Ezekiel;- Gog of the land of Magog

a reply to: DISRAELI

Now frankly, doesn't that tell you that this modern quest to construct an elaborate future history out of these prophetic details has become nothing more than a source of confusion?

It's the wrong track altogether. Old Testament prophecy doesn't have that purpose. I've already delivered an entire ATS series trying to demonstrate what the prophets were really doing.

While it may appear confusing for people who don't understand whether they are reading about the Millennial period versus the New Jerusalem (or Heaven), the details should tell you which is which. During Jesus' millennial reign he will fulfill all of God's promises to the Jews before Heaven is revealed for all who have chosen Jesus through their free will to enter into it. You'll know it by the fact that it's a period of peace, but yet people will still be growing old (older than we are now) and new children will be born into it. This will be a time of re-population, but it's not the time of perfection as in Heaven. The Sheep and Goat Judgement will take place before the Millennium, but the Great White Throne Judgement won't happen until the very end, when the Millennial reign is over.

While you say that the Old Testament was never meant to be confusing, obviously, it was meant to be confusing enough that the Jews didn't recognize Jesus when He came. It was all a part of God's plan and the Bible tells us that God will reveal some of the mysteries of the Bible as times get closer to events unfolding. The Holy Spirit will reveal what needs to be revealed at the time that He needs it to be.

a reply to: Deetermined
I was talking specifically of the practice of using the Old Testament to predict which modern countries would be starting wars with other countries and when they would be doing it. That was the confusion which your comment about "nine end-time wars" was illustrating.
The kind of "Russia will invade Israel in 1974" prediction which I mentioned in the fourth post.
THAT is what I meant when I said that the prophecies of the Old Testament were not designed for that purpose.
I stand by that verdict. The Bible wasn't intending to give us a future history of international politics, and that's why we get confused when we try to create one.

a reply to: DISRAELI

From our entire discussion, I thought there was confusion about what should be taken literally and what should be considered metaphorical or symbolic.

a reply to: Deetermined
In fact the question of "wars in the end-times" has been mixing up two different issues, because the speculators have been getting their ideas from two different sources.
When they get their information from the "Last battle" type of prophecy, the issue is how literally these should be taken as descriptions of a physical battle.
When they get their information from the "other nations" prophecies which are NOT part of the Last Battle set, which is most of them, then the issue is that they are taking speeches about the events of more than two thousand years ago and trying to apply them to the future. The second mistake is the one that creates nine end-time wars, so that's the one I was trying to explain when I remarked on the nine end-time wars. So when you commented on my remarks about the nine end-time wars, I naturally went back to discussing that mistake.

I've already referred to this thread series;
Prophecies against the nations
That is where I analysed the bulk of the "other nations" prophecies of both types, trying to explain the difference.
All I'm doing now is repeating what I said then.

The false approach of "trying to fix a sequence of events" frequently comes in company with the other false approach, "trying to fix a date for the end-times", which I've criticised elsewhere;
The futility of date-setting
Psychology, rather than theology, is pushing speculators into creating detailed narratives out of Biblical material which wasn't intended for that purpose.
So the way to avoid confusion is to give up looking for a detailed narrative of the wars of the future. We don't need one. We honestly don't need one.