quote:

---

Revelation 13:16-18
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

​

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

​

Revelation 14:9
And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand.

​

Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

​

Revelation 15:2
And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

​

Revelation 16:2
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.

​

Revelation 19:20
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

​

Revelation 20:4
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

---

I don't see "cashless society" anywhere in the text.I don't see "implants" in the text.I don't see "barcodes" in the text.I see only that "no man might buy or sell unless he has the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. That number of his name is then given; it is six hundred threescore and six.IMO there is a great deal of fanciful eisegesis taking place with regard to this text.Amlodhi

Yes you do.You are just asserting contrary because you don't care about giving any creedance to the truth/point.You evos can link obscure fossils to be whatever you like but any clear evidence which goes against your worldview is denied with a straight face.Your position has no integrity.You refuse to even recognize the unique birthing event of Genesis 38 which the Zarahites adopted to be their emblem (Red Hand). If such an obvious link will not be recognized but ape bones are easily identified to be anthropon then we have deliberate deceit and allegiance to dogma.

Willowtree:What on earth are you doing trying to drag the Red Hand argument into this thread as well? Are you trying to derail this thread?Also:
1) Point to where in the text it says "cashless society"
2) Point to where in the text it says "implants"
3) Point to where in the text it says "barcodes"I don't want a phrase which you claim is vaguely a symbol of any of those things - I want to know, like Amlodhi, where it *says* that.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Quick question: What the fuck is an anthropon?

English cognate of the greek - anthropon = man.

The mark of the beast is 666.This means that the above prefix numeral is the mark of the beast/dragon/his representative.Someday each person will be REQUIRED to have implanted inside their body some type of chip. The numeric prefix of each chip will be 666.While there are many sensible reasons for a chip to be inserted within the human body - the Bible is telling us in advance that to receive this mark is equivalent to selling your soul to Satan.I just read an article in a local newspaper about a month ago which told about the Mexican Attorney General's office in Mexico City buying chip technology for their employees so drug terrorists cannot infiltrate their ranks.SOMEDAY soon the information in all the chips will be linked together in a central computer. The prefix numeral will be 666 followed by your personal number. Then when buying something all you have to do is swipe your hand and never have to worry about fraud or theft.The only problem is that God says this act of receiving this "mark" is declaring your hatred of Him."Well what are we supposed to do ?"Attach yourself to Christ by faith and wait for Him to manifest His deliverance. Then God intends to remove these people from the world while the ones who remain (99.99%) stay to face the Great Tribulation which is physical punishment for rejecting His Son via the Anti Christ empowered by Satan.

Right there, Willowtree, is where you stop actually reporting things from the Bible. All the Bible says is that we will have to receive the mark of the beast. What this mark is, it doesn't say. It could be chip implants. It could be a tattoo. It could be scarring. It could be a drawing made with felt tip pens. The Bible doesn't say.What previous posters were asking is where the Bible specifically refers to chips and barcodes and cashless societies, not what you think the Bible means when it refers to the mark of the beast.

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

quote:

---

The mark of the beast is 666.

---

No. The mark of the beast is Chi-Xi-Digamma (both a number and a name; the number being six hundred sixty and six, and the name being KhXW).

quote:

---

This means that the above prefix numeral is the mark of the beast/dragon/his representative.

---

No, it doesn't. First off, it doesn't say "prefix". You're completely adding that in on your own. Secondly, it's not just a number - it's a number and a name.

quote:

---

Someday each person will be REQUIRED to have implanted inside their body some type of chip. The numeric prefix of each chip will be 666.

---

That doesn't make sense, for the mark was both the number AND the name of the beast. Also, want to take bets about everyone having to have chips implanted? I'll put money on it if you will

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."