Prepare for Armageddon: China's warning to the world | 60 Minutes Australia

[Jesus_is_LORD]

There is a difference between convincing evidence and evidence.

I have presented evidence for the thought of nuclear war in the Bible, you may say it is not convincing evidence, but to say it is not evidence is disingenuous.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

For example, in a court of law there is something called circumstantial evidence.

So Rob lost his wallet in the room, you were the last one in the room that he remembers being there when his wallet
was lost. That is evidence which can be interpreted to build a case and name you a person of interest, it may or may not be convincing evidence, but it is still evidence.

Similarly with the scriptures I have presented.
But your response that it is not evidence and does not support that claim makes me scratch my head.
The best you can say is it does not prove the claim( I agree with that), but to say it does not support the claim, makes me question a few things about how you are processing all of this.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

Support and proof are different. I'm saying it supports it, not that it proves it to be true.

 

[Hitch]

That was not the original question. The original question was about nuclear war. I'm not going to chase a rabbit trail, respectfully speaking.
From proof about nuclear war, to elements, next it will be the duration of the heat.

I'm not defending a position that the world will end by nuclear war, I'm simply showing you passages which could be interpreted that way.
If you feel none of those passages can be interpreted that way, fair. That is how you interpret it, many differ. And since I'm not here
to defend those who differ with you, I don't have much more to say on that topic.

Anything else on the topic?

Actually this is a copy of my post, you brought Pete up not me.

The first two have no relation at all , images of de-creation have been used to describe wars long since past, so Pete is your best chance. However to make Pete's quote work I see you emphasized 'elements', possibly inferring that Pete has added modern physics to his areas of expertise. That leaves the questions How does this relate to 21 century Sino-American rivalry , and the area of Megiddo ?

 

[Hitch]

This is what I found @Hitch concerning the word used for Elements



Strong's Concordance
stoicheion: one of a row, hence a letter (of the alphabet), by ext. the elements (of knowledge)
Original Word: στοιχεῖον, ου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: stoicheion
Phonetic Spelling: (stoy-khi'-on)
Definition: one of a row, a letter (of the alphabet), the elements (of knowledge)
Usage: (a) plur: the heavenly bodies, (b) a rudiment, an element, a rudimentary principle, an elementary rule.
HELPS Word-studies
4747 stoixeíon– properly, fundamentals, like with the basic components of a philosophy, structure, etc.; (figuratively) "first principles," like the basic fundamentals of Christianity.

[4747 (stoixeíon) refers to "the rudiments with which mankind . . . were indoctrinated (before the time of Christ), i.e. the elements of religious training or the ceremonial precepts common alike to the worship of Jews and of Gentiles" (J. Thayer).

The RSV however renders stoixeia as "elemental spirits," i.e. spiritual powers or "cosmic spirits" (DNTT, 2, 828). This views 4747 /stoixeíon ("elements") as ancient astral beings associated with the very beginning (make-up) of the earth.]

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from the same as stoicheó
Definition
one of a row, hence a letter (of the alphabet), by ext. the elements (of knowledge)
NASB Translation
elemental things (2), elementary principles (2), elementary* (1), elements (2), principles (1).

​

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 4747: στοιχεῖον

στοιχεῖον, στοιχειου, τό (from στοῖχος a row, rank, series; hence, properly, that which belongs to any στοῖχος, that of which a στοῖχος is composed; hence), "any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise; an element, first principle". The word denotes specifically:
1. the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not however the written characters (which are called γράμματα), but the spoken sounds: στοιχεῖον φωνῆς φωνή ἀσύνθετος, Plato definition, p. 414 e.; τό ῥω τό στοιχεῖον, id. Crat., p. 426 d.; στοιχεῖον ἐστι φωνή ἀδιαιρετος, οὐ πᾶσα δέ, ἀλλ' ἐξ ἧς πεφυκε συνετή γίγνεσθαι φωνή, Aristotle, poet. 20, p. 1456{b}, 22.

2. the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe (ἐστι δέ στοιχεῖον, ἐξ οὗ πρώτου γίνεται τά γινόμενα καί εἰς ὁ ἔσχατον ἀναλύεται ... τό πῦρ, τό ὕδωρ, ὁ ἀήρ, ἡ γῆ, (Diogenes Laërtius Zeno 137); so very often from Plato down, as in Tim., p. 48 b.; in the Scriptures: Wis. 7:17 Wis. 19:17; 2 Peter 3:10, 12.

3. the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens, or (as others think) because in them the elements of man's life and destiny were supposed to reside; so in the earlier ecclesiastical writings: Ep. ad Diogn. 7, 2 [ET]; Justin Martyr, dialog contra Trypho, 23; τά Οὐρανία στοιχεῖα, id. Apology 2, 5; στοιχεῖα Θεοῦ, created by God, Theophilus Ant. ad Autol. 1, 4; cf. Hilgenfeld, Galaterbrief, pp. 66-77. Hence, some interpreters infelicitously understand Paul's phrase τά στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, Galatians 4:3, 9; Colossians 2:8, 20, of the heavenly bodies, because times and seasons, and so sacred seasons, were regulated by the course of the sun and moon; yet in unfolding the meaning of the passage on the basis of this sense they differ widely.

4. the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles (cf. our 'alphabet' or 'a b c') of any art, science, or discipline; e. g. of mathematics, as in the title of Euclid's well-known work; στοιχεῖα πρῶτα καί μέγιστα χρήστης πολιτείας, Isocrates, p. 18 a.; τῆς ἀρετῆς, Plutarch, de puer. educ. 16, 2; many examples are given in Passow, under the word, 4, ii., p. 1550b; (cf. Liddell and Scott, under the word, II. 3 and 4). In the N. T. we have τά στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ Θεοῦ (see ἀρχή, 1 b., p. 76{b} bottom), Hebrews 5:12, such as are taught to νήπιοι, Hebrews 5:13; τά στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, the rudiments with which mankind like νήπιοι were indoctrinated before the time of Christ, i. e. the elements of religions training, or the ceremonial precepts common alike to the worship of Jews and of Gentiles, Galatians 4:3, 9, (and since these requirements on account of the difficulty of observing them are to be regarded as a yoke — cf. Acts 15:10; Galatians 5:1 — those who rely upon them are said to be δεδουλωμένοι ὑπό τά στοιχεῖα); specifically, the ceremonial requirements especially of Jewish tradition, minutely set forth by theosophists and false teachers, and fortified by specious argument, Colossians 2:8, 20. The phrase τά στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου is fully discussed by Schneckenburger in the Theolog. Jahrbücher for 1848, Part iv., p. 445ff; Neander in the Deutsche Zeitschrift f. Christl. Wissensehaft for 1850, p. 205ff; Kienlen in Reuss u. Cunitz's Beiträge zu d. theolog. Wissenschaften, vol. ii., p. 133ff; E. Schaubach, Comment. qua exponitur quid στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in N. T. sibi velint. (Meining. 1862).


Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
element, principle, rudiment.
Neuter of a presumed derivative of the base of stoicheo; something orderly in arrangement, i.e. (by implication) a serial (basal, fundamental, initial) constituent (literally), proposition (figuratively) -- element, principle, rudiment.

see GREEK stoicheo

So 'elements' as used in Scripture has no connection to modern physics , which in turn means Pete's letter has no connection to nuclear war, correct ?

 

[Hitch]

There is a difference between convincing evidence and evidence.

I have presented evidence for the thought of nuclear war in the Bible, you may say it is not convincing evidence, but to say it is not evidence is disingenuous.

Your only hope is that Pete uses 'elements' much the same way as you or I would . You have since proven that the term is nowhere in Scripture used in the modern sense.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

So 'elements' as used in Scripture has no connection to modern physics , which in turn means Pete's letter has no connection to nuclear war, correct ?

Some parts of the definition do not relate to physics, and other parts speak of the "elements" of the universe.

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

Actually this is a copy of my post, you brought Pete up not me.

The first two have no relation at all , images of de-creation have been used to describe wars long since past, so Pete is your best chance. However to make Pete's quote work I see you emphasized 'elements', possibly inferring that Pete has added modern physics to his areas of expertise. That leaves the questions How does this relate to 21 century Sino-American rivalry , and the area of Megiddo ?

This is an interesting discussion indeed.

Thanks for sharing the perspective.

Have you read the whole Bible before?
And secondly, are you saying that in the parts of the Bible you have read, you have not come across "anything" that would make one see a nuclear war as a
possible way that fits into how the Bible describes Armageddon? This is your position, correct?

 

[Hitch]

This is an interesting discussion indeed.

Thanks for sharing the perspective.

Have you read the whole Bible before?
And secondly, are you saying that in the parts of the Bible you have read, you have not come across "anything" that would make one see a nuclear war as a
possible way that fits into how the Bible describes Armageddon? This is your position, correct?

You have made this one of the more enjoyable exchanges here so to answer directly , yes, yes . I'll present a rather long response , from an old source as I can tell you're no stranger to reading.



The apostle makes a distribution of the world into heaven and earth, and saith they were destroyed with water, and perished. We know that neither the fabric nor substance of the one or other was destroyed, but only men that liveth on the earth; and the apostle tells us (ver. 7) of the heaven and earth that were then, and were destroyed by water, distinct from the heavens and the earth that were now, and were to be consumed by fire; and yet as to the visible fabric of heaven and earth they were the same both before the flood and in the apostle’s time, and continue so to this day; when yet it is certain that the heavens and earth, whereof he spake, were to be destroyed and consumed by fire in that generation. We must, then, for the clearing of our foundation a little, consider what the apostle intends by the heavens and the earth in these two places.
‘ 1. It is certain that what the apostle intends by the world, with its heaven, and earth (vers. 5, 6), which was destroyed ; the same, or some-what of that kind, he intends by the heavens and the earth that were to be consumed and destroyed by fire (ver. 7) ; otherwise there would be no coherence in the apostle’s discourse, nor any kind of argument, but a mere fallacy of words.
‘ 2. It is certain that by the flood, the world, or the fabric of heaven and earth, was not destroyed, but only the inhabitants of the world; and therefore the destruction intimated to succeed by fire is not of the substance of the heavens and the earth, which shall not be consumed until the last day, but of person or men living in the world.
‘3. Then we must consider in what sense men living in the world are said to be the world, and the heavens and earth of it. I shall only insist on one instance to this purpose among many that may be produced: Isa. li. 15, 16. The time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth, was performed by God was when He divided the sea (ver. 15) and gave the law (ver. 16), and said to Zion, Thou art my people; that is, when He took the children of Israel out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state; then He planted the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth: that is, brought forth order, and government, and beauty from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth in the world. And since it is that when mention is made of the destruction of a state and government, it is in that languaue which seems to set forth the end of the world. So Isa. xxxiv. 4, which is yet but the destruction of the state of Edom. The like also is affirmed of the Roman Empire (Rev. vi. 14), which the Jews constantly affirm to be intended by Edom in the prophets. And in our Saviour Christ’s prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv.) He sets it out by expressions of the same importance. It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by heavens and earth, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, were often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which then was destroyed by the flood.
‘ 4. On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state; for which I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text:-
‘(1.) Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews, some of them believing, others opposing, the faith. Now there was no particular concernment of that generation, nor in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judment in general ; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread for the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation ; and, besides, an ample testimony both to the one and the other of the power and dominion of tile Lord Jesus Christ, which was the thing in question between them.
‘(2.) Peter tells them, that after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of (vers. 7-13), ” We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,’ etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. lxv. 17. Now, when shall this be that God shall create these new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness? Saith Peter, ” It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell.” But now it is evident from this place of Isaiah, with chap. lxvi. 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of Gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of Gospel ordinances to endure for ever. The same thing is so expressed Heb. xii. 26-28.
‘ This being the design of the place, I shall not insist longer on the context, but briefly open the words proposed, and fix upon the truth continued in them.
‘First, There is the foundation of the apostle’s inference and exhortation, seeing that all these things, however precious they seem, or what value soever any put upon them, shall be dissolved, that is, destroyed; and that in that dreadful and fearful manner before mentioned, in a day of judgment, wrath, and vengeance, by fire and sword; let others mock at the threats of Christ’s coming: He will come- He will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God Himself planted, -the sun, moon, and stars of the Judaical polity and church, -the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinancy against the Lord Christ, shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed: this we know shall be the end of these things, and that shortly.
‘There is no outward constitution nor frame of things in government or nations, but it is subject to a dissolution, and may receive it, and that in a way of judgment. If any might plead exemption, that, on many accounts, of which the apostle was discoursing in prophetical terms (for it was not yet time to speak it openly to all) might interpose for its share.’*

* Dr. Owen’s Sermon on 2 Peter iii. 11. Works, folio, 1721.

 

[Brad Huber]

In my own mind, since not much is seen in scripture that could be america in the end days (perhaps Daniel 7:4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings. I watched till its wings were plucked off; and it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man, and a man’s heart was given to it. Not a sure thing there either.), a nuclear exchange where the US loses more so and though not utterly destroyed, knocked down to 3rd world status, would make for the true "kings of the east" in scripture. All speculation.