Attack Helicopters in Revelation?

[ckcsaber]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Ease up, please.....this thread was going good. Let's keep it that way.

[RpTheHotrod]

btw...

 

M*A*S*H owns

[lukeskywalker1]

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 (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.

 

 

Lukeskywalker1

[munik]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?