What is Armageddon? Is it about a future and final major war?

[AgnosticBoy]

The word Armageddon is thrown around a lot on the Christian channels I used to listen to. From what I gathered, most commentators talked about it as a major war involving Israel and other nations. Given the conflicts that are going on now, I think that is relevant to today. I'd like to get the facts straight about what the Bible says about it so let's do that here!

For Discussion:
1. What is Armageddon? Is it about some future war or some war that already happened in the past (like the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE)?
2. Is there any evidence that it will really happen?

 

[Scooter]

The Battle of Armageddon is found in the Book of Revelation. It is believed John wrote this book in the AD 90’s. So it obviously cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem which happened in AD 70.

This battle takes place in the valley of Megiddo. Napoleon called this valley the world’s most perfect battlefield. It is at this battle when Jesus Christ makes His return to the earth to establish His kingdom. The enemy will be gathered in the valley of Megiddo in order to attack Israel. The Lord will destroy every one of them just by speaking the word. These are the people who have rejected Jesus and fight against Him and His people. The Bible tells us the blood of the battle will run as deep as a horse’s bridle. It’s a pretty gruesome image for those on the wrong side.

 

[bbyrd009]

The word Armageddon is thrown around a lot on the Christian channels I used to listen to. From what I gathered, most commentators talked about it as a major war involving Israel and other nations. Given the conflicts that are going on now, I think that is relevant to today. I'd like to get the facts straight about what the Bible says about it so let's do that here!

For Discussion:
1. What is Armageddon? Is it about some future war or some war that already happened in the past (like the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE)?
2. Is there any evidence that it will really happen?

Armageddon is a place, apparently? That is mentioned exactly once in the Bible, in a vision no less, meaning no witness and perhaps easily misinterpreted—as The Crystal Ball for the End of the World rather than The Revelation of Christ, iow—and imo the spiritual significance and allegory for “Israel” and some other terms that are often interpreted differently come into play;

For instance, do you think the Israel (Inc) that we have with us today has anything to do with Scriptural Israel? If so, see how this will color your interpretation there, right? Mountains (Har) are used as allegories in other places in the Bible, and while i certainly dont know, i would not be looking for any literal final battle as is so often inferred; make the context The Revelation of Christ and the allegorical nature becomes more apparent, imo

A lack of Witness does mean “lie” or “untrue” exactly, but it does suggest that a different weight be given a passage…you wish we had an atheist, i wish we had a rabbi lol. But there are discussions of the weight thing online

Also, Hars are hills whereas literal battles are fought in valleys, as has already been mentioned

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's one view on Armageddon:

According to the futurist interpretation of Revelation, which is our view, the Battle of Armageddon will be a real battle in the future, near the end of the tribulation. Demonic influences will cause the kings of the earth to gather their armies for an all-out assault on Jerusalem. The Antichrist will be leading the charge (Revelation 16:13–16). Jesus Christ will return to earth with the armies of heaven (Matthew 25:31; Revelation 19:14); His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4); He will defeat the forces of evil (Revelation 19:15–16);

Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/battle-Armageddon.html

Besides much of this info coming from a dream, I see no reason to believe that this battle referred to something in the past.

While I do see evidence that a lot of nations, including some Western ones are against Israel, but I remain agnostic about if those nations would join in some major war against Israel.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Armageddon is a place, apparently?

It refers to a battle in the context of the Bible.. And as you alluded to, there was an ancient town in Palestine called Megiddo. Armageddon means “Hill of Megiddo.”

Source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Megiddo

For instance, do you think the Israel (Inc) that we have with us today has anything to do with Scriptural Israel? If so, see how this will color your interpretation there, right? Mountains (Har) are used as allegories in other places in the Bible, and while i certainly dont know, i would not be looking for any literal final battle as is so often inferred; make the context The Revelation of Christ and the allegorical nature becomes more apparent, imo

I'm definitely open to the battle being an allegory or having some other non literal aspect. But then I also ask how much of it is not literal? Is there some truth to it that's simply dressed up in fanciful imagery?


I think there are some things that can prove otherwise like real world events. If I see events shaping like an antichrist type figure coming to power and humans being implanted with chips, then you gotta start to wonder...

 

[bbyrd009]

Armageddon is a place, apparently?

It refers to a battle in the context of the Bible.. And as you alluded to, there was an ancient town in Palestine called Megiddo. Armageddon means “Hill of Megiddo.”

Source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Megiddo

For instance, do you think the Israel (Inc) that we have with us today has anything to do with Scriptural Israel? If so, see how this will color your interpretation there, right? Mountains (Har) are used as allegories in other places in the Bible, and while i certainly dont know, i would not be looking for any literal final battle as is so often inferred; make the context The Revelation of Christ and the allegorical nature becomes more apparent, imo

I'm definitely open to the battle being an allegory or having some other non literal aspect. But then I also ask how much of it is not literal? Is there some truth to it that's simply dressed up in fanciful imagery?


I think there are some things that can prove otherwise like real world events. If I see events shaping like an antichrist type figure coming to power and humans being implanted with chips, then you gotta start to wonder...

Well, the apostles thought that the kingdom was going to manifest as they were entering Jerusalem, and “Secretly everyone is waiting for the end of the world,” right? So while idk, i highly suspect that the Bible authors just took these human proclivities into account in their construction.

But we also have a thing now, a la Israel, Inc, where the strong men can co-opt Scriptural memes for their own ends, right, so while i wouldnt be too surprised to witness a bomb dropped on Megiddo here any minute now, i would also be suspicious, ok; we do not struggle against flesh and blood, right.

Meaning that there surely is no “obeying this verse violates this other verse” in the Bible, and while i def do not know (anything. ever.), i would suggest retitling the book from “Crystal Ball for the End of the World” to something like i dunno The Revelation of Christ? Mentally, i mean