If you're fed up with the Antichrist stuff, skip this post. I just want clarify some things that were already posted.
Lizbo posted:
On a slight tangent, if anyone wants to read an interesting article, give this a read.
I read as far as the point where he misquoted Revelation 13:1 before giving up:
And I saw a beast coming out of the sea with ten horns and seven heads, which stood for seven hills
The bit about the hills isn't in my Bible. Anyway, political leaders have been identified as the Antichrist ever since the time of Nero. What are the chances they got it right this time?
It doesn't appear to be from an "official" translation so it may be from a direct translation of the Hebrew texts, especially since a quick search for the exact phrase used on the website does give results where others are shown using the same quote. Mine (which was my grandfather's and looks to be the King James version) also doesn't use that exact wording. After a bit of searching I found this page which has this bit of text:
Having seven heads - So also the dragon is represented in Revelation 12:3. See the notes on that passage. The representation there is of Satan, as the source of all the power lodged in the two beasts that John subsequently saw. In Revelation 17:9, referring substantially to the same vision, it is said that “the seven heads are seven mountains”; and there can be no difficulty, therefore, in referring this to the seven hills on which the city of Rome was built (compare the notes on Revelation 12:3), and consequently this must be regarded as designed, in some way, to be a representation of Rome.
This suggests it is a matter of translation from the original text. And after a little more searching around, it seems like it could be a matter of another passage further on, Revelations 17:9 that they then backported to 13:1. So it doesn't appear to be so much misquoting as it is a matter of a theologist being more intimately familiar with the entire text than a normal person would.
So, when I said the bit about the hills wasn't in my Bible, I was wrong (but also right). Corey actually takes two separate verses, runs them together, and puts them in his own words. That's a big no-no if you're quoting an original text, even if they are (as here) actually talking about the same thing. And he misses off the verse number from the 17:9 reference (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a typo), which is why I couldn't find it.
Anyway, if anyone here takes this stuff seriously, I'd urge you to go through his argument with the relevant bits of Daniel, Revelation and so on to hand, and make sure he isn't trying to pull any other fast ones. Also, cross out every verse he quotes, and see what's left over at the end, just to make sure he isn't cherry-picking only those parts that (he can make to appear to) support his argument.
By the way, I don't take this stuff seriously. That Bible shares a shelf with such other miscellaneous reference works as an Italian-English dictionary, a first-aid manual and a guide to house plants. Could use a good dusting, now that I look at it...
This is all kinda superfluous to the point I was making anyways though. My point wasn't that Trump is the Antichrist. My point was that he ticks off a lot of the boxes the Bible uses to describe the Antichrist and yet tons of American Christians still support him despite him being so blatantly the antithesis of what a Christian is supposed to be.
Well, it's only Corey's opinion that he ticks those boxes; he doesn't prove that the fundamentalists share his interpretation. But that's also superfluous, since obviously Fartpants ought to be anathema to anyone with any moral standards whatsoever, regardless of their beliefs.
We now return you to our regular programming.
