You see to have left out the part where the 'holy man' just saw his farther being taken away by God in a flaming wheel. He was unaware that the powers his father had had been left to him so when the kids teased him about not being able to follow his father he cursed them and that brought the bears. The two witnesses will have the same sorts of 'powers' during their ministry.My favourite in this context would be the story where god sends bears to maul several dozen children to death for the horrible crime of making fun of a supposedly holy man's baldness. 2 Kings 2:23-24
Your reason for picking this one has to do with the 'child factor' and 'we' let 25,000 children starve to death per day because 'we' do not see their lives as being worth the effort it would take for us to make them healthy. How much more 'holy' are we when it comes to protecting children. Drones and artillery strikes by US friendly forces probably kill more than 40 children most days and I hear zero complaints from you but have a 'new Prophet' say something in haste and suddenly those children lives are beyond value. Nice try, if children are so important to you why not pay attention to the slaughter of the innocents as it was done by God to teach is what 'the land of the enemy' is. My version has death being the land of the enemy, all other versions have it being some Gentile country. I'm right and you are wrong, suck it up and lets move on as there are more surprises about God waiting for you.
Did you know that the children whose parents and siblings that were killed in the exodus wars will have them come back from 'the land of the enemy' at the same time the 12 tribes come back from there.
When the 'adults' started killing the Prophets God took a lot more than 40 of them and that program isn't finished yet. The 'few in numbers' part of the De:4:30 prophecy is a reference to the 144,000 rather than anything conjured up by men.
They were informed that a falling away is requirement, you are promoting that they could be the ones that would fall away and see the man of sin sit on a throne in the temple in Jerusalem. The temple was taken down in 70 AD so that is another clue that 'soon' was not meant for his generation. 'Soon' applies the readers of Revelations that see events begin to unfold in the physical realm. The Luke:21:24 prophecy is 70AD and that is the start of the period of time called, 'the time of the Gentiles'. Re:11 picks that up when there is 42 months left and then a new temple will be standing in Jerusalem, one that Satan and the Beast erect in the time the two witnesses are dead in the streets of Jerusalem. On the day of their resurrection that temple is destroyed and Christ alone builds the structure that will be His Temple for the 1,000 year reign.Motar that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. Maybe you should spend less time discussing things with Megaloon .
You may not have noticed due to your trolling but very little gets discussed here, I thought you should know that.
The first enemies of Christ were the ones that should have been the first to accept Him.Apostasy is not new to our day, LL. There have been myriad infidelities since the original one in Eden.
M't:23:14-16:
Woe unto you,
scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites!
for ye devour widows' houses,
and for a pretence make long prayer:
therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Woe unto you,
scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites!
for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte,
and when he is made,
ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Woe unto you,
ye blind guides,
which say,
Whosoever shall swear by the temple,
it is nothing;
but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple,
he is a debtor!
2Th:2:7:
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:
only he who now letteth will let,
until he be taken out of the way.
That part was for LL. Not your call to judge the validity, you get to read and compare it to other versions. If mine is wrong then you must have access to the right version, and you don't.It is not a matter of not understanding your point of view. It is a matter of your interpretation being out to lunch on a book that is mostly a rehash of older texts that really has no basis in reality.
I don't follow any religion. Not sure where you got that idea from. Probably from the same place you get your interpretation of the bible, your tortured imagination. But I do commend you on speaking your truth, as skewed as it might be.