PDA

View Full Version : Attack Helicopters in Revelation?


RpTheHotrod
02-24-2003, 11:38 PM
Rev. 9:3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

Rev 9:7-10 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

Sorry if I misspelled something, was reading was I typed without looking at the screen.

Now think, John, way back when, seeing visions of a time not even come as of yet. What if John saw something...and the best way to describe it was to make it sound like something he was familiar with. John wouldn't be able to compare our technology with anything of his time, he would think our technology to be...alive.

What if John saw today's attack helicopters (Apache). Like unto horses prepared for battle, and on their heads crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of man. If the sunlight hit's the blades of the helicopter, it gives a massive golden "aura" aruond the blades...looking like a golden circle above the helicopter.
Either that, or John, looking through the front window of a helicopter, saw a man wearing his flying helmet. Hair as the hair of women. Have you watched a helicopter in flight with it's rotors in full swing? Just a whirl with no distinct form, fine hair blowing in the wind. Teeth as the teeth of lions. The armament and guns on the front of the helicopter...or perhaps a paintjob (but if he saw locusts, as in plural, it seems armament and guns would be more viable). Sound of their wings was as the sound of many horses running to battle. If you have ever heard the roar of only a few helicopters in flight, you will understand this. And there were stings in their tails - - - hurt man five months. Helicopter tails do look like scorpion tails, and the tails have sprays in their tails that can spray out chemicals that will cause havoc to man - not kill but make him incapable of being able to do anything. A wounded soldier causes many more problems than a dead man as it takes several others to attend to him. Nerve gas?

So, could these 'locusts' be attack helicopters (Apaches)?

Of coarse, they might be just as he said...creatures. Heh



Just an interesting idea.

RpTheHotrod
02-24-2003, 11:48 PM
Also...


Rev 9:17

And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.



What if John was seeing was modern tanks with nuclear armament? Fire, smoke and brimstone are all parts of thermonuclear explosions. Smoke, the great clouds of radioactive fallout, and brimstone is the melted stone and earth that results from great heat. Earlier, when Daniel asked God what all this meant, God told him to shut up the book, as he could not understand it, but those living in the 'latter days' would understand it. What if John was seeing nuclear warfare in the air and on the ground, and he described what he saw with no knowledge of twentieth and twenty-first century advances in war arms?

Wes Marrakesh
02-25-2003, 12:28 AM
Heh... intresting theory. It's similar to one I have about medieval dragons: what if they saw an early train? You know, all clad in armor (metal hull), belching smoke (exhaust), and unstoppable (great ramming speed)? :D

Psyk0Sith
02-25-2003, 12:51 AM
Reminds me of what Nostradamus has written.

I dont have enough knowledge of the bible to understand what it means. Everyone has their own interpretation i guess.

munik
02-25-2003, 12:56 AM
I just figure John was tripping out. That explains things pretty neatly for me.

What he describes is fantastic. A helicopter is not. Even though he may have never seen anything like that before, he has seen metal. And that is what they are made of. He doesn't mention metal at all.

And why does his hallucination have to do with a piece of equipment from the late 20th century? Maybe if it was in fact a revelation of the future, maybe it was something that we would consider fantastic, and have nothing comparable.

Why a helicopter? In the whole book, why describe a helicopter? There are many other interesting things around today that John would have found incredible. What significance is a helicopter? Why not a toaster? Or a speculum production facility? There are many fascinating things around.

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 01:02 AM
Why would God show him "visions of toasters" when Revelation is about the end of time. Attack Helicopters and Tanks = war Revelation deals with war.

He was seeing a battlefield.

munik
02-25-2003, 01:19 AM
Well, considering that those devices of war are pretty specific to the 20th century, are you implying that the end of time is near?

Wow, that sounds like an original decleration.

I've never heard that before.

You must be the first person in history to use an ancient text prophesizing about the end of time and mold it to fit the present time you are in.

Amazing.

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 02:17 AM
Eh... you don't get out much, do you.

It's been mentioned by thousands.

The Bible gives detailed "descriptions" of the "end times", and those details do fit this day and age.


You should really do some research before saying stuff like that. Sorta like waking up one day and hearing someone talking about the moon landing and you are amazed.

:)

Really, this "end times" thing has been around.

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by munik
What he describes is fantastic. A helicopter is not. Even though he may have never seen anything like that before, he has seen metal. And that is what they are made of. He doesn't mention metal at all.



you mean when he says

"And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron"

I'd say iron could be considered a metal




Look, if you were from his time and you suddenly saw this...

http://archive.cs.uu.nl/pub/AIRCRAFT-IMAGES/Apache-AH64.jpg

what on earth would YOU think? You're used to horses and chariots.

BCanr2d2
02-25-2003, 03:41 AM
Nostradamus, and many prophecies in all religious texts are usually that wide in their interpretation that many events can fit what has been told.

So, it is not hard to make current events fit what is in Revelations, and for it to make sense, just like it is easy to make events in Nostradamus' Quatraines fit many things, since they are so generalised and obscure...

ShockV1.89
02-25-2003, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Eh... you don't get out much, do you.

It's been mentioned by thousands.

The Bible gives detailed "descriptions" of the "end times", and those details do fit this day and age.


You should really do some research before saying stuff like that. Sorta like waking up one day and hearing someone talking about the moon landing and you are amazed.

:)

Really, this "end times" thing has been around.

You really dont grasp sarcasm too well, do you? ;)

Helicopter tails do look like scorpion tails, and the tails have sprays in their tails that can spray out chemicals that will cause havoc to man - not kill but make him incapable of being able to do anything.

Last I checked, Apaches, or any helicopter, to my knowledge, were not equipped with spraying mechanisms in their tails. Perhaps some might have crop dusting equipment, but the tail would be a very poor place to put it. It would throw off weight distribution.

As far as a military helicopter... it's conceivable that chemical weapons might be carried by a helicopter, but they would likely be carried on the wings or the side of the hull. Again, the tail is a terrible place for it, as it would kick it off to only one side, and it would throw off the weight.

ShadowTemplar
02-25-2003, 09:57 AM
Rev. 9:3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

Rev 9:7-10 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

You could just as easily have made the title Gargoyles in Revelation? (http://www.games-workshop.com/40kuniverse/citadelminiatures/Tyranids/Tyranids_Fast_Attack/Gargoyles.htm).

If you want to know where I got it go to this site:

http://www.games-workshop.com/front.UK

and find 'Tyranids' in the '40k Universe' section.

Which BTW also contains this (http://www.games-workshop.com/40kuniverse/inquisitor/default.htm) (just kill the site that pops up after the movie is finished, that's only applicable to 40k nerds like me.

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 11:58 AM
Some attack Apaches do have chemical sprays from their tails. It matters why they will be attacking.

For the gargs...
First...it's not realistic. Helicopters would make much more sense for these days...second...the description doesn't match.


No crowns of gold (apaches have a golden aura above them when sunlight hits them)

no face of a man (pilot of apache)

no hair...at all. (see the hair thing in original post)

C'jais
02-25-2003, 12:08 PM
Revelation is just a big bloody chapter of God and his trusted followers slaying and torturing the rest of the earth. As God is so damn mighty, it'd be small feat for him to simply make the unbelievers die in a normal fashion without all the needless gore and pain involved.

The picture given of God, Jesus and Christians in Revelation should be enough to label them all as murderous psychopaths.

That's not to mention all the real impossibilites and logical faults in it. It's mentioned several times that the earth apparently has "four corners" and that stars can fall to the earth. The "locusts" are commanded to not hurt all the grass that has been burned off the face of the earth a few pages back. An angel swears, even though it is condemned by Matthew and James and only God is allowed to swear. Then you have a Jesus with a sword sticking out of his mouth, and a "great whore" which apparently does many foul deeds.

All in all, while a few of the ramblings in Revelations could be seen in coincidence with modern techonology, most of it could never be mistaken for our time - blood colouring the ground, Jesus being seen by everyone (only on a flat earth would this be possible), the sea becoming blood and heavenly objects such as the sun the stars and the moon being smitten so as not to shine so bright.

Creatures and beasts such as lions, calfs and "flying" eagles are mentioned, which have could not have been mistaken for technology - just the ravings of a madman seeing "visions".

The scary part of these prophecies is that I could actually easily imagine Christians attack or prevent the aforementioned "supercomputer" from being built, and trying to kill someone they decided to label antichrist. I also just can't forget that according to Christians, not all religions are equal and they're against the EU, for it is apparently a part of Satan's big plan. You scare me.

I guess the authors of the Bible liked the idea of, after spending pages upon pages of being do-gooders, having a major gorefest and the murdering of all unbelievers to justify their patience and to terrorize people with faltering faith in the LORD, and to bully heathens into submitting their free will to the ramblings of an old book.

C'jais
02-25-2003, 12:28 PM
As for the attack helicopters:

The sting of the tail: If it were indeed a gas he saw, he'd probably describe it as a gas. And it's far more sensible to mount such a gas spraying device on an airplane instead, as helicopters are far too slow to avoid the anti-air fire while making strafing runs. As Shock said, the weight distribution would go haywire.

The wings: In fact - the missing wings. John describes the sound of the wings as loud, but helicopters don't have any wings. The rotors obvsiously can't be mistaken for wings, as they're apparently the "hair" of those beasts.

The golden halo: First of all, there's no "golden halo" on modern attack helicopters, as they're designed to be as stealthy as possible while on missions - to have them reflect light as massively to make them appear as having a golden halo would be a severe disadvantage during night raids.

Secondly, anything has a "golden halo" in the right circumstances - I'd have a golden halo standing in front of a light etc. And the golden halo produced by anything metallic would be so faint and insignificant that John would probably describe something quite else.

The teeth of lions: This is quite obviously him seeing visions of terrible beasts and him combining ancient greek myths (chimera, manticore) to produce some fantastic beast. If it was indeed weapons he was talking about, he'd probably be trying to describe the fire and explosions caused by them (as is generally done in Revelation anyway).

Shaped like horses: The locusts are shaped like horses, simply enough. This doesn't tie in well with the whole helicopter thing.

Breastplates: The beasts are armoured, nothing new. If he saw helicopters, he'd probably freak out from seeing that they were all metal.

munik
02-25-2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
It's been mentioned by thousands.

The Bible gives detailed "descriptions" of the "end times", and those details do fit this day and age.
Yeah, I guess when John said "things which must shortly come to pass"(Rev. 1:1) and "the time is at hand"(Rev. 1:3), he really meant two millennia later. Or maybe when Jesus said "I come quickly"(Rev. 3:11, 22:7, 22:12, 22:20) four different times, he actually meant "I come slowly".

John was just stoned or making crap up. If it was really a revelation, then it would have happened long ago, as John and Jesus both said it would. Unless they were wrong, in which case all of the revelation would be suspect.

Eldritch
02-25-2003, 02:53 PM
I'm gonna have to agree with C'jais on... well, everything he said.

I'd like to add that the 'helicopter' theory is extremely far fetched, as the passages you outline only meet one criteria, and even that's shaky (the breastplate thing).

If you're seeing helicopters in those passages, it's because you want to see them.

obi
02-25-2003, 03:55 PM
I don't want this thread to turn into wheather or not the Bible/christianity is real or not. If it does, I will close the thread. This thread is about wheather or not the description can be interperated as a helicopter, so let's leave it at that.


Personally, I think it is a good point. The helicopters can be described like that.

Kain
02-25-2003, 04:13 PM
Christians have the habit of interpreting every vague prophcy in the Bible to modern because they want the end times to come because they seem to have major issues with everyone dying and going to Hell...save them.

Damn us heathens...us logical, science, technology loving heathens...

C'jais
02-25-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by obi-wan13
Personally, I think it is a good point. The helicopters can be described like that.

But do you say that in a "yeah, the prophecies could probably fit on this, if you look at it the right way"-way, or do you directly imply that "the end times" are nigh?

Because, y'know, if you mean the latter, then I'm getting a bit worried about my own hide...

I don't want this thread to turn into wheather or not the Bible/christianity is real or not.

It overlaps quite abundantly, sad to say.

But I'll try to restrain myself, and not just shoot huge volleys of flak in the general direction of the Bible itself.

obi
02-25-2003, 05:33 PM
I mean it can be described that way, like a riddle type thing.

Like, describing a side walk or something:

I am always outside, rain or snow, with the grayest of feeling, being controlled.

See, something like that is what I meant, like in a poetic sense.

I know you don't like the Bible and some of it's views, I was just saying that this thread shouldn't turn into religion, because that isn't what it was meant for. It's no different then someone posting a picture of Jesus playing basketball. Something like that wouldn't meant to be viewed in a Religious, get-on-your-knees sense.

Reborn Outcast
02-25-2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by munik
What he describes is fantastic. A helicopter is not. Even though he may have never seen anything like that before, he has seen metal. And that is what they are made of. He doesn't mention metal at all.

I figured you missed the "breastplates made of iron" part.

ckcsaber
02-25-2003, 06:02 PM
The hardest thing for your theory to prove Rp, has to be the their faces were as the faces of men

How could they see the face of the pilot? I doubt that John was that close, and the pilot would be wearing a helmet, so he would never actually see a face

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 06:02 PM
btw, I never said it WOULD be attack helicopters and tanks. I'm just saying, for thousands of years, people thought it would be a demon-like/alien-like creatures...but "what if" John was just seeing the attack helicopters and tanks of today?

It's just an interesting "what if" I thought I'd bring up.


Yes, there is a golden "aura/crown" that is visible on helicopter blades. I used to have a picture of it, and it looked like a huge golden circle was hovering above the chopper.

Also, as I mentioned, perhaps it was talking about the helmet...but I don't see how anyone could think a pilot's helmet is of gold.

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by ckcsaber
The hardest thing for your theory to prove Rp, has to be the

How could they see the face of the pilot? I doubt that John was that close, and the pilot would be wearing a helmet, so he would never actually see a face

Look at the picture I posted. I see a pilot just fine.

ckcsaber
02-25-2003, 06:15 PM
How would John recognize that as a human face? More than half of his face is covered, with the only recognizible facial feature, the mouth showing. And humans aren't the only creatures with mouths.

Plus, as I said before, I doubt that John was upclose for a view like that.

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 06:22 PM
He could have, he could have not... he could have seen a chopper, he could have seen a creature


again


this is just an "what if"

I don't get it why people see an "idea" post and think "Ooo! an idea! Let's go attack it!"

munik
02-25-2003, 07:05 PM
And the opposite of attacking it is to agree with you? So are you upset that not everyone agrees with you? Did you think that no one would be critical of an idea you may post?

Yes Reborn, I did forget about the breastplates of iron part. I withdraw the comment about not mentioning metal. Still doesn't change my opinion of it though.

I just don't see his description as matching anything in the present. He believes, as does Jesus, that what he is seeing is something that takes place maybe 1500 years ago. That is my best guess, and I'm giving him lots of time. I guess you could take it as a metaphorical description, in which case it could describe anything you want it to.

RP, your golden halo thing may only be evident in a picture. When you can't see the blades individually. I've seen quite a few helicopters, and I don't recall being able to see light reflect off the rotor blades. Without any serious knowledge of the production of military helicopters, I could say with almost 100% surety that the blades have some sort of matte finish, because reflecting light is a Bad Thing® in a combat situation. Your picture sounds like it was exposed for longer then normal to create the effect of a halo. It would make a neat poster.

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 07:07 PM
Like I said, it may be something else, but the blades can give off a glow.


Also, there is more than believe or attack.

Do I believe that it IS helicopters? Nope. I just said it's an interesting idea. Am I attacking that theory? Nope.

munik
02-25-2003, 07:14 PM
It'd also be interesting if what he was describing is a poptart. Those who disagree will be damned to hell!!

Why post if you're gonna get so uptight about the replies?

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 07:30 PM
Poptart doesn't meet the description either. Remember, not only the looks, but it's function. I doubt John was seeing poptarts having power and destruction.
You're just acting sarcatstic or have absolutely no common sense whatsoever.

obi
02-25-2003, 07:38 PM
Ease up, please.....this thread was going good. Let's keep it that way.

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 07:41 PM
btw...

M*A*S*H owns :)

shukrallah
02-25-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by munik
Yeah, I guess when John said "things which must shortly come to pass"(Rev. 1:1) and "the time is at hand"(Rev. 1:3), he really meant two millennia later. Or maybe when Jesus said "I come quickly"(Rev. 3:11, 22:7, 22:12, 22:20) four different times, he actually meant "I come slowly".

John was just stoned or making crap up. If it was really a revelation, then it would have happened long ago, as John and Jesus both said it would. Unless they were wrong, in which case all of the revelation would be suspect.

look, 1000 years in our time, is like a passing day to God, so really to God, those prophecies were just made yesterday!
thats not to slow, everything is done in God's time, when he wants it to happen, remember that.



as for the helecopter thing, i always thought they were some kind of demon, i was looking for those verses to put in the other thread, about those "weird looking things"

but yeah a helecopter would look like that, pretty much.


Originally posted by munik
And the opposite of attacking it is to agree with you? So are you upset that not everyone agrees with you? Did you think that no one would be critical of an idea you may post?[/B]


lol, of coarse someone would be critical, there are more non-believers than christians in the world, of coarse a few might come along and say something we as christians would disagree with!



:D :D :D (not calling u a non-believer, i dont know whether u are or ur not.)





Revelation is just a big bloody chapter of God and his trusted followers slaying and torturing the rest of the earth. As God is so damn mighty, it'd be small feat for him to simply make the unbelievers die in a normal fashion without all the needless gore and pain involved.


its not about christians killing others, u forget, the antichrist will kill us, if the rapture doesnt take place first...so we aren't killing people, its a punishment, for peoples sins, that all.


=====

look we as christians are trying to just spread the word of God, not attack people, if they dont believe.


:fett: Lukeskywalker1

munik
02-25-2003, 08:12 PM
The description uses similes to describe the definitive. He says what they have, then attempts to explain what it looks like. For starters, he says they are locusts. Locusts do not in any manner look like helicopters. In no way is there any resemblance. They had heads. Helicopters do not have heads. They had hair, they had teeth, they had breastplates, they had wings, they had tails. Helicopters do not have any of those things (except for the tail part, so we'll give you one point for that). Neither do poptarts. He doesn't say that they looked like hair, heads, or wings. He said they had hair, heads, etc. and explained what those things looked like.

You on the other hand are interpreting his definitive statements to be similes. You are reversing the order of his sentences to change the prophecies. John didn't say "they had something like hair of a woman", he said "they had hair like hair of a woman.".

I agree that it is easy to confuse it, if you do not read the passage fully. If you want to see it as a prophecy that represents the present, it is easy to alter the wording to fit the situation.

Now, this isn't really an attack, but a detailed breakdown of the assumption that John refered to a helicopter. That assumption is just as ludicrous as the assumption that he is refering to a poptart, but the difference is people want to believe in the former. You posted the verses straight from the bible, and plain as day anyone can see that in no way does it refer to a helicopter. It is an interesting idea as much as a poptart, yet when I say poptart I am being sarcastic or I have no common sense. When you post something that is an obvious falsity, with the proof of the falsity right in the same post, it is totally different. Yours is an interesting idea. Mine is not.

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 08:16 PM
I told you what each "breastplate, hair,etc..." could be.

Again, what is John going to say


"and behold I saw an apache helicopter from thousands of years in the future with arnment, machine guns, and missiles"


really... come on.


again, I'm not saying they ARE helicopters. I'm saying "What If" because his description does match that of an apache.

The Apache has all that John mentioned. Hair of a woman? Ever see an apache in flight with full rotor? It sure looks a lot like it, and that's the best way John could describe it. Again, "What If"

munik
02-25-2003, 08:29 PM
Dude, do you not understand what I am saying?


He said HAIR as the hair of women. He said they have HAIR!! HAIR dammit!! He doesn't say something like hair, or something akin to hair, or something that could be confused for hair, he says they have HAIR!

And not only did he say they have HAIR!!, he also said they have HEADS!! FACES!! TEETH!! BREASTPLATES!! WINGS!! TAILS!! He didn't say they had things that resemble those, he said the have them.

He also said that they were LOCUSTS!!, he didn't say they looked like locusts.

How could anyone interpret that to mean it might be a helicopter?

I have shoes, and they have laces that are like rope, and soles that are like the soles of boots, and cushy insoles that are like the softest beds. Is that confusing? Could that be interpreted to mean anything else other then a description of my shoes, their laces, soles, and insoles? 'Cause I did make comparisions of those things to other things, does that mean my entire statement has suddenly become open for inane interpretations?

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 08:33 PM
Hmm, guess I'm gonna have to re-post part of this for this guy.


Again




What if John saw today's attack helicopters (Apache). Like unto horses prepared for battle, and on their heads crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of man. If the sunlight hit's the blades of the helicopter, it gives a massive golden "aura" aruond the blades...looking like a golden circle above the helicopter.

There's your golden crown

And the face? The pilot.


Hair as the hair of women. Have you watched a helicopter in flight with it's rotors in full swing? Just a whirl with no distinct form, fine hair blowing in the wind.

Theres the hair.


Teeth as the teeth of lions. The armament and guns on the front of the helicopter...or perhaps a paintjob (but if he saw locusts, as in plural, it seems armament and guns would be more viable).

Theres the teeth


Sound of their wings was as the sound of many horses running to battle. If you have ever heard the roar of only a few helicopters in flight, you will understand this.


Theres the wing/sound

And there were stings in their tails - - - hurt man five months. Helicopter tails do look like scorpion tails, and the tails have sprays in their tails that can spray out chemicals that will cause havoc to man - not kill but make him incapable of being able to do anything. A wounded soldier causes many more problems than a dead man as it takes several others to attend to him. Nerve gas?

There's the tail



What on earth could John say about an apache helicopter in his day? No one would understand it, at all. He had to say "it was like". Ever see movies where someone sees something awesome and says "It's like... something you'd see in a..." or "It's as bright as the sun!" or "It sounds like a freight train" Does it mean it's a train that lives in the sun? No...but its comparing two things.


Again


What If

El Sitherino
02-25-2003, 08:40 PM
RP sorry but i just gotta know why you strated another religion thread? they all end the same, a god or no god/ christianis vs non christians. its just stupid. sorry just had to say it. also i find your story bubkis. prophicisers did tricks for a living nostrodamus made vague prediction so that he could avoid death. the possibility of a german man( with a last name begining with H is very common also germans are a nationality known for violence) starting a great war. he used vague words so that you could fit almost any situation to his prophecy.

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 08:43 PM
Okay, first... The Beast and the Microchips has nothing to do with religion. It is fact. It may have turned INTO a religious thread, and that's not my fault.


Second, This post is just about John's "vision" of the future. What if he saw what we have today.

Neither have to do with with religious beliefs.


and once more... "What If"

All these years people thought of the vision as actually being a creature of some sort. I'm just offering a different angle to it. what if it's technology? Just an interesting IDEA...not BELIEF

munik
02-25-2003, 09:03 PM
You are going to give me a brain aneurysm.

He states that the locusts possess such physical traits as faces, hair, teeth, etc. Not something that is similiar to those things, but those things themselves.

If I said "I have legs like the legs of an elephant", that in no way means I don't have legs. Because I said "I have legs". Then I compared them to those of an elephant. So, I do in fact have legs. Now, what you are doing is something like saying "Elephant legs are thick like telephone poles, so he must have telephone poles". No, I do not have telephone poles, I have legs. Because I said "I have legs".

So, lets apply this logic to a line in that passage.
"Their teeth were as the teeth of lions"
You then said that the armement on an apache is like the teeth of lions.
Now, here is the leap. You then reasoned that since the armement on an apache is like the teeth of lions, and the teeth described by John are like the teeth of lions, that the armement on an apache must be the teeth described by John. That is a completely illogical statement. If A is like B, and C is like B, then A must be C. Totally illogical.

If you can't understand the context of a sentence, at the very least you can't confuse Rev. 9:3 "And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth...". He doesn't compare, make simile, or anything. He says locusts. Not something like a locust, just a locust.

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 09:25 PM
I never said it must


man you totally miss the simple point



A is like B, and C is like B, then A must be C?

NO!

A is like B, and C is like B, then A may be C


I NEVER said he SAW a helicopter. I said it's interesting if he DID.


I don't get how people don't understand such simple things.

The Indians said the people on the horses ... had the strength and speed of an animal, and the cunning inteligence of a man. Now... in reality...was this a half animal/half man? No. It was a man on a horse. They never saw a horse before...so they compared it with something that was familiar.

If I was from John's time and saw something from our time, I'd be thinking it was some creature as well. Ever hear people's "sight" at an area, and you go there just to see it was something different than you expected? What was John to say "It's weapons were..." or "It's teeth were..." In his time, there were no weapons like ours, so to him, he perceived them as teeth.


Reminds me of a Star Trek: TNG episode where some natives see the ship and crew and think that they have these super powers "Their magic..." Nope...their....technology.



Again, What If


John might have just seen what he said he saw...creatures.

Reborn Outcast
02-25-2003, 09:29 PM
Ok munik THIS IS THE EXACT WORDING OF THE NIV BIBLE. Now read carefully, I will even highlight the importanat words for you. And remember your post about how they were not LIKE womens hair and all that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 9:7-10 - The locusts looked like horses prepaired for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. Their hair was like women's hair, and their teeth were like lions' teeth. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. They had tails and stings like scorpions, and in their tails they had the power to torment people for five months.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So as you can see, he does say LIKE or RESEMBLED. He does not say, "they had womens hair", or "they had lion teeth." That would make it different.


Rp was using the King James version of the Bible. Do we speak the same way as it is written in that version of the Bible? No that version uses BLANK VERSE. Blank verse is a literary term for A STYLE OF WRITING THAT IS ABOVE EVERYDAY SPEECH. That means that people speak in PROSE, everday speech. What is written in the King James Version you THINK you can decipher the words but it is hard to because that version uses speech that is not used to talk to other people and you probably have never used in your entire life. Read Shakespeare. They use phrases and words that mean totally different things in todays society than what it meant back then. The King James version is probably like that.



And everyone, how do we know that LATER on technology for helecopters would not have an attack from the tail? Just because it sounds like helecopters from todays time, it could mean 10 years in the future. Only waiting will tell.

Also, you don't seem to get that John could not say helecopter. He didn't know what a helecopter was so therefore, he explained it in a way that he knew.

Reborn Outcast
02-25-2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by munik
If I said "I have legs like the legs of an elephant", that in no way means I don't have legs.

Was John supposed to know what missles were. Was he supposed to know what the blade was? Was he supposed to know what the glass windshield was? See, you know what legs are. If John really did see a helecopter, he had NO IDEA what it was. There is a subtle difference and that is. You know what legs are and can clearly describe them. John wouldn't have know a helecopter so he described it in the best manner that he could think of. See my above post.

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 10:05 PM
It doesnt say "Were..."

it says "Were as" in other words "was like"



The original Hebrew word for the "were as" parts of those verses translates into....

ù̔ò
hōs
hoce
in that manner ; like (as, unto)

In other words..he was saying they WERE LIKE something else.... like a scorpion tail

Does an Apache's tail look similiar to a scorpion tail?
An Apache's tail is as a scoprion tail?

Yes.

munik
02-25-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Ok munik THIS IS THE EXACT WORDING OF THE NIV BIBLE. Now read carefully, I will even highlight the importanat words for you. And remember your post about how they were not LIKE womens hair and all that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 9:7-10 - The locusts looked like horses prepaired for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. Their hair was like women's hair, and their teeth were like lions' teeth. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. They had tails and stings like scorpions, and in their tails they had the power to torment people for five months.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So as you can see, he does say LIKE or RESEMBLED. He does not say, "they had womens hair", or "they had lion teeth." That would make it different.] I added the green coloring to highlight those words. You're right, he doesn't say they had womens hair. But he does say they had hair. He doesn't say they had lions teeth. But he does say they had teeth. Those are definitive statements that I colored green. You are focusing on the latter half of the simile, and totally ignoring the the start of it. You focus on what the hair is like, and ignore the fact that he said they have hair.



Also, you don't seem to get that John could not say helecopter. He didn't know what a helecopter was so therefore, he explained it in a way that he knew. He is explaining what the locusts look like. If he was using the word "locust" to mean helicopter, because he doesn't know what a helicopter is, wouldn't he say something to the effect of "it was like a locust" or such? No, he definitaly says they are locusts, no metaphor or anything.
You know what legs are and can clearly describe them. John wouldn't have know a helecopter so he described it in the best manner that he could think of.That makes sense I guess. So he projects physical traits onto the thing he sees(can't think of the word, hopefully you get the gist). So, when he says teeth, or hair, he is projecting. But then wouldn't he project all the time? So wouldn't everything have these physical traits? Why just something in his hallucination? Would this same logic apply to all things in Revelations? What about Rev. 10:1-2?

And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth,

So, is this or is this not an angel? Is it a simile for something else? If we assume this is an angel, then we must assume those locusts described in 9:7-10 are just locusts. How can John use one descriptive form as a simile, and then use the same descriptive form for a definitive statement?

RpTheHotrod
02-25-2003, 10:15 PM
Perhaps, could have been a spirit.

If you were that close to God, and you saw some light ascending down from a cloud, I'd think it was an angel as well. During those times, people did see angels. He had something to compare it perfectly. An angel to an angel.

It says an angel, so I say it was an angel.

He said they were locusts...but obviously locusts don't have all those things...so he was obviously comparing it to something he couldn't describe perfectly.


Common sense Munik...it wasn't "a locust"...look at it's description. It's obvious he was comparing on the second.

munik
02-25-2003, 10:23 PM
It cannot just be a construct of his mind?

He says it is a locust with different things, like hair and face and such. So, what is the Chimera of mythology? Is it a goat with a lions head and serpents tail? What is a Centaur? Is it a horse with a human torso for a head? Or a human with a horses body for legs? In either case, they are something, then the differences are described. So I figure that they are not just plain old locusts, but having a locusts body as the further descriptions modify the head and tail and such.

So how can you assume that is an angel? You said he had something to compare it to. Are angels described anywhere else in the bible like that? Did John in fact ever see an angel? Or know someone who did? Why do you take one for fact, and the other for fiction?

Reborn Outcast
02-25-2003, 10:35 PM
Because angels were known to exist and people had seen them. Helecopters were not. also, if you saw an Apache in a vision shooting full force somewhere with guns blasting, and you lived in 100 AD, what would you compare it to? With a limited knowledge of animals and plants of that time.

Kain
02-25-2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Perhaps, could have been a spirit.

If you were that close to God, and you saw some light ascending down from a cloud, I'd think it was an angel as well. During those times, people did see angels. He had something to compare it perfectly. An angel to an angel.

It says an angel, so I say it was an angel.

do you follow your faith so blindly? If the bible had a verse that read:
And unto all of the followers of Christ, here unto the Great Rapture, shall drown themselves in a great sea at the age of twenty and three.

would you follow it?

obi
02-25-2003, 11:24 PM
It doesn't matter if he would or not. Get back on topic.

munik
02-25-2003, 11:28 PM
So? Locusts were known to exist as well. I don't think the bible describes angels anywhere like it does in Rev. 10:1. So, why is it a description of an angel? Why not some simile, like the locust? And how does John know what an angel would look like? Who does John know that has seen an angel? In fact, how many people have seen angels in the bible? I doubt it'd be more then 10 or 20 people in total, in the entire bible. Yet John would be able to recognize an angel imediately, as odd as it may look.

Kain
02-25-2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Because angels were known to exist and people had seen them.

well if angels didn't have problems showing themselves then, then why dont they do it anymore? not to me of course, but my neighbor(sp?) is ultra religious, and is deserving of some kind of this divine seeing things you put so much stock into, as I'm sure many of you Christians are.

personally*not an attack on anyone*, I think whoever seen that agnel was dreaming, his Id was like 'Religion tiiiiiiiiime' and he dreamt the whole thing.

and what people had seen them? the people in the Bible only, right? there the only ones who have had angels come down to directly intervene in their lives...pretty convinient...

obi
02-25-2003, 11:44 PM
I asked nicely twice, Sorry folks.