Then the sixth angel blew his trumpet, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar before God, saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, "Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates." So the four angels were released, who had been held ready for the hour, the day, the month, and the year, to kill a third of humankind. The number of the troops of cavalry was two hundred million; I heard their number." Revelation 9:13-16
The Rev. Irvin Baxter, who lives in Richmond, Ind., and works as the pastor of Oak Park Church and the editor of Endtime magazine, told the Associated Press that he's "75 to 80 percent sure" this description from the ninth chapter of the New Testament's Book of Revelation is a description of the pending war in Iraq. He believes this war is the sixth trumpet. He believes it foretells a nuclear holocaust that will kill one-third of the people on Earth. He believes this is the end-time.
Baxter told AP he hopes he's wrong, but he thinks the fifth trumpet mentioned in Revelation-- "...and from the shaft rose smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft"--may have already been fulfilled when Saddam Hussein set the oil fields ablaze in the first Gulf War.
And he's not the only one who thinks the Bible's prophecies in Revelation are coming true. Are we heading straight into the Apocalypse and God's final judgment? It's a hot topic right now from Sunday morning Bible study groups in church basements to Web chat rooms.
Here are two clues from the Book of Revelation that lead some people to think this is the end-time:
Euphrates River
The Euphrates River runs through Iraq, just miles from Baghdad. Not only is it referenced in the ninth chapter quoted above, but also later in Revelation. The bowl contains God's anger: The sixth angel poured his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up in order to prepare the way for the kings from the east. Revelation: 16:12
Destroyer=Saddam
They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon. Revelation 9:11
If the numbers of this chapter and verse aren't enough to give you the shivers, try this: Both the Hebrew "Abaddon" and the Greek "Apollyon" mean "destroyer," which is also one of the meanings of the name "Saddam."
"Iraq fits like hand in glove," Baxter told Washington Post reporter Bill Broadway.
But not all theologians and biblical scholars agree the end-time is near. One such person is Craig C. Hill, a professor of the New Testament at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. and the author of "In God's Time: The Bible and the Future." He told The Post that apocalyptic thinking is a fatalistic worldview that prevents people from enjoying the life they have now. It also makes them become "morally complacent," he said.
It's very difficult to read Revelation literally, filled as it is with symbolism, numerology, and visions that can be interpreted many different ways. Catholic theologian Dr. Paul Thigpen told Greenville (South Carolina) News reporter Deb Richardson-Moore: "In different generations, people will plug in the values. They'll take whatever is going on in their day and make it a one-on-one equivalent with things in the book of Revelation."
The Rev. Elva Martin, pastor of the Word of Truth Assembly of God in Anderson, S.C., says we shouldn't be afraid. God is in control. "People are getting very upset about all of this and wondering if we're going to be blown off the map by Iraq," she told The Greenville News. "I feel like when they see this, they'll come out with a stronger faith in God."
What would be the result if certain governments decided to try to fulfill the prophecies? Maybe this would be a good way to instill fear amongst a vast section of the worlds population.
Maybe the revelations 9:11 is no coincidence. maybe (a lot of maybes) the perpetrators were fully aware of the relevance of that chapter no. and also knew what they would do following NY911 to fulfill the prophecy.
Originally posted by bitwiz44 Isnt this along what hiltler pulled? And can anyone apply Nostromdamas profices?
sure can!!!! let's all go into the desert, find a cave, cuz the world's going to end! revelations was done by pcp addicts! read the rest of the Bible! get on with life!
There's only one problem. If it is possible to phophesize - that being the revealing of something that will definately happen, then it cannot exclude any other event. Since all moments and actions are connected to one another, and influence one another, the telling of one event must include the knowledge of all other events throughout the universe. This is to say that all of history then, is perfectly predictable and phophecizable, if you will. Every fraction of time, every moment, thought, every movement down to the atomic level is "knowable" before it happens.
Scientifically, this is possible. Any scientist will tell you that he can produce identical results in the lab with a chemical reaction, or whatever his goal is, as long as he has done the research to acquire the knowledge of all the parameters required to produce the desired result. In other words, if we heat water to over 100 deg. C at normal barametric pressure, and all the other known conditions required, then we will always be able to predict that the water will boil - with all the known conditions in place. If the water does not boil, the scientist must discover the unknown factor unaccounted for.
Such is the same with human behavoir. Though some will undoubtedly debate and deny this, our brain's function, chemistry, biology and all the other metabolic and living functions are always perfectly predictable - as long as we have all the scientific knowledge to do so. God has set up the physical laws the material world to be an absolute. It is impossible to defy the laws of the universe, whether they be physical or spiritual, the laws are true laws and never be evaded.
Knowing certain facts about brain chemistry, function and the person's history (all the things that effect our actions, thoughts, feelings, etc.), the scientist can accurately predict a person's behavior. And will concede that if there is a variation from what he expects, it is simply due to the some factor that he has not determined yet. So if we did have all the immense knowledge required, yes we could predict every fraction of a moment, every event, the entire course of the future.
If we are God, who is omnipresent, then it might be as easy as knowing that water is definately going to boil - if certain conditions preceed it. The idea that God presents His knowledge of an event and makes it available to us if we have "the eyes" for it is conceivable - obviously, because we're talking about it.
The problem, as I stated initially, is that if one portion of it is revealed, then it must all already be determined...the concept of pre-destination in its absolute sense. So no matter, what we think, feel or do could ever make any difference - i.e. change that which is prophecized. In effect, it's already been recorded...just hasn't played out yet. If you don't like the concept of a pre-recorded life, then you can't believe in prophecy. Prophecy could only truely exist by devine knowledge of all of time. Maybe "pre-recorded" isn't the best term, but think of it as the knowledge of the conditions required to boil water are "recorded" memories - memory is required to know something.
I'm certain that randomness exists. There is random, spontaneous generation & self-destruction of sub-atomic particles in the vicinity of a black hole's event horizon. There is randomness in the subatomic motions of atoms. If an atom were free-floating all by itself in absolutely empty space somewhere in the universe, electrons would continue to randomly generate a "field" around the atom without any external influence. If there were some mathematical, pre-deterministic formula that applied to all things in the universe, the electrons would follow some predictable pattern, but instead they do not.
In my opinion, if randomness can influence the universe on a subatomic level, then it might have some effect on the atomic level. And if it has some effect on the atomic level, it might have some effect on the molecular level. And if it has some effect on the molecular level, it might have some effect on more compound, solids, liquids, gasses and radiation. And if it has some effect on these things then it is possible that there is a degree of randomness, of chaos, of unpredicatability to every event which transpires in the Universe and that nothing is pre-determined.
I believe this is the way things truly are.
As for self-fulfilling prophecies, all you have to do is wake up in the morning and say to yourself, "I'm going to have a bad day today." With the prophecy of having a bad day looming in your mind, all things that are bad will stick out sharply at you and eventually it will not be difficult to recognize that you've indeed had a bad day. This is a most simple example, but if you apply it to Nostradamus, then look what we have: generalized prophecies which people the world-over have attempted to align with actual events time and time again. Any prophecy has the potential to self-fulfil, for if nobody had ever known of the prophecy, perhaps the event may never have occurred.
You've mistaken the definition of random to mean - falling outside of law of physics. Random is when you've got a bowl of marbles, and you close your eyes, and pick one out of the bowl, without consciously choosing the marble. Randomness also implies an equality. Any group whether it be people or subatomic particles breaking down or getting sucked into a black hole will do so randomly because they must possess some factor of equal opportunity.
Without spending any more time on that, you're trying to say that human behavior is random. That would mean no one would have done anything remotely similar to what they did the day before. or the moment before.
Funny, I just posted something on self-fulfilling prophecy on another thread. There is all the evidence we need of SFP. In fact, it was a primary componet of how most of us run our entire lives, who we think we are, etc.
Exactly (self fulfilling prophecy). Generalized human behavior and the nature of man is easy to predict. I don't think we're talking about false/fake prophecy that was a mere guess or thoughtful estimate - that by simply by waiting long enough comes true. We're talking about the genuine concept of actually being able to "see the future" - indicated by detailed descriptions and details of events. Those that were made, sealed away, and not in any way known to the people involved in the prophesized event - proven that they were truely prophetic. Have you ever heard of any of that? Nostradamous spread his prophecies all over the place for all to know. His don't count one bit. Edgar Cayce maybe?
Originally posted by Tdog Without spending any more time on that, you're trying to say that human behavior is random. That would mean no one would have done anything remotely similar to what they did the day before. or the moment before.
Sort of - I'm proposing that randomness has an influence on human behavior to some extent, but not that human behavior is at all times random. If it were always random there would be no predictability.
As reality would have it in fact there is quite a bit about human behavior which is predictable, hence psychologists are actually able to remain employeed and make sound judgements. Human behavior does seem to repeat certain pieces of programming time and again, however randomness does come in to play during decision-making. It is possible to start rattling off digits 0-9 for a week straight selecting at random and never encounter a predictable pattern in the digit selection process. This is because the mind is quite capable of random selection without pre-programmed constraints.
This random selection capability could easily influence decisions; where logic/rationality finds equal weight on either of two choices, how do you finally make a selection without "hanging" in an indefinite logic loop which determines that neither selection is more logical than the other? Answer: random selection.
And if random selection affects the decision-making process for humans then lo & behold: the "fate" of mankind is truly unpredictable.
Sean, I'm very sorry, but your reasoning is very week. Firstly, have you done a study of a person who is told to rattle off numbers in a random fashion for a week? If not, do your own study and tell the subject that you want to have him give numbers "in a random fashion". That thought will be used in his brain, in a conscious attempt to be random. He would continually be thinking something like "okay, the next number has to be unrelated to the last". He'll be consciously analyzing the last number said, and using that to determine the next. That is not randomness.
Nothing we do is random. There no such thing as as partial randomness, like you suggest. It would like saying, I've got partial freedom, or she's partially pregnant. It's either random, or it isn't. There is no evidence whatsoever that any human behavior is the result of randomness, you're example of decision making example is incorrect. If a person is torn between making a decision, unless he flips a coin (involving chance), he will always use a hunch, gut feeling, and many other subconciously influenced thoughts and motivations to help him make the decision which suits him best. Thoughts (the precurser to all intentional action) are the last thing that could ever be considered random - there is always plenty behind them explaining exactly why they formed.
Come on, if there were any detectable randomness in human behavior, we could never survive. We'd all be dieing by driving our cars off of cliffs because of a random thought to turn the wrong way. We're always in complete control - whether we know/believe it or not.
Originally posted by Tdog ..if there were any detectable randomness in human behavior, we could never survive. We'd all be dieing by driving our cars off of cliffs because of a random thought to turn the wrong way. We're always in complete control - whether we know/believe it or not.
I welcome a debate to what I propose, but your debate at least has to remain sensible. I have not implied that random selection might lead someone to suddenly jerk the steering wheel and drive off a cliff. I have said that where reason, logic (hunch, emotions, whatever else you want to lay over the top of that) fails the only resolution is random selection. Logic, reason, instinctive self preservation, sense of responsibility and a host of other things easily prevents people from driving off the road without cause.
All I'm saying is that if you have no preference between the colors green and blue and each of them makes perfect sense from luminosity, emotional & reaction appeal, common marketing & psychological associations and such and you really have no reason, hunch, emotion, attachment or any other guiding force to lead you to select one over the other.. and yet you DO select one: what drives the selection?
I agree that there are many subconscious pieces of programming that guide our decision-making process that people are not aware of because that is the nature of "subconsciousness". However the random number example does work. I'm a numbers person myself and am positive that I could produce a string of numbers for hours, days, months or years straight that have as little pattern as pi - and since you ask, in fact I have done some experimentation on this front while researching techniques for improved computer-based random number generation (I'm a software/systems engineer) which is why I write to this point.
The decision-making process is clearly influenced by subconscious programming, higher reasoning and I suspect as well by random selection. I think it is directly related to artistic capabilities such as music or painting, which has allowed millions of people over countless milennia to produce fresh, new artwork never before witnessed by humans.
What you propose is that "randomness" doesn't exist, that Universe's destiny is pre-ordained. Yet alchemists, philosophers & scientists have found a clear need to describe a phenomenon which is unpredictable by nature and have called it "randomness". There must be such a phenomenon, otherwise the "rules" of the Universe that you describe are far too complex to be even reasonably possible. Most scientists argue that "all things being equal, the simplest explanation is most likely the truth." For the ultimate in simplified explanations of the rules of Universe, find more on the Grand Unified Theory which some of the most brilliant theoretical physicists on the planet (such as Stephen Hawking) are involved in.
Ever heard of Sierpinski's Triangle? I spent a considerable amount of time trying to develop a working mathematical equation to "generate" a data set (via vertex selection, not lame edge sub-division.. an 8 year old could do that with a straightedge) which can reproduce the Sierpinski Triangle fractal and came to the same conclusion that so many others before me did: it's not possible. The Triangle is only made possible through random selection. But order from chaos? How can this be? The program I wrote came out to 250 bytes in size in a 256 byte programming competition and took 6th place - oh well.. the winners had some nice 3D effects as well
How about random genetic mutation, ever heard of that?
Or how about this person's explanation who seems to think that the nature of randomness will allow them to measure the expansion of the Universe because of the second law of thermodynamics which defines that entropy (aka disorder, aka randomness) increases in any system over time, and treating the "Universe" as a "system" and testing randomness as a measure of entropy by way of measuring dice rolls. Their conclusion is in my opinion incorrect because the nature of randomness is such that any given outcome is equally as likely as any other possible outcome. If rolling dice is already purely "random", then it's not possible for the results of rolling dice to become any more random since each outcome has already equal potential to every other outcome. Any change to this balance would result in a bias that would indicate that the results are no longer random and that would be contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, wouldn't it? For this reason, I think the idea about increased entropy's ties to Universal randomness is inaccurate.
But if we stick with the dice example for a moment longer, yes one could argue that there is a mathematical and physical formula which precisely describes, given the environment, velocities, axes of rotation, vectors of movement, variances in air pressure across the path of motion, materials analyses, slight manufacturing imperfections and uneven material densities in the dice themselves, gravitational forces --- the list goes on, but if you had all the information, you should, indeed be able to accurately predict the final outcome of the roll of the rice. But don't you find it interesting that though we don't have that information for the millions of dice thrown around the world each day, their outcomes do follow a pattern? The pattern of no pattern. The pattern of randomness.
Randomness describes the outcome of events which distinctly follow no pattern as well as describes a method for the Universe to make selections for us.
"There is a certain level of randomness in the universe which cannot be removed by any theory." -- The Universe in a Nutshell, Stephen Hawking.
There is also a train of thought that says randomness is purely a function of measurement, that math itself creates a random result.
Math does well at translating the universe for and into the senses, it throws up random results (and infinate results) when we attempt to measure 'beyond' what we can sense. ie the limits of our senses will be the only part of the univserse we will be able to know.
Certainly one direction this chain of thought can lead is to imposing the certainty of mathematical result onto the flow of time/evolution and the notion that we can prophesise the future.
On a simple level that could include knowing a glass will break when it is dropped and and a more complex level describes how one event can be in harmony with another. Harmony could be used to express relationships such as coinciden23 and therefore, taking it to another extreme, prophecy.
If the universe is, as it appears from some view points, to be totally connected, then any action will effect all others. Harmonic results or results that appear to the senses as being significant will do so because the actions that caused them re-inforced one another.
If we had fast enough computers then we could measure all possible mathematical interactions and be able to prophesise. With enough brain power, some accurate prophesising would also occur.
But we still dont know if math works outside the bounds of the sensory universe........But then you get to 'experiencing' and can 'stuff' be experienced without (measuring) sensing it?
Sensible debate? My comment was in reflection to your implication…of course my response didn’t sound sensible…I was giving an example of what you seemed to imply…which didn’t sound sensible to me. Enough on that. I think I now understand that you’re suggesting that there are the tiniest little aspects of random behavior, just enough to throw off any predictability. Like a mile wide asteroid streaking through space that every so often collides with a marble sized rock that changes its course ever so slightly. After many of these small collisions, it’s course will be far off from where it would have been had it never hit any.
I admit the Sierpinski’s Triangle is above my head. I don’t have enough energy at the moment to study it to figure it out. They do go on to talk about “unpredictable behavior”, I haven’t read all that either, so my opinion isn't as qualified as it would be otherwise – at least to comment on that data.
It seems however, that they have studied behavior, and have “determined” that there is “unpredictable behavior”. All it indicates is that the researchers were unable to predict the behavior. See the difference? It says much more about the researchers than the facts of behavior.
Here is my hypothesis. If one could look down to the cellular level, and know exactly what each cell (or atom if need be) was doing – the state of its functionality, those things that influence and produce our thoughts and feelings, and know exactly how that state is influenced by our history, our memories, our experience, and any other factors in the physical world that might influence our heart, mind and soul, then, knowing that the laws of the physical world are always constant, we can determine the outcome.
Randomness is a term applied to multiple units of equal opportunity during successive repetitions of the same event. It can only be used when the circumstance is identical to the preceding, with sometimes the exception of the loss of the lost units. In other words, if you had a tumbling barrel with numbered balls (like the lottery), and blindly pick them out one at time, that is what’s call random selection. The parameters are the same, with the exception that after each withdrawal, that number is missing.
But how could human behavior be ever called random? There would only be one true way to prove/disprove truly random behavior: It would mean setting up a parallel/mirrored world, with the two in perfect synchronization to one another, everything down to the last atom are identical, and see if for example a person varies their answer of which color to choose, if they are “truly indifferent” to each.
The term “random behavior” seems to be only a loose use of the word random. The only influence the dropped balls have on one another is the fact that as they are removed, each one as a greater chance of being the next picked. But to use the example of a person consciously trying to be random could never work. Try this: Your assignment is to randomly pick either 0 or 1. After each selection, you will be “thinking” (even if for only a fraction of a second) about the fact that your next number should somehow be unrelated to the next. Then you might also think that it you shouldn’t be thinking about it, so you’ll think that the next number should be truly random, then you’ll think that in a random sequence, you might get three or four in a row and try to non-consciously get three in a row. Can’t be done! There’s way too much thinking going on. There could never be any. The fact that there is any thought whatsoever contaminates the whole principle. Even if you successfully were show test results of you having selected 10,000 data points of randomness – showing that it came out to be about a 50/50 split (what you would expect, statistically), it only shows that you consciously thought the results should be about that, and used your intelligence to get the numbers there. It’s impossible to prove without the parallel universe study I outlined.
I read some of the stuff on that website about human behavior and admit it’s way over my head. These guys have done some thinking. Nevertheless, from what I know about the definition of the word “random” it really only relates to the numbers themselves. It’s all about the apparent non-relationship of the numbers. If you had a group of balls, and were able to position them from a known starting point, before they fell into the tumbling barrel, and had all the barrel rotation speed, resistance, and all the other physical data required, you could calculate the motion of every ball, how it hit the others, and follow them through their motion. I.e., you can determine the outcome. The laws of the physical world are constant. Haven’t we proven that? If we think they’re not always, because there’s something we can’t explain, then that just means we’re not aware of all the factors. So calculating the results of the balls in a barrel is easy (a computer would help). The outcome of the numbers is determinable, without question. 1 + 1 always = 2. The random appearance of the analyzed numbers if you were just to do stats on the data, is unrelated to the ability to determine the numbers outcome beforehand. The data will show that the numbers are mixed up real well, without any detectable trend. That’s the definition of random, right? It’s not saying that one couldn’t exactly calculate the sequence of the numbers. The numbers of pi may be perfectly random, but the pi number itself is always the same sequence (I didn’t know that pi contain a random number until you told me).
Originally posted by Tdog Sensible debate? My comment was in reflection to your implication…of course my response didn’t sound sensible…I was giving an example of what you seemed to imply…which didn’t sound sensible to me. Enough on that.
Well, if I sound like I'm coming off too harsh, I apologize - one of my personal struggles in writing is finding a balance between clarity and brevity - clearly clarity has suffered here
Well I WAS going to attach my little fractal program to this message, but it doesn't seem to post correctly. It's an old .com program. If you're interested in checking it out I can email it to you if you like. It's real small, only 250 bytes and will run on any PC-type computer. It behaves more like a screensaver at 50+frames per second with mor than 30000 iterations per frame.. compare that to how much time it takes to get 30000 iterations for a single still render of the fractal on that applet at the above-linked site
I do see wat you're saying about the mental random number selection thing. I was thinking to myself earlier about random 1's and zero's and I realized that subconsciously I was creating randomly selected streams of ones and zeros in "small chunks" say 6 to 10 at a time. Mentally, it did seem like I was -trying- to diversify the results and keep it "mixed up" so I would end up with things like:
101011101001000010101010111101101010111
In reality, a good random number generator could periodically end up with results such as:
100111010000000000001111111111110001011
See the long streams of 0's and 1's in the middle there? My mind, when thinking about mixing it up would never allow me to produce such a long stream of 1's or 0's - and those are short by comparrison to what's theoretically possible. Although highliy "improbable" in the grand scheme of vast quantities of random selections, it is possible, and a real random number generator will do it. So indeed, though I don't consciously think about the previous digit selections, my selection process is programmed to alternate the selections in short bursts, and I end up with a very mixed up set of 1's and 0's that exhibit an apparently random behavior, however they do not represent true random selection as there is consciousness backing it up.
So I concede that point - I'll have to think up something else here
03-14-2003 11:38 PM
Wow Tdog.... Do you have any comment on the Forth and Fifth demention theory that suppositly co-exisits along side of our plain of "reality"?
