WT,DEC 1 2005,PP22-23;IS THIS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT? (page 14)

badboy

SCHIZM,IF YOU SAID THAT TO SOMEONE ON THE DOOR`Rome ruled America around AD 33,they might wonder what you are talking about.

badboy

SCHIZM,ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT THE ROMAN EMPIRE RULED ARCTIC AND ANTARCTIA

All he is saying is that god gave the "authority" to king Nebuchadnezzar to be ruler of the world. Whether that rulership extended to or influenced other nations doesn't matter. God was the one who recognised him as ruler since he was used in gods plan. The King of Anartica was too busy freezing his ass off and didn't care who was ruler of the world!

Gumby

badboy

I AM SURPRISED THAT THIS THREAD KNOTTED UP 133 REPLIES AND2,500 PLUS VIEWS IN MY ABSENSE.

Schizm

SCHIZM,IF YOU SAID THAT TO SOMEONE ON THE DOOR`Rome ruled America around AD 33,they might wonder what you are talking about.
SCHIZM,ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT THE ROMAN EMPIRE RULED ARCTIC AND ANTARCTIA

First of all, technically speaking, a government (Babylon or Rome) can't rule over people who don't exist in certain regions of the earth. Can it truly be ascertained that the Indians, who were here in America when Columbus "discovered" this continent, were also here at the time that Babylon and Rome are said to have ruled the world? Is it really known precisely WHEN the Indian peoples first infiltrated this continent? Also, if it is claimed that the Indians were here even as late as Rome's day, exactly WHOSE word are we having to trust for that? Another thought to consider is that In Danial 2 Nebuchadnezzar was called "king of kings". That seems to imply that Nebuchadnezzar was king over all other kings of his day. Wherever there is a "king" there is a "nation" or "kingdom," right? Can it be said the the Indians were a nation or kingdom, with a king as its leader? I think most people would agree that at best the original Indians amounted to nothing more than a tribe or tribes of nomadic peoples who may or may not have had a "chief" as their leader. But, in trying to reason this out, there is still the words "wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling" that has to be dealt with. When it comes to the word "wherever," how could that not include the American continent IF there were indeed people living here at the time.
Then there's this to consider: Since Babylon (and Rome) was said to be a "king of kings" might it be possible that "wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling" applies only to peoples who were organized into being a "nation" or "kingdom"? If that were the case, it would be saying that a tribe of Indians here and there weren't significant enough to be concerned with. So which is it? Was Nebuchadnezzar to have dominion over peoples "wherever" they might have lived? Or, was his dominion concerned only with "wherever" there were peoples who were organized into being "nations" or "kingdoms"? Supposing that in Nebuchanezzar's day there were in fact peoples occupying the area today known as "China," were those peoples organized into a "nation"?
One thing for certain is that the 7 Kings (as well as the 8th King) of Revelation 17 are ALL of the same "class". Another thing for certain is that the 8th King will indeed exercise world-wide dominion (scripturally provable). The WTS is mistaken in assigning the 7 Kings a mere "dominant" role. Because they're all Kings of the same "class" the 7th King would have to rule the entire world even as did the 6 Kings that preceded it, and even as the 8th King that will follow it will do. Since Britain and America do NOT exercise universal rule there is no way possible that these 2 nations could be fulfilling the role of 7th King. .

jgnat

*sigh* China was a nation before Babylon was born, same as the Mayan empire.

gumby

*sigh* China was a nation before Babylon was born, same as the Mayan empire.

Hey gnathead! Schizm went to the Pioneer School and asked me to speak for him till he returns so I'm gonna answer like he does for him.......k? ...."Well Jgnat, I see your up to your old tricks again ......talking as if you know what your talking about when you don't. Do you think because China existed BEFORE Babylon that it could not BECOME under the rule or authority of Babylon? What nonsense! Your going to have to do better than that....but then again, maybe your doing your best as it is *sigh* Gumschizm

Schizm

Thank you, Gumshizm ... you didn't do too badly filling in for me while I was away visiting a different thread and attending to a couple of emails.

The one thing that I would add to what you've so elequently spoken in my behalf, is this (even if it does sound dumb to jgnat):

You (jgnat) speak as if you know for a certainty that "China was a nation before Babylon was born, same as the Mayan empire." What I'd like to know is, How can you be so sure of yourself? Upon whose word are you resting your belief? How dependable is that "word"? Can it be proven to be true? Please do tell. And please be specific in your answer.

.

jgnat

Is this "repetition for emphasis"? I won't let up because a falsehood cannot be made true no matter how many times you repeat it. I've provided my case, several different ways. Uncertainty over details does not negate the overwhelming evidence of thriving, NON-BABYLONIAN and NON-ROMAN cultures during their heydey.

Shizm, your romance with a king's "world", it's definition and meaning, goes beyond reason. You casually give up Antartica and Greenland, but insist your Babylonian King MUST have dominated all empires of his day. When he clearly did not.

I think you have spent your cups on the books too much. It is time for walkabout. Ever been to China?

...and gumby my sweet, an adorable charicature, that. Anybody ever mail you cookies?

gumby

and gumby my sweet, an adorable charicature, that. Anybody ever mail you cookies?

Why yes......do you need my address!!!!

*stomach starts growlin*

Gumby

WT,DEC 1 2005,PP22-23;IS THIS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT?

Share this