HuskyCaucasian Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 (edited) QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 3, 2008 -> 06:41 PM) Since we are all Sox fans, can we sing "na-na-na-na, na-na-na-na, hey hey hey, GOODBYE? :headbang Edited June 4, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 (edited) There isn't a reference to the antichrist's nationality in Revelations, so that whole thing is a crock of crap, I've read the entire book of Revelation in three versions (and generally, read a lot of the Bible). The only thing the Bible implies is that the antichrist will probably be a white male with either dominant Roman, Greek, or perhaps generally Latin blood, none of which fit Obama as far as I know. The whole discussion is crazy though, Obama doesn't fit a single description of the Antichrist except he's a great speaker. By that logic, Ronald Reagan could have been the antichrist, he was a great speaker and fit the bloodlines better than Obama does actually. Edited June 4, 2008 by whitesoxfan101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 3, 2008 -> 10:47 PM) There isn't a reference to the antichrist's nationality in Revelations, so that whole thing is a crock of crap, I've read the entire book of Revelation in three versions (and generally, read a lot of the Bible). The only thing the Bible implies is that the antichrist will probably be a white male with either dominant Roman, Greek, or perhaps generally Latin blood, none of which fit Obama as far as I know. The whole discussion is crazy though, Obama doesn't fit a single description of the Antichrist except he's a great speaker. By that logic, Ronald Reagan could have been the antichrist, he was a great speaker and fit the bloodlines better than Obama does actually. For that matter, it could be Gage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 3, 2008 -> 10:47 PM) There isn't a reference to the antichrist's nationality in Revelations, so that whole thing is a crock of crap, I've read the entire book of Revelation in three versions (and generally, read a lot of the Bible). The only thing the Bible implies is that the antichrist will probably be a white male with either dominant Roman, Greek, or perhaps generally Latin blood, none of which fit Obama as far as I know. The whole discussion is crazy though, Obama doesn't fit a single description of the Antichrist except he's a great speaker. By that logic, Ronald Reagan could have been the antichrist, he was a great speaker and fit the bloodlines better than Obama does actually. Latin blood? The bible mentions Aztecs and Incans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 08:24 AM) Latin blood? The bible mentions Aztecs and Incans? Wouldn't that be redundant with Romans for that time period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 08:24 AM) Latin blood? The bible mentions Aztecs and Incans? Latin, not latinO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 07:31 AM) Wouldn't that be redundant with Romans for that time period? QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 07:32 AM) Latin, not latinO. Actually no, that's an incorrect use of the word. Latin was the LANGUAGE of the Romans, but was never a title for their culture. People from Latin America, are Latin, OR Latino. That's why I found it an odd statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 08:40 AM) Actually no, that's an incorrect use of the word. Latin was the LANGUAGE of the Romans, but was never a title for their culture. People from Latin America, are Latin, OR Latino. That's why I found it an odd statement. Hmm. I had no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 08:14 AM) Hmm. I had no idea. I took not only Latin, but also Roman History (as part of 3rd year Latin), in high school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 08:40 AM) Actually no, that's an incorrect use of the word. Latin was the LANGUAGE of the Romans, but was never a title for their culture. People from Latin America, are Latin, OR Latino. That's why I found it an odd statement. It was a joke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 09:15 AM) I took not only Latin, but also Roman History (as part of 3rd year Latin), in high school. I will definately defer to you then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 OK. Maybe we should all stop posting in the closed thread then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts