Revelations is not a book of prophecy.

I'll start out by making some overarching points. The difficulty in this debate primarily focuses 1. If God is real, then there would be no difficulty in making the assertion that he could alter the laws of physics at his command. Moses saw God face to face (Exodus 33:11; Deuteronomy 34:10). And you would miss the whole point of the Bible if you thought that evidence was something of prime importance. 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. 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. I believe in the idea expressed in this quote, "The beginning of love is to let those we love be perfectly themselves, and not to twist them to fit our own image. Otherwise we love only the reflection of ourselves we find in them." (Thomas Merton) So God, too, must follow that advice if he is love. In God's case, a lack of certain evidence leaves room for us to be ourselves, leaves room for us to be loved by God. My opponent has mentioned, "If you love your spouse, I would hope you have a logical reason. (Pretty, successful, family oriented, kind, all, etc.)". However, I would say this is a very good example of imperfect human love. God's love is not based on logic, less, human logic. And that is very well exemplified by the whole story of the Bible granted you don't do the singling out and over emphasizing of certain doctrines or passages over others. We must understand the great freedom God has given us to believe what we want. Does God show up in front of us? He did for one man a long time ago, but that was because Moses had so much faith that whether he saw God or not, it would not change his faith or love for God. God respects our personal choice and freedom, a lot. That is why God does not provide confirming evidence. 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. 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? There is only one option for whom to marriage. The point I was making was that we can come up with "evidence" for this and "evidence" for that. Strangely, if you look into it, "evidence" and what intelligent people say often seem to contradict each other no? The point I was making in short about emotion and reason that my opponent did not seem to fully understand is expressed by this quote by Zig Ziglar, "People don't buy for logical reasons. They buy for emotional reasons." That is why the opinion of intelligent people often contradicts each other. And again, do I believe in not using evidence? No. I believe evidence is very important, but that it does not have the last say – our choice, will, and decision does (at least for us). I thank my opponent for providing the prophecies of the Hindu religion. As far as the point on the context of Revelation – I mean that it's important to view a book in its historical context to interpret it. Sure, people today can believe anything about it, but its context when it was written is more important to understand it for some uses. The end of my opponent's last post was a prime example of singling out passages to fit one's own bias and purposes rather than reading and understanding the whole. Yes, there are passages of law and destruction in the Bible – but you are not seeking to look, equally emphasize, and understand the overarching meaning. Without there being law or potential destruction (or a lake of fire as my opponent pointed out) there can be no grace, mercy or forgiveness. 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. Jesus explains in Matthew 12:31, "So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven - except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven." Many, as well as you might be, are tempted to view this verse only for the second part of it, saying that God is bad if he can't forgive a certain sin. But it is really actually one of the best verses of the Bible to sum up God's grace, the best of news. It is speaking of the only sin that cannot be forgiven, that means that everything else can be! And, this sin, "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" simply means to reject the Spirit. The only sin that God cannot forgive, because he respects our human free will and personality, choices and preferences is the sin of rejecting Jesus whom we receive the Holy Spirit through. Jesus is not about the good vs. the bad, the moral vs. the moral, he is about the humble and broken vs. the proud and independent. And the proud and independent will always find ways to reject God and cast him in an unfavorable light. But the deeper problem is their pride, or unwillingness to simply love Jesus, not because we have to love him or we go to hell or anything, but because we want to; because we understand how much he has loved us first. That, my friend, is the gospel.