Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Is the Mark of the Beast literal?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AETERNAM REX" data-source="post: 75500" data-attributes="member: 3949"><p>It appears figurative. While I agree that much of the bible is indeed literal, I have to note the cryptic nature. It stands to reason the mark is equally figurative as monsters. How do you base your premise? What is your standard of reason? It is cryptic words on paper.</p><p></p><p>Consider this:</p><p>If I present a picture of a sea monster to you and I claim it's real you are forced to argue its validity on the basis of the evidence that I present or create. Under these circumstances, you can't win. If you look at the picture and argue that sea monsters should have more teeth or their incisors are not in proportion to the amount of fish they eat, it's easy to ask you how you know so much about sea monsters if they don't exist. Granted, you could point to dinosaur skeletons and make comparisons. But I can still say, its not a dinosaur, it's a sea monster. In fact, I could even "whip" up some tooth marks on a piece of petrified wood and prove to you don't know anything about sea monsters.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AETERNAM REX, post: 75500, member: 3949"] It appears figurative. While I agree that much of the bible is indeed literal, I have to note the cryptic nature. It stands to reason the mark is equally figurative as monsters. How do you base your premise? What is your standard of reason? It is cryptic words on paper. Consider this: If I present a picture of a sea monster to you and I claim it's real you are forced to argue its validity on the basis of the evidence that I present or create. Under these circumstances, you can't win. If you look at the picture and argue that sea monsters should have more teeth or their incisors are not in proportion to the amount of fish they eat, it's easy to ask you how you know so much about sea monsters if they don't exist. Granted, you could point to dinosaur skeletons and make comparisons. But I can still say, its not a dinosaur, it's a sea monster. In fact, I could even "whip" up some tooth marks on a piece of petrified wood and prove to you don't know anything about sea monsters. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Is the Mark of the Beast literal?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top