[genny]

In another thread, fromtheotherside, speaking of the materials presented againt the wmscog, said "none of your evidences speak for itself.  if you have such evidence present it without your explanation."

I presented several 'evidences without explanation' there, but I think it would be a good idea to take each one separately into its own thread.  Here's the first one:

Regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church being the Antichrist: the Ostrogoths were not destroyed in 538, the '10 kingdoms' from the Roman empire were not as the WMSCOG presents, 5 were destroyed not 3, and the destruction or survival of these 'kingdoms' did not depend on their following the Catholic Church.  These are historical, textbook facts.

I originally did not link to my research about it, because fromtheotherside did not want explanation, but if you'd like to see the research, I've collected it here:

http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/11/daniels-prophecy.html

http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-666-pope-part-3.html

fromtheotherside tried to answer this point but so far was unsuccessful.  I'll copy those pieces of the conversation here from the other thread, just to keep everything together.

[emil]

[emil]

You are right. This prophecy already happened. Dn 7 shows that it happened before Jesus came to this earth. As to what it screams at you, it is pure imagination and does not fit the narrative in the bible. The imagination is not born out of what you know, but what has been taught to you. Get rid of preconceived notions and read the bible with a clear and open mind.

I assure you are not over analyzing. On the contrary, your analysis is forcing you to fit the bible account with what you have read from other sources. If it does not fit, don't doubt the bible for a second. Doubt the sources with the conflicting interpretation.

[fromtheotherside]

emil wrote:

Is everyone clear that Dan 7 is in sequence and does not fit the SDA/WMSCOG interpretation? FTOS, angelwings?

Too bad no one agrees with you, Dan 7 no matter which way you put does not come out the way you wanted, you still haven't proven anything.

[fromtheotherside]

emil wrote:

fromtheotherside wrote:

I know but worship is like actually sitting down and singing and praying and listening to a sermon, as for praying it's praying. and my comment was for sarah and emil not simon

Ok so singing and praying and listening to a sermon is worship. Praying is not worship unless singing and listening to a sermon is included. Do I understand you correctly?

Do you admit deaf and mute people into the wmscog? What do they do on the sabbath?

And God does not want us to worship continuously. Only pray continuously.

I'm beginning to feel sad for ftos. Anyone else feels the same?

Now your just getting technical, worship is a formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage to God. You know what worship means don't act stupid.

[fromtheotherside]

Emil refuses to prove her point by explaining further, she believes that revelation and Dan has nothing to do with eachother, and does not specify why, no one has agreed with her points, and she just pat's herself on her own back, I do feel sad for her.  Emil your one point on the wording of Dan to prove it is in sequence I see no one agrees to that.  Your whole view contradicts Rev and 2 thes and other parts of the bible, yet you feel the very opposite and refuse to prove it, which means you can't.  Really sad.  anyhow I think if you refuse to prove your point there is no use in speaking about that specific point any further.  

[angelwings]

I'm still not convinced about the sequence in Daniel.  Revelations and Daniel are clearly talking about the same events and there is more overwhelming evidence to corroborate that fact. I just don't see how it is in sequence.

[genny]

fromtheotherside wrote:

emil wrote:

fromtheotherside wrote:

I know but worship is like actually sitting down and singing and praying and listening to a sermon, as for praying it's praying. and my comment was for sarah and emil not simon

Ok so singing and praying and listening to a sermon is worship. Praying is not worship unless singing and listening to a sermon is included. Do I understand you correctly?

Do you admit deaf and mute people into the wmscog? What do they do on the sabbath?

And God does not want us to worship continuously. Only pray continuously.

I'm beginning to feel sad for ftos. Anyone else feels the same?

Now your just getting technical, worship is a formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage to God. You know what worship means don't act stupid.

That's your definition of worship, fromtheotherside, but not the Bible's definition.  Here's the Hebrew word for "worship" and it is about paying homage and bowing down, but not about a ceremony. "shachah" — http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/7812.htm

Maybe you can show us where the Bible uses "worship" to mean a formal ceremony.

I didn't see any response to this yet:

genny wrote:

fromtheotherside wrote:

a point in time as for the work of god doesn't have to match the thought of man,  to god 538 can certainly become a point in time, with that one arguable point you cannot dismiss tht all the other points add up perfectly and sensably

Do you see what you are doing?  You say that 538 must be a point in time to God, even though man can't see it.  That is an excuse to make the year 538 work for you.  The wmscog teaches that man can see this point, using it as a big "you see!  The Catholic Church matches!" when their information does not line up.

(sorry I'm so late responding to this post.  It's been a rough week.)

[emil]

fromtheotherside wrote:

Emil refuses to prove her point by explaining further, she believes that revelation and Dan has nothing to do with eachother, and does not specify why, no one has agreed with her points, and she just pat's herself on her own back, I do feel sad for her.  Emil your one point on the wording of Dan to prove it is in sequence I see no one agrees to that.  Your whole view contradicts Rev and 2 thes and other parts of the bible, yet you feel the very opposite and refuse to prove it, which means you can't.  Really sad.  anyhow I think if you refuse to prove your point there is no use in speaking about that specific point any further.  

 

angelwings wrote:

I'm still not convinced about the sequence in Daniel.  Revelations and Daniel are clearly talking about the same events and there is more overwhelming evidence to corroborate that fact. I just don't see how it is in sequence.

Poor girl FTOS. I have given you not 1 but 3 incontrovertible points to prove that Dan 7 is in sequence. I have not seen anyone disagreeing with that except you and angelwings. That is because you have been taught that Dan 7 and Rev are about the same event. But tell me what evidence in the bible tells you it is the same event? Angelwings, you too are saying like FTOS girl that these are the same event. tell me how you can come to that conclusion. Why should it be considered as the same event? Is it because the wmscog says it?

My view is about Dn 7 and not about Rev or 2 Thes. Since I am not even refering to those two books, how can I be contradicting them?

[Sarah2013]

You are not contradicting them, Emil.

[emil]

fromtheotherside wrote:

I know but worship is like actually sitting down and singing and praying and listening to a sermon, as for praying it's praying. and my comment was for sarah and emil not simon

Gen 22:5 –

He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

So where was the choir? Who was preaching the sermon?

Gen 24:26 –

Then the man bowed down and worshiped the Lord

Sorry which day of the week was it again? Can't worship on any day other than the sabbath is it?

Ok so you guys may say that is before the 10 comandments were given. Lets take a later example, fresh after the commandments.

Ex 33:10 –

Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshiped, each at the entrance to their tent.

It didn't matter which day of the week it was. And once again lets hear who is preaching the sermon. I can give you several more examples of later kings about worship not being restricted to a particular day of the week or having the ingredients you have specified. Genny's definition gives you the right meaning.

Let the bible teach you, not the wmscog.

[emil]

Sarah2013 wrote:

You are not contradicting them, Emil.

FTOS says nobody here agrees with me that Dn 7 is in sequence. I have provided 3 points to prove it.

[emil]

fromtheotherside wrote:

Emil refuses to prove her point by explaining further, she believes that revelation and Dan has nothing to do with each other, and does not specify why, no one has agreed with her points, and she just pat's herself on her own back, I do feel sad for her.  Emil your one point on the wording of Dan to prove it is in sequence I see no one agrees to that.  Your whole view contradicts Rev and 2 thes and other parts of the bible, yet you feel the very opposite and refuse to prove it, which means you can't.  Really sad.  anyhow I think if you refuse to prove your point there is no use in speaking about that specific point any further.  

FTOS girl, I have proved that Dn 7 does not fit your interpretation. Whether it agrees with Revelation or not is a totally different question. If I implied that they have nothing to do with each other, I am sorry and take it back. I have not studied Rev from that perspective yet so I cannot answer you about the comparison. They may or may not be the same. If YOUR interpretation fits Rev but does not fit Dn 7, then logically speaking, Rev and Dn 7 must be different. You can feel sad all you want, it does not matter.

The fact of the matter is that the claim of the sda/wmscog about the interpretation of Dn 7 is proved wrong. That is the sum and substance of what I am saying currently. If you believe they are the same then YOU must prove it. My goal was to prove your interpretation of Dn 7 is wrong and I have achieved that objective.

[Sarah2013]

And that is true, you have. I have been following the debate.

[emil]

angelwings wrote:

I'm still not convinced about the sequence in Daniel.  Revelations and Daniel are clearly talking about the same events and there is more overwhelming evidence to corroborate that fact. I just don't see how it is in sequence.

I have given 3 points to prove it is in sequence. Either dispute the points themselves or prove in any other way from the bible that Dn 7 is not a sequential narrative. Don't just assert that you are not convinced. Whether Rev and Dn 7 is about the same events or not is beside the point, once it is clear that Dn 7 does not match your interpretation. You cannot force the bible to say what you think it should say. If you do not want to accept it, I am not forcing you to. It will be best for your soul if you stay around and prove how you are right or accept you are wrong. Your choice.

[fromtheotherside]

You proved nothing you just keep insisting even though I already showed you your errors, and you have not disputed those points i have already given you except that you just say "I dont' want to explain" So with just your insistence, you can't push your views on people.  Show me why my points are false.  You have not done any of that.  Emil you are cute I like you, very fiesty.  So prove I'm wrong or accept youve been beaten.  So far no one agrees with you, still.  Sarah agrees with anyone against us so she doesn't count.  No one believes you what a pitty. Emil where are from? 

[Sarah2013]

🙂

[emil]

fromtheotherside wrote:

You proved nothing you just keep insisting even though I already showed you your errors, and you have not disputed those points i have already given you except that you just say "I dont' want to explain" So with just your insistence, you can't push your views on people.  Show me why my points are false.  You have not done any of that.  Emil you are cute I like you, very fiesty.  So prove I'm wrong or accept youve been beaten.  So far no one agrees with you, still.  Sarah agrees with anyone against us so she doesn't count.  No one believes you what a pitty. Emil where are from? 

My friend, you have a fixed idea in your head and you will refuse to change it even when proof is provided. You have proved nothing. You are the one insisting your point. For instance, for several posts now you reveal that I am female. Should I provide you proof that I am male? Would it matter to you or will you continue insisting what you think you know even though you cannot prove it? You would probably go back to all YOUR posts and say I am called girl in them so I must be 'girl'.

I have proved to you that Dn 7 is in sequence and thus does not match the interpretation that the wmscog has claimed. What errors have you shown me in my proof? You have said that my conclusion that Dan 7 is in sequence does not match with Rev so I must be wrong. You have not shown how my proof is wrong. You told me to explain why I think Dan 7 and Rev are different. I don't have to explain that because I am neither claiming them to be the same nor different. My proof is based solely on Dan 7. You cannot just dismiss my proof because you think Dn 7 and Rev are the same and that Rev matches your interpretation. I have provided proof that Dn 7 is in sequence and your interpretation doesn't match it. You have provided none  to show that it matches. Even if all the members on this site were to come here and post in support, you would say the same as what you said about Sarah. What a pity. Not pitty. If you can debate logically, welcome.

[emil]

In short:

Have I proved Dan 7 is a sequential narrative? YES

Have you proved it is not sequential? NO. All you have said is that it cannot be because then it wouldn't agree with what you have been told.

[emil]

angelwings wrote:

I'm still not convinced about the sequence in Daniel.  Revelations and Daniel are clearly talking about the same events and there is more overwhelming evidence to corroborate that fact. I just don't see how it is in sequence.

You asked me where in the bible it says that the beast will be thrown in the lake of fire and then Jesus will come. I told you it is in Dan 7. I showed you how we can clearly see it is in sequence. You say it cannot be. Why? Because you have been told that Rev and Dan 7 are "clearly talking about the same events". How do you know they are talking about the same events? What makes you believe that? Is there anything in the bible that tells you that? Or is it because your church told you that? Can you post here some of that overwhelming evidence that you say you have?

You said before that you check everything with your pastor because they have the truth. If you have the courage, show him/her the 3 proofs I have given. Ask him/her to explain why Dan 7 doesn't seem to agree with the wmscog interpretation. 

Then come back and debate with me and show me how my proof is wrong.

[fromtheotherside]

LOLz you sound like a girl! Well even if you are not you are still so cute and fiesty! haha.  I wouldn't take what you provided back to me to my pastor because it makes no sense.  Why would i ask about something that just doesn't make sense, and I know even just by reading Dan your "proof" is totally absurd!  Well emil girl or boy or thing whatever you are, then tell me what is the beast in rev that was given power by the serpent and the beast in Dan why are they different? As you say they are different, so prove it.  I don't have to give you my points you should already know them, as does every Xmember.

[emil]

FTOS – I should point out that my posts are strictly discussing the issue and not about you. I do not use any adjectives to describe you. Doing that is judgmental. You should read your posts and see why people get annoyed. You don't have to describe me. Just focus on the points we discuss. My personality or yours does not change the issue. Hope you understand the baseline of discussion/debate.

As far as I know, I have only told angelwings to consult her pastor. I don't remember telling you that in this thread.

If you focus on what I have said rather than on who you think I am, you would understand my point of view better. I have clarified that I am neither saying Rev and Dan are different nor am I saying they are the same. I have already shown from the bible itself that Dan 7 is in sequence and therefore does not fit your interpretation. It is up to you to show how my proof is wrong. You cannot just reject my proof because it doesn't agree with what you believe. Does it agree with the bible?

If you say my proof is wrong because Dan and Rev is about the same events then you have to prove two things:

1. You have prove that they (Dan and Rev) are of the same event

AND

2. You have to prove that they both support the interpretation.

Please lets keep this debate civilized and about issues, not personalities.