You confuse application of scripture with scripture itself. Application of scripture is not the same thing as adding words to scripture. You've put yourself into some sort of religious vacuum or black hole.
Anyone can quote scripture my FRiend. Quoting scripture is not an argument. An argument requires you to support your assertions and scriptural conclusions with relevant evidence and facts. Your statements are conclusory. You begin with an assertion and conclude with scripture with no support. That is not an argument. An argument requires you to support your assertions and conclusions with reasonable application of relevant evidence and facts.
Since I have offered by far more relevant evidence to support my assertions and conclusion than you, regardless of whether you subjectively agree with me or not, I have won this debate in the forum of ideas by the objective standard of having offered the greater weight of relevant evidence.
Bye-bye.
I have confused nothing. But I do admit you have quite the imagination. You have confused the plain words of the scripture with dispensational/futuristic fantasies, and then demand that they are biblical!
>>>Anyone can quote scripture my FRiend.<<<
But not everyone can write a novel, nor do they wish too. Place me in that category. I will stick with quoting the final authority: God's Word.
>>>Quoting scripture is not an argument.<<<
The scripture is the argument. Why do you work so hard to avoid it? Your didactic statements about some flowery, unbiblical interpretations of the seven churches prove nothing except that someone had too much time on their hands.
>>>Since I have offered by far more relevant evidence to support my assertions and conclusion than you, regardless of whether you subjectively agree with me or not, I have won this debate in the forum of ideas by the objective standard of having offered the greater weight of relevant evidence.<<<
I did not realize it was a contest. But, frankly, I believe you are living in a fantasy world. In all sincerity, I did try to make some sense out of your "interpretations," but I failed. If your intent was to confuse, then you have won the debate.
Philip