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'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.