John_Browning wrote:
Do you really think it would have been possible in ancient times to explain fighter jets and tanks to people?
If they had the concept of a machine, sure. Fighter jet: a machine made of metal that flies fast enough that it can travel from Jerusalem to Damascus and back 20 times between sunrise and sunset at equinox, and is big enough to carry a man and weapons weighing as much as two horses.
Tank: a horseless armoured chariot with many wheels, and chains running over the wheels. It can throw a projectile as far the distance between (insert two suitable places here). It carries three or four men inside it, and moves faster than the fastest horse. A rock as heavy as a sheep, thrown from a Roman catapult, would bounce off it armour.
See? Easy. The range of the tank's cannon and the speed of the jet would have allowed us to make a good prediction about the time when that invasion is supposed to happen.
But all that misses the point. You gave the impression of being a biblical literalist. I generally find those people are literalist only when it suits them. That is when the prophecy is vague enough to to be unfalsifiable and when it fits their agenda. When a detail falsifies the prophecy, they say that detail is only metaphorical, or come up with a creative re-interpretation (like for pi = 3). The prophecy says horses, chariots, swords and shields. Either it hasn't been fulfilled and is wrong, or it predicts a future total collapse of industrial society and a return to horses, chariots, swords and shields. Take your pick.
I find it even more interesting that you have no objection at all to my conjecture that you have no objection against genocide. Can I take this as confirmed? And would that be no objection against genocide that is inevitable, genocide that is sanctioned by your interpretation of the bible, or any genocide at all?