This is a "What If" scenario intended to generate discussion and alternative analysis.
First let's go through a few established known truths:
-
The apostle John wrote Revelations while exiled on Patmos
-
John was a beloved apostle and was an eyewitness to the teachings and miracles of Jesus
-
John was a faithful apostle and reliable
-
Revelations is particularly difficult to understand given the imagery and symbolism
-
Revelations basic message is that GOD is in control and his Victory is assured. All who believe and trust in Jesus Christ will be saved
-
Revelations closes human history in the same way Genesis opened it--- in Paradise
-
Genesis describes the introduction of evil to humans, Revelations describes the annihilation of evil for forever
-
We've been taught that Revelations describes the end of humanity
So what if Revelations is describing the end of the World as we know it... Not the end of Earth literally?
What if Revelations is a message to the cabal directly... telling them how their rule ends?
What if eradicating the luciferians is literally the eradication of evil forever?
What if when Q uses the word biblical -- it's a reference to the book of Revelations and the last epic battle between Good and evil?
What if the "panic" that Q describes is literally their hysteria and panic knowing that their world is coming to an end?
Call it intuition or a gut feeling.....but my entire life I've been taught that Revelations describes an end to humanity. One week ago it occurred to me that this could be just another misunderstood concept. When I dig in and apply the Q context to Revelations......it makes sense to me that we're witnessing it happen and it's not our destruction that John described. He described THEIR destruction.
Then again... I could be wrong.
I didn't say anything about Trump.
No, you didn't mention Trump. That's true. It's just that the equating of what the Book of Revelation describes with Q makes it seem as if Q is taking the place of God. Revelation is understandable, and it isn't the only book in the Bible with prophecy of the end times. Daniel includes it and so does Matthew (chapter 24). There are other pictures in the major and minor prophets. As noted in my comment, I have no problem believing that God can show us a picture of the 1,000 year reign of Christ and use men or a computer or whatever Q is and a man like President Trump to show us that picture. I cannot believe, however, that Q is God or that Q can bring on the 1,000 year reign which will then lead us into an eternity of goodness. My belief that He can do so if He wishes to do so is based on the biblical fact that He has shown us pictures of the anti-Christ. We just have to be very careful with what we equate to Q. Q is not God.
For those who mentioned they don't want to see heaven, my heart bleeds for them. Heaven isn't utopia. Heaven is the place where God resides, where we will live with Him in perfection, sanctified by His mercy, to live and serve Him forever.
Okay, I'm not equating anything. I asked a question-- What if Q is referencing the book of Revelation.
The post is meant to generate discussion and alternative analysis.
For everyone dead set on the age old analysis, the absolute certainty that what has been taught for ages can not be questioned.....this post isn't for you.
For everyone reading upset that the current interpretation of the book written 2,000 years ago could have a different application, this post isn't for you.
For everyone reading that wants to pick apart the post instead of think about it, this post isn't for you.
I'm not trying to be combative. Honestly, but I had commented back to you that maybe I did misunderstand what you were saying, maybe we were on the same wavelength and coming at it from different directions. However, with your response, I think that we are on different wavelengths, but that's okay with me. Good conversation comes from discussing where we stand on issues. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to bow down to what you believe. Combat conversation is for Twitter, and that's why I explained my tone when I write something. I write for a living, and I edit for a living. I can sound more direct than I really mean to sound. I have a standard apology for all the writers I work with for the publisher I edit for, and I always have to apologize to my poor editor at the publisher I write for. That apology is similar to the one I gave to you in a previous comment but It is sincere. I have trouble turning the switch from work to non-work communication.
Let's just agree to disagree and still remain friendly--and I think you did that in your response. I appreciate it. Maybe we'll see some other people's thoughts that may differ from both of us. I saw a few before I responded.