>OK, you're slipping through your own loophole. A text CAN be >misinterpreted, which is why your statement abou 1/3 of the world >isn't >right. Back then, the known world was a LOT smaller. To them, the >Persian >Gulf War would have been a world war. The destruction in biblical >prophecies are nothing compared to what we can imagine now, after The >Bomb. >They couln't conceive of such destruction. Ok, I generally like the idea of reading a text within its own historical context, but the battles described are of such a nature that human blood floods a large valley up to the shoulders of horses. And lets look at what else could be conceived: one hundred pound hailstones, and an earthquake so large every mountain and island ceased to exist (16:20,21) 200 million mounted troops (9:16). This is inconceivable in John's time, but it's in the book. For that matter, it's pretty hard to imagine in OUR time :) So when we make comments like those below... We're reading it with eyes >of a >2,000 year older society. These prophecies need to be read interms of >their >contemporaries, or we just end up reading it & predicting the end of >the >world in 1979. >Thor > we need to be careful about our speculations regarding what ancient authors were able to conceive :) Jim ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.