Revelations is not a book of prophecy.

Revelations 1:1-3 "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he sawï¿½€"that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near." It says that Revelations is purely a message given by an angel to only one man, John. The fact that Revelations is based off of one man's "vision" makes the story very unreliable. If hundreds of people were saying they saw this vision, and all the details were right with the visions, then that would give incredible support to the story. Since it was only one man, there are no other sources to back it up. Also, since it was a "vision", there was no way to see whether he was telling the truth or not. If this prophecy actually was true, why would God only tell one person? The most important prophecy ever in the hands of one person is not good logic and doesn't make sense. My opponent said, "The whole story, if you read it not just singling out certain parts of it that align with your personal bias and beliefs, you would find it is about God's love for mankind and his pursuit of them throughout the ages." Well, if the bible is absolute truth, (which it would be if it was given to us by an all perfect God) then it wouldn't matter if I singled out parts that aligned with my bias. The parts I single out would have to be true as well. Revelations 22:18-19 clearly states that if anyone alters the words of prophecy or adds to them, they will not share in the tree of life. So, all other religions who don't accept this prophecy or believe in a "false prophecy" will not share in the tree of life. Once again, scare tactics are used in Revelations just like they are in the whole bible. My opponent said, "And I've already explained how if evidence was glaring then faith would be impossible, as well as much of our personality, and thus, love would also be impossible." Yes, this is true, because if there was evidence, it wouldn't be faith. However, evidence is more credible than faith and faith is not a reason to legitimize the prophecies of Revelations. I agree with you that love would be impossible without faith in the other person. It is not impossible though to love without faith in God. The difference is that you can experience the other person, but you can't experience God. My opponent said, "I don't believe confirming evidence exists for anything. I believe there is evidence pointing towards the truth and faith fills the gap to give us certainty." Yes, there is evidence for certain things, like gravity. If you jump off a ledge, you get pulled down to Earth. If you look at other planets, when asteroids and matter come close to it, they get sucked into the planet. Also, faith can't fill gaps, because faith is loosely based, plus there are many different faiths. If I had faith in Satan, that doesn't mean it fills any gaps. My opponent said, "Imagine if Christianity was the only religion. Probably the most of people would embrace it, but would that make it genuine? That's less likely. So God has also given us the freedom of choice in our belief. There can only be true choice if there are many choices. If a man is alone on a planet with only one other woman, what choice is that?" Ok, if God gives us freedom to explore other beliefs, then what is the point of the first commandment? (Thou shall have no other Gods.) Also, if I were to worship Satan, would that be the freedom of choice I have? The reason we have different religions is not because God wanted us to or gave us the choice, it is because different religions were formed by different people with a different take on life and God. My opponent said, "Unless we are sinners deserving of that destruction, then God's grace, which he wants us to understand and emphasize more than the law and potential destruction we could face, means nothing." But why do we deserve destruction? We did not choose to come into the world. We did not choose our religion when we were born, and it's not our fault that our brains have the ability to make bad and evil choices. So, why do we need grace? Your last paragraph on the gospel was very well written. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge on the Christian faith. However, faith doesn't make Revelations true. If you were to study Greek mythology, would you believe it as true? Would you be convinced of Zeus, Aphrodite, Hermes, Hades, etc? Probably not because it goes against Christianity. What if they are the ones that are right and you were the one who was worshiping false Gods? Now I will sum up my main points on why I think Revelations is not a book of prophecy. I thank my opponent very much for this debate. 1. Revelations is given to us by one man named John who made claims of prophecy, but his only source was an angel who only he saw. 2. Revelations uses vague words like "soon". Jesus will return soon. 3. Revelations is purely a personal experience. The Old Testament had historical references because they had other sources than just a vision. Revelations is purely vision. I could have a dream, write it down, and maybe in a few hundred years people will believe it will come true. 4. There are many accounts on the end of the world and prophecy. Revelations provides nothing that distinguishes it from other prophecies. It was written by one man, with no other sources of backing. 5. We already know how the Earth will end. The sun has been burning for a little of 4 billion years, Scientists have estimated the amount of hydrogen left, and say that in about another 4 billion, it will die out. I know this point isn't too credible in disproving Revelations. However, I added it because it shows another piece of evidence in favor of science and how science has shown the past, present, and future of our universe. 6. What was the purpose of God creating? What is the purpose of the second coming and all of these biblical stories? If God is so great, so perfect, and the Supreme Being, how are we supposed to go about and study him? All we have is writings of a few people who claim to know about God. And who decided what should be included in the bible and what shouldn't be? If I wrote something and I claimed it was inspired by God, why wouldn't it be added into the bible? Revelations 1:10-11 "On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea." This shows that our only source of this book is from a man's supposed vision that he claimed was given to him by an angel sent from God. If I said I had a vision from Zeus, and he said, "The world will end soon. I will come down on a chariot and site down the non believers with electricity and take with me the believers up to heaven in my palace." Would anyone believe my vision? Probably not. Why not though? It was inspired by Zeus, the TRUE God. If that was my source and argument, then it wouldn't be credible and there would be no reason to believe it. I don't think anyone reading this debate would believe it. So, as this debate comes to an end, I thank my opponent again, and I thank everyone who is reading. Revelations is given to us by one man with no sources. There is a huge bias in it towards Christians. It says that the believers will be saved, and the others will not share in the tree of life. Does this sound like divine prophecy or just a book of wishful thinking for those who believe that Christianity is the one true religion? Thank you again, and now I turn it over to the voters.