They are mutually exclusive.
Pre-Wrathers keep referring to the "Celestial disturbance event" as if there is only one. Revelation has multiple celestial disturbance events, and Pre-Wrathers claim to like me interpret Revelation Chronologically, or at least that the Seals, Trumpets and Bowls are successive judgments not different looks at the same thing like Post-Tribbers tend to.
They want to see references outside Revelation to the Moon being darkened as being the Sixth Seal, even though the Moon isn't darkened there. Later the Sun, Moon and Stars are partially darkened by the 4th Trumpet event, then for 40s days the sun, moon and stars are fully blacked out in the 5th Trumpet event by the smoke. Then later the Fifth Bowl of God's Wrath is what I believe Isaiah 13 means by the Sun and Moon not giving their light at the time Babylon falls in Revelation 18.
Every Pre-Wrather I know is against the Blood Moon theory, Chris White's debunking of it I've recommended repeatedly. Yet they use the modern Scientific explanation for what a Lunar Eclipse is to justify saying the Moon being like Blood and not giving light are the same.
During a Lunar Eclipse the Moon is darker then usual but it is giving light, it is only on a Solar Eclipse or New Moon (day before the Biblical New Moon) that the Moon gives no light, if you want to look for a normal astronomical event for that.
If the Moon has any color at all it is by definition giving light. There is no Color without light.
Here is the thing though, Blood is actually a very bright red. And when I was observing the last of the overly hyped Tetrad a few days ago I kept feeling it was not a shade of Red I'd describe as like Blood at all.
What's funny is the Full Moon a month prior to this, at the end of August looked inexplicably Red, and I know others observed the same thing. That was a shade of Red I'd consider Blood Red, but there was no Lunar Eclipse that day. I still don't understand what caused that.
If there is a naturalistic explanation at all for what happens to the Sun and Moon in the Sixth Seal it is probably ash entering the air form a Volcanic Eruption, which has been documented to cause the Moon to look bright Red in the past. The reason that happens is all about the light the Moon is giving. And Joel 2's account of this event clearly alludes to Volcanoes.
But even accepting that flawed logic for saying a Blood Moon could be a darkened moon. That doesn't change that there are other places in Revelation far more explicitly about the Moon being darkened. Yet Pre-Wrath and other mistaken views are dependent on insisting that the Moon being darkened in Matthew 24 can ONLY correspond to the Sixth Seal.
This post is elaborating on things I said in my first Sixth Seal post. And also ties into this post.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Monday, September 28, 2015
A Problem with some Preterist views of Matthew 24
This argument won't effect the standard more well known 70 AD preterism, I've dealt with that elsewhere. At least not as obviously relevant anyway, depends on how you define "yet".
I have seen people argue that everything Jesus talked about in Matthew 24 was fulfilled only three and a half or seven years after the Crucifixion.
I can sympathize with aspects of that view, I am now convinced the 70th Week of Daniel was fulfilled from 30-37 AD. But what Matthew 24 describes is clearly End Times and clearly has not yet already happened.
Now to the point of this post.
I want to remind people what Jesus said in verse 6, during what I and Chuck Missler like to call the non signs.
But there was no point in Jesus saying that if the end He meant was going to happen in only a few years.
There is no point in telling people not to consider something a sign the end is near, if the end is already near when you're talking to them.
I have seen people argue that everything Jesus talked about in Matthew 24 was fulfilled only three and a half or seven years after the Crucifixion.
I can sympathize with aspects of that view, I am now convinced the 70th Week of Daniel was fulfilled from 30-37 AD. But what Matthew 24 describes is clearly End Times and clearly has not yet already happened.
Now to the point of this post.
I want to remind people what Jesus said in verse 6, during what I and Chuck Missler like to call the non signs.
"see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."That is why I disagree with trying to use these things as End Times signs at all.
But there was no point in Jesus saying that if the end He meant was going to happen in only a few years.
There is no point in telling people not to consider something a sign the end is near, if the end is already near when you're talking to them.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Possible Psalm 81 Retraction
In my main Seventh Trumpet post I had cited Psalm 81 as evidence for affiliating Yom Teruah with Trumpet sounding. And my overall point in that post remains regardless of the relevance of this Psalm. But it turns out there are possible translation issues with that verse.
I had cited the KJV rendering, as is usually my default, of verse 3.
There are a few issues I have since discovered. Which I found looking into why many modern Bibles replace "in the time appointed" with Full Moon.
1. The Hebrew doesn't use the usual Hebrew phrase for Appointed Time, Mowed, but rather Keceh, which the Strongs says means full or fullness.
2. The usual word for the "new" part of New Moon, Rosh, isn't the Hebrew in the verse. Just the word Codesh which is affiliated with the Moon as well as with Months. But not the standard Hebrew word for Moon which is Yerah.
3. The reference to "solem feast day" isn't Mowed either, but chag, which unlike other words translated Feast is assumed to specifically mean a feast or festival. I've been told recently that only the pilgrimage days are feasts/festivals. Two of those happen on or right after Full Moons, and none on a New Moon.
According to Numbers 10 the Silver Trumpets are sounded on all the Appointed Times. The Hebrew here references the Shofar however. It's possible the types of Trumpets are not meant to be as distinguished from others as some insist they should be.
Modern Bibles are clearly wrong to reference the New and Full Moon both, this is a single day being refereed to according to the grammar. If it's a Solemn Feast Day that's Full Moon linked, it's either Passover of Tabernacles.
The word in question for "fullness" is only used once elsewhere in Scripture. Proverbs 7:20. There again the KJV renders it Appointed.
It is strong number 3677, but it's root is 3680. That word is taken as meaning things like cover, hide, conceal. So that sounds more like the New Moon or a solar Eclipse (the eve of the Hebrew New Moon which is the crescent) were the Moon isn't visible at all.
Numbers 10 does say to sound the Silver Trumpets on all the Holy Days, but it's usually only Yom Teruah (or Yom Kippur but only for the Jubilee) specifically associated with Trumpets. Especially the Shofar.
I still think my original view on this may be right, but that makes those who insist Yom Teruah and Yom Kippur are not Feasts mistaken. Solomon's 14 day Festival went through Yom Kippur, which doesn't work if Yom Kippur is a Fast Day as tradition as convinced people.
The Septuagint agrees with the KJV on this verse, I have major issues with the Septuagint, but those come down to how it's used against the KJV, and the Masoretic text in general, here I'm simply wondering how to interpret what the Masoretic text says. And I do think now the KJV and LXX are both mistaken in exactly how to express the verse, but possibly closer to the correct intent then the Full Moon view.
Thing is this would be the only verse in The Bible making the Full Moon significant, (with only one other mentioning it at all, based on the same word). Certain Feast Days happen to occur near the Full Moon, but it's how long after the New Moon they are counted. And saying the 15th of each month is the Full Moon is a mistake based on a wrong understanding of the Biblical New Moon. The Full Moon is actually the 14th more often then not.
I always find it significant when God does the opposite of The Pagans. The Full Moon is constantly significant to Pagans, but The Bible seems to be more focused on New Moons.
This PDF argued in-favor of the Full Moon interpretation. But in doing so reveals how that interpretation has it's roots in the opinions of the Pharasitic Rabbis of the first and second centuries, who went on to influence Jerome. I give Jerome credit for being the first "Church Father" to use Hebrew rather then the Septuagint for the Old Testament, but he should have sought his advice from Kariates rather then Rabbis.
And that PDF's argument against the "covering" interpretation seems overly technical for a word that is used only twice.
My hunch now is that this refers to when the Moon comes out of hiding, the Biblical New Moon.
This is an issue I'm gonna to dig deeper on.
On a side note, tonight is the Blood Moon (but in Kariate Biblical reckoning it's not Tabernacles after all, Tabernacles starts tomorrow night). Here is Chris White's refutation of that again.
He could have added that it's barely visible in Israel, this last one being the only one visible there at all.
I'm gonna put Rob Skiba's recent longer video here too, though he says plenty I don't agree with (like on the Flat Earth).
I had cited the KJV rendering, as is usually my default, of verse 3.
Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day.Yom Teruah is the only day that is both a New Moon and one of the Leviticus 23 Feast Days.
There are a few issues I have since discovered. Which I found looking into why many modern Bibles replace "in the time appointed" with Full Moon.
1. The Hebrew doesn't use the usual Hebrew phrase for Appointed Time, Mowed, but rather Keceh, which the Strongs says means full or fullness.
2. The usual word for the "new" part of New Moon, Rosh, isn't the Hebrew in the verse. Just the word Codesh which is affiliated with the Moon as well as with Months. But not the standard Hebrew word for Moon which is Yerah.
3. The reference to "solem feast day" isn't Mowed either, but chag, which unlike other words translated Feast is assumed to specifically mean a feast or festival. I've been told recently that only the pilgrimage days are feasts/festivals. Two of those happen on or right after Full Moons, and none on a New Moon.
According to Numbers 10 the Silver Trumpets are sounded on all the Appointed Times. The Hebrew here references the Shofar however. It's possible the types of Trumpets are not meant to be as distinguished from others as some insist they should be.
Modern Bibles are clearly wrong to reference the New and Full Moon both, this is a single day being refereed to according to the grammar. If it's a Solemn Feast Day that's Full Moon linked, it's either Passover of Tabernacles.
The word in question for "fullness" is only used once elsewhere in Scripture. Proverbs 7:20. There again the KJV renders it Appointed.
He hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the day appointed.Other translations also say "full moon" instead of "day appointed' here.
It is strong number 3677, but it's root is 3680. That word is taken as meaning things like cover, hide, conceal. So that sounds more like the New Moon or a solar Eclipse (the eve of the Hebrew New Moon which is the crescent) were the Moon isn't visible at all.
Numbers 10 does say to sound the Silver Trumpets on all the Holy Days, but it's usually only Yom Teruah (or Yom Kippur but only for the Jubilee) specifically associated with Trumpets. Especially the Shofar.
I still think my original view on this may be right, but that makes those who insist Yom Teruah and Yom Kippur are not Feasts mistaken. Solomon's 14 day Festival went through Yom Kippur, which doesn't work if Yom Kippur is a Fast Day as tradition as convinced people.
The Septuagint agrees with the KJV on this verse, I have major issues with the Septuagint, but those come down to how it's used against the KJV, and the Masoretic text in general, here I'm simply wondering how to interpret what the Masoretic text says. And I do think now the KJV and LXX are both mistaken in exactly how to express the verse, but possibly closer to the correct intent then the Full Moon view.
Thing is this would be the only verse in The Bible making the Full Moon significant, (with only one other mentioning it at all, based on the same word). Certain Feast Days happen to occur near the Full Moon, but it's how long after the New Moon they are counted. And saying the 15th of each month is the Full Moon is a mistake based on a wrong understanding of the Biblical New Moon. The Full Moon is actually the 14th more often then not.
I always find it significant when God does the opposite of The Pagans. The Full Moon is constantly significant to Pagans, but The Bible seems to be more focused on New Moons.
This PDF argued in-favor of the Full Moon interpretation. But in doing so reveals how that interpretation has it's roots in the opinions of the Pharasitic Rabbis of the first and second centuries, who went on to influence Jerome. I give Jerome credit for being the first "Church Father" to use Hebrew rather then the Septuagint for the Old Testament, but he should have sought his advice from Kariates rather then Rabbis.
And that PDF's argument against the "covering" interpretation seems overly technical for a word that is used only twice.
My hunch now is that this refers to when the Moon comes out of hiding, the Biblical New Moon.
This is an issue I'm gonna to dig deeper on.
On a side note, tonight is the Blood Moon (but in Kariate Biblical reckoning it's not Tabernacles after all, Tabernacles starts tomorrow night). Here is Chris White's refutation of that again.
He could have added that it's barely visible in Israel, this last one being the only one visible there at all.
I'm gonna put Rob Skiba's recent longer video here too, though he says plenty I don't agree with (like on the Flat Earth).
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Was Yom Kippur fulfilled on The Cross?
I wish I'd made up my mind and posted this before this year's Yom Kippur.
It's popular to say that since the Spring Feasts were fulfilled "on the day" of those feasts, that the Fall Feasts which we always assume are about the Second Advent will be as well. And I have argued strongly on this Blog for The Rapture happening on Yom Teruah.
The problem is that in The Book of Hebrews chapters 8-10, Paul argues that Jesus fulled the Day of Atonement on The Cross.
I've already argued on this blog that Barabbas can be seen as the Azazel Goat, while Jesus is the Sin Offering.
And the Viel to the Temple being torn can be seen as having Yom Kippur significance.
Now I remain unconvinced of Ron Wyatt's claim about where The Ark is, that is now strongly supported by Michael Rood, and I've seen mentioned by Kent Hovind. I however have long been convinced of Bob Conruke and Graham Hancock's theory.
But if you believe that theory, it makes Nisan 14 30 AD a fulfillment of Yom Kippur even more. Because that Holy Day is when Blood of The Sin Offering is placed on The Mercy Seat.
I think the Tenth of Tishri could still have Eschatological significance in terms of the Jubilee being fulfilled after The Millennium and Gog and Magog. But using Scripture to Interpret Scripture, Yom Kippur strictly speaking was fulfilled the same day Passover was.
It's popular to say that since the Spring Feasts were fulfilled "on the day" of those feasts, that the Fall Feasts which we always assume are about the Second Advent will be as well. And I have argued strongly on this Blog for The Rapture happening on Yom Teruah.
The problem is that in The Book of Hebrews chapters 8-10, Paul argues that Jesus fulled the Day of Atonement on The Cross.
I've already argued on this blog that Barabbas can be seen as the Azazel Goat, while Jesus is the Sin Offering.
And the Viel to the Temple being torn can be seen as having Yom Kippur significance.
Now I remain unconvinced of Ron Wyatt's claim about where The Ark is, that is now strongly supported by Michael Rood, and I've seen mentioned by Kent Hovind. I however have long been convinced of Bob Conruke and Graham Hancock's theory.
But if you believe that theory, it makes Nisan 14 30 AD a fulfillment of Yom Kippur even more. Because that Holy Day is when Blood of The Sin Offering is placed on The Mercy Seat.
I think the Tenth of Tishri could still have Eschatological significance in terms of the Jubilee being fulfilled after The Millennium and Gog and Magog. But using Scripture to Interpret Scripture, Yom Kippur strictly speaking was fulfilled the same day Passover was.
The Millennium and Tabernacles
I've talked before about how I think many passages people assume are The Millennium are really the New Heaven and New Earth. Mainly Isaiah 65, Ezekiel 40-48 and Psalm 48.
I have decided one Old Testament passage I think is definitely The Millennium. The end of Zachariah 14.
That only Tabernacles is mentioned here I find interesting. I doubt it'll be the only of the Feast Days kept at this time, but it may be the only one that God will require the Gentiles to come to. Ezekiel 45 has Passover/Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles still being kept, but not First Fruits, Pentecost, Yom Teruah or Yom Kippur.
You may be thinking, "having a required pilgrimage for the Jews is one thing, but do you really think the whole world's population is gonna fit in Jerusalem?" Well what Zechariah 14 says is focused on the Nations, not on individuals. It may be each nation will send representatives there, or that the leaders are supposed to go there.
It is my view that the Fulfillment of Tabernacles is after the Millennium and the Gog and Magog war. While Yom Teruah is fulfilled at The Rapture.
I have decided one Old Testament passage I think is definitely The Millennium. The end of Zachariah 14.
And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.This theme of punishing Nations I don't see happening in the New Creation. This fits my suspicion that The Millennium is not going to be as Utopic as everyone assumes. The passages I disagree with seeing as The Millennium are about the Gentile Nations enthusiastically worshiping Yahweh.
That only Tabernacles is mentioned here I find interesting. I doubt it'll be the only of the Feast Days kept at this time, but it may be the only one that God will require the Gentiles to come to. Ezekiel 45 has Passover/Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles still being kept, but not First Fruits, Pentecost, Yom Teruah or Yom Kippur.
You may be thinking, "having a required pilgrimage for the Jews is one thing, but do you really think the whole world's population is gonna fit in Jerusalem?" Well what Zechariah 14 says is focused on the Nations, not on individuals. It may be each nation will send representatives there, or that the leaders are supposed to go there.
It is my view that the Fulfillment of Tabernacles is after the Millennium and the Gog and Magog war. While Yom Teruah is fulfilled at The Rapture.
September 11th 3 BC Birth-Date Theory
What happened on this date with Jupiter and Regulus I still view as vital to understanding the Star of Bethlehem.
There are people out there however obsessed with thinking the vision seen in Revelation 12 is about this date and the Birth of Jesus. There are major problems with that.
First off regardless of if the Birth of Jesus is what Revelation 12 symbolically represents, those signs are not seen in the Heavens until after the Seventh Trumpet is sounded. These signs I believe are what Jesus meant by "Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars" in Luke 21 and "Sign of the Son of Man" in the Olivite Discourse.
But I have shown that I don't think Revelation 12 is depicting the Birth of Jesus at all, but the Resurrection and Rapture of The Church.
As far as thinking Virgo has something to with Revelation 12. I am definitively convinced the Seventh Trumpet sounds on Yom Teruah, and I'm very compelled by the Gospel in The Stars theory. So I have looked into speculation about Virgo and Revelation 12.
But there is still no Biblical proof it has anything to do with Virgo. And even if it does I still think it may be futile to look for it on Stellerium. I think this is probably ultimately a completely supernatural occurrence, like what God did with the Sun for Joshua or Hezekiah.
The Moon being under Virgo's feet while the Sun is in Virgo happens every year, sometimes twice a year. The requirements for this vision are not rare in any way.
Rob Skiba likes to say it has to be a New Moon to fit this so he can say September 11th 3 BC was the only 80 Minutes in history this happened. But nothing in the text of Revelation 12 says it has to be the New Moon, I have other reasons for believing on or near the New Moon is when this happens, but the Greek text does not say that, it's just the standard Greek word for Moon. Exact same word used in Revelation 6, which I believe will happen on or soon after a Full Moon.
At any-rate I think there might be a New Moon under Virgo's Feet on October 7th 21 AD.
But I no longer favor that End Times model. I now have a theory Revelation 12 could be fulfilled on September 26th 2033 AD.
The Romans would not have made all of Judea have to travel longs distances to their family homes only two weeks before Tabernacles. Tabernacles was a pilgrimage festival were all the Jews had to be in Jerusalem for the entire week. Preparations for that would have to begin more then 2 weeks in advance. So I'm sorry but Jesus simply could not have been born on one of the Leviticus 23 Holy Days.
I have shown elsewhere that Jesus was born on December 25th after all.
And all his talk about all the Sun gods being born on December 25th is wrong. The Winter Solstice was affiliated by Sun worshipers with Death and Resurrection not birth. Apollo and Dionysus Birthdays were originally in Spring. But Augustus changed it to his Birthday September 23rd which happened to be near the Autumul Equinox.
There are people out there however obsessed with thinking the vision seen in Revelation 12 is about this date and the Birth of Jesus. There are major problems with that.
First off regardless of if the Birth of Jesus is what Revelation 12 symbolically represents, those signs are not seen in the Heavens until after the Seventh Trumpet is sounded. These signs I believe are what Jesus meant by "Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars" in Luke 21 and "Sign of the Son of Man" in the Olivite Discourse.
But I have shown that I don't think Revelation 12 is depicting the Birth of Jesus at all, but the Resurrection and Rapture of The Church.
As far as thinking Virgo has something to with Revelation 12. I am definitively convinced the Seventh Trumpet sounds on Yom Teruah, and I'm very compelled by the Gospel in The Stars theory. So I have looked into speculation about Virgo and Revelation 12.
But there is still no Biblical proof it has anything to do with Virgo. And even if it does I still think it may be futile to look for it on Stellerium. I think this is probably ultimately a completely supernatural occurrence, like what God did with the Sun for Joshua or Hezekiah.
The Moon being under Virgo's feet while the Sun is in Virgo happens every year, sometimes twice a year. The requirements for this vision are not rare in any way.
Rob Skiba likes to say it has to be a New Moon to fit this so he can say September 11th 3 BC was the only 80 Minutes in history this happened. But nothing in the text of Revelation 12 says it has to be the New Moon, I have other reasons for believing on or near the New Moon is when this happens, but the Greek text does not say that, it's just the standard Greek word for Moon. Exact same word used in Revelation 6, which I believe will happen on or soon after a Full Moon.
At any-rate I think there might be a New Moon under Virgo's Feet on October 7th 21 AD.
But I no longer favor that End Times model. I now have a theory Revelation 12 could be fulfilled on September 26th 2033 AD.
The Romans would not have made all of Judea have to travel longs distances to their family homes only two weeks before Tabernacles. Tabernacles was a pilgrimage festival were all the Jews had to be in Jerusalem for the entire week. Preparations for that would have to begin more then 2 weeks in advance. So I'm sorry but Jesus simply could not have been born on one of the Leviticus 23 Holy Days.
I have shown elsewhere that Jesus was born on December 25th after all.
And all his talk about all the Sun gods being born on December 25th is wrong. The Winter Solstice was affiliated by Sun worshipers with Death and Resurrection not birth. Apollo and Dionysus Birthdays were originally in Spring. But Augustus changed it to his Birthday September 23rd which happened to be near the Autumul Equinox.
Sethite View and the Nephilim
The Sethite view is easily refutable, the Pastor I do not like to name none the less holds it to be true.
As far as New Testament verses referring to Believers and Adam as Sons of God. I have shown that we are not actually Sons of God strictly until the Resurrection. When we become like The Angels and like Adam was before The Fall.
The Pastor I do not like to name used a verse from Hebrews to try and prove Angels can't be called Sons of God. That passage was about how Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God, (John 3:16). This same Pastor never brought up Job at all, besides the beginning of Job, in verse 38:7 God says "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" in a Context talking about Creation. Before Adam was Created.
Before 30 AD the only Sons of God were The Angels.
Thing is, I have become skeptical of the traditional Angel-Human Hybrid view. I accepted it for the longest time. I argued against Rob Skiba about second incursions once. And I still stand by what I said there that the Angels falling out of Lust for Women has continued post-Flood.
I still believe Sons of God refers to Angels, and I still believe the word Nephilim probably refereed to the Angels not the Mighty Men offspring.
Here is the thing, all of the New Testament verification that Angels fell to marry women in II Peter and Jude, and also Paul in 1 Corinthians when he talks about head coverings. Never confirm the angels were the fathers of any children.
The text of Genesis 6 as it's usually translated has insertions. In Verse 4.
Genesis 21:1-3 says.
As far as Rob's interpretation of the "And also after that", it's already at the 120 years left point this happens the first time.
A lot of people believing the Hybrid view make that their only apologetic answer to the issue of the apparent commands of Genocide from God in The Old Testament. That is very dangerous, to allow yourself to think Genocide is ok if you become convinced some group of people are Nephilim.
Lots of Christians have dealt with the issue in more natural ways. The Tirbalouge Blogspot blog is Clainvist which means I object to much of their theology. And they support the Sethite view. But they do a good job archiving answers to this Genocide issue without needing to bring any Science Fantasy into it. Whatever the reasons, those kinds of things don't apply on this side of The Cross.
In the case of the Amalekites, God explains why this command is being given, nothing about them being less Human.
The Reason for the Flood is always given as the people's sinful and violent nature. Not that their DNA had been corrupted.
Rob Skiba while promoting his bizarre Nephilim theory decided to try and de-mystify the Giant issue by showing a video talking about how Lygers grow very large just from how their cross bred. Well he overlooked something, that refutes the idea of needing unnatural crossbreeding altogether, Lions and Tigers are of the same Kind, they're Cats, they had the same ancestors on Noah's Ark.
So everyone in the past who's mocked the idea of interbreeding causing Giants, well it does have a scientific basis, the Genetic potential just no longer seems to exist among the remaining descendants of Noah. The last Biblically documented giant was before 1000 BC.
That's just one fact to point out, meanwhile it's highly possible Angels themselves could sometimes manifest as Giants. William Schneoblen tell a story of seeing a Giant Angel guarding a house he was in after praying for protection. Biblically one Angel killed the entire Assyrian army by himself.
At any-rate, none of the three words translated giant mean that, the ones described as Gigantic are all post Flood. However The "Fossil Record" seems to indicate that most everything was a lot bigger before The Flood.
What about the Anakim? They are defined as being of the Nephilim. Maybe they were fallen angels themselves, not hybrids. Maybe "Children of Anak" is like a poetic title and not really an identifier of an ancestor. Arba, founder of Hebron and namesake of it's prior name is called both a great man among the Anakim and the father of Anak. Seems contradictory unless the descriptions are poetic in some way.
Or maybe I'm wrong about what Nephilim means, if it does mean Giant then it just means the Anakim were for some reason Gigantic.
I'm just saying I'm unsure. The Holy Spirit has been convicting me lately about how this Nephilim issue seems to be a gateway drug into a lot of Occult Neo-Pagan weirdness. My advice is to at least be very careful looking into this area of research.
But don't let aversion to the weirdness scare you into to accepting the Sethite view which ties into Racism. My issue with Skia is he rejects the Sehtite view but gives his version of the Nephilim story the exact same issue I have with the Sethite view. By tying it into vilification of Ham's descendants.
As far as New Testament verses referring to Believers and Adam as Sons of God. I have shown that we are not actually Sons of God strictly until the Resurrection. When we become like The Angels and like Adam was before The Fall.
The Pastor I do not like to name used a verse from Hebrews to try and prove Angels can't be called Sons of God. That passage was about how Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God, (John 3:16). This same Pastor never brought up Job at all, besides the beginning of Job, in verse 38:7 God says "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" in a Context talking about Creation. Before Adam was Created.
Before 30 AD the only Sons of God were The Angels.
Thing is, I have become skeptical of the traditional Angel-Human Hybrid view. I accepted it for the longest time. I argued against Rob Skiba about second incursions once. And I still stand by what I said there that the Angels falling out of Lust for Women has continued post-Flood.
I still believe Sons of God refers to Angels, and I still believe the word Nephilim probably refereed to the Angels not the Mighty Men offspring.
Here is the thing, all of the New Testament verification that Angels fell to marry women in II Peter and Jude, and also Paul in 1 Corinthians when he talks about head coverings. Never confirm the angels were the fathers of any children.
The text of Genesis 6 as it's usually translated has insertions. In Verse 4.
There were Nephilim in the earth in those days; (and also after that_, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.Notice I put "to them" in italics, that isn't in the Hebrew. The text says the women the Angels married bore children, but doesn't necessarily say the fathers were the Angels.
Genesis 21:1-3 says.
And YHWH visited Sarah as he had said, and YHWH did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.It wouldn't be hard actually for a fringe theorist to suggest this passage is saying YHWH fathered Isaac. But we know from the context of Genesis 18 this is about YHWH making a barren woman fertile so He can keep His promise. Maybe what the Beni-Elohim did for the women in Genesis 6 was something similar.
As far as Rob's interpretation of the "And also after that", it's already at the 120 years left point this happens the first time.
A lot of people believing the Hybrid view make that their only apologetic answer to the issue of the apparent commands of Genocide from God in The Old Testament. That is very dangerous, to allow yourself to think Genocide is ok if you become convinced some group of people are Nephilim.
Lots of Christians have dealt with the issue in more natural ways. The Tirbalouge Blogspot blog is Clainvist which means I object to much of their theology. And they support the Sethite view. But they do a good job archiving answers to this Genocide issue without needing to bring any Science Fantasy into it. Whatever the reasons, those kinds of things don't apply on this side of The Cross.
In the case of the Amalekites, God explains why this command is being given, nothing about them being less Human.
The Reason for the Flood is always given as the people's sinful and violent nature. Not that their DNA had been corrupted.
Rob Skiba while promoting his bizarre Nephilim theory decided to try and de-mystify the Giant issue by showing a video talking about how Lygers grow very large just from how their cross bred. Well he overlooked something, that refutes the idea of needing unnatural crossbreeding altogether, Lions and Tigers are of the same Kind, they're Cats, they had the same ancestors on Noah's Ark.
So everyone in the past who's mocked the idea of interbreeding causing Giants, well it does have a scientific basis, the Genetic potential just no longer seems to exist among the remaining descendants of Noah. The last Biblically documented giant was before 1000 BC.
That's just one fact to point out, meanwhile it's highly possible Angels themselves could sometimes manifest as Giants. William Schneoblen tell a story of seeing a Giant Angel guarding a house he was in after praying for protection. Biblically one Angel killed the entire Assyrian army by himself.
At any-rate, none of the three words translated giant mean that, the ones described as Gigantic are all post Flood. However The "Fossil Record" seems to indicate that most everything was a lot bigger before The Flood.
What about the Anakim? They are defined as being of the Nephilim. Maybe they were fallen angels themselves, not hybrids. Maybe "Children of Anak" is like a poetic title and not really an identifier of an ancestor. Arba, founder of Hebron and namesake of it's prior name is called both a great man among the Anakim and the father of Anak. Seems contradictory unless the descriptions are poetic in some way.
Or maybe I'm wrong about what Nephilim means, if it does mean Giant then it just means the Anakim were for some reason Gigantic.
I'm just saying I'm unsure. The Holy Spirit has been convicting me lately about how this Nephilim issue seems to be a gateway drug into a lot of Occult Neo-Pagan weirdness. My advice is to at least be very careful looking into this area of research.
But don't let aversion to the weirdness scare you into to accepting the Sethite view which ties into Racism. My issue with Skia is he rejects the Sehtite view but gives his version of the Nephilim story the exact same issue I have with the Sethite view. By tying it into vilification of Ham's descendants.
Friday, September 25, 2015
Tiny URL Link for This Blog
Unless I can find a way to change the URL without killing the old links, I'll have to keep using TinyURL to promote this on Facebook and Twitter.
http://tinyurl.com/ChronologicalRevelation
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ChronologicalRevelation
I'll be adding links for specific parts of the Blog in time.
http://tinyurl.com/September25th2033
http://preview.tinyurl.com/September25th2033
http://tinyurl.com/ChronologicalRevelation
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ChronologicalRevelation
I'll be adding links for specific parts of the Blog in time.
http://tinyurl.com/September25th2033
http://preview.tinyurl.com/September25th2033
I no longer believe in Gaps in Daniel chapters 9 and 11
I've held that view in the past, but I've slowly come to abandon it. For that reason I changed the name of this blog, I sadly don't know a way to create a full new URL without rending all existing links to this Blog dead.
I had cited Hippolytus as an early source on Gaps in Daniel. Thing is he's the only Early Church Father to hold this view, he seems to have invented it. And while I still agree with him more then most Church Fathers on a number of End Times issues, his bizarre views on the Song of Solomon hurts his credibility. And his view on when the 69th Week ended does not agree with anyone today, he ended it at Jesus Birth.
I first started work on this 70th Week study when I was still against seeing the 70th Week as already fulfilled. But as you can see my open minded study of the evidence lead me to become convinced that yes the 70th Week was fulfilled from 30-37 AD. I talked more on that subject here.
I have also shown that Daniel 11:36-45 was about Augustus.
Gaps have nothing to do with making Daniel 2 or 7 End times, they are in nature incredibly broad symbolic visions of all history. But the visions in Hebrew Daniel are usually more narrow in scope. The way in which Revelation draws on Daniel is only really explicitly to Daniel 7 and to some extent 12. That Daniel 12 is jumping from the first to second Advent isn't a Gap really, it is again a broader in scope prophecy.
Matthew 24 is indisputably End Times. The basis for making material from Hebrew Daniel end times relevant is Jesus saying "The Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel The Prophet". Thing is while terminology similar to that is arguably used in the last verse of Daniel 9, the exact phrase is used in Daniel only in 11 and 12, and in 11 it's not the part any reasonable person argues is before the gap but in the part clearly about Antiochus Epiphanes.
Now I do think it's possible that the 70th Week and Daniel 11:36-45 could have end times relevance via Double Fulfillment. And I think to an extent even Daniel 12's End Times relevance is via double fulfillment. But the only thing I see absolutely required to happen again is what Jesus specifically refereed to.
But in the case of the 70th Week I've come to view that as only being applicable if the entire 70 Weeks is fulfilled twice, which I have argued a possible model for on this blog. If that model doesn't bear out, then Daniel 9 is not End Times relevant.
If Daniel 11's relevance is via double fulfillment Then when it starts being End Times relevant may have to be pushed sooner, because again it's the phrase "Abomination of Desolation" that is the key to Daniel's End Times relevance.
One thought I just started considering is that maybe two End Times Abomination of Desolation events will happen, one that seems more like a direct repeat of what Epiphanes did at the start of the 70th Week, and then what II Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 depicts at the Midway Point. (Update Sept2016: I've now considered an entirely new take on the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 11.)
Going back to Daniel 9:24, let's look again at what the purpose for the 70 Weeks are.
If you think "make an end of sins" means no one will be sinning anymore then you have to move the end of the 70 Weeks to after the Millennium, not before it. I would be curious to hear someone argue such a theory. This is referring to Jesus paying the price for Sin on The Cross, when He said "It Is Finished".
Some take "seal up the vision and prophecy" to mean no more Prophecies left to be fulfilled. Again you have to move the 70th Week to after the Millennium in that case.
I think that the anointing of the most Holy can be seen as fulfilled at Pentecost.
Every argument that the first advent wasn't enough to fulfill that requires an interpretation that places the fulfillment after not before the Millennium.
I feel there is a perfectly very real sense in which all those details were satisfied in 30-37 AD.
In my past study on the first 69 Weeks proving they ended in 30 AD. I justified the gap concept not with the usual Pre-Tirb/Dispensationalist the Gap is the Church Age logic. But by arguing that since it revolved around The Temple, the Gap was from when the Second Temple lost it's Holy Anointing when the Veil was Torn till when the future Temple will be consecrated. I brought that up in some other posts too.
I feel ashamed of that argument now, because it implies what the Veil being Torn achieved is gonna be undone. I won't remove that argument from that post because it's intent was to refute Chris White which it still does At any-rate when studying the possible dual fulfillment I realized it didn't revolve around The Temple as much as I thought. In fact it's barely mentioned at all.
I had cited Hippolytus as an early source on Gaps in Daniel. Thing is he's the only Early Church Father to hold this view, he seems to have invented it. And while I still agree with him more then most Church Fathers on a number of End Times issues, his bizarre views on the Song of Solomon hurts his credibility. And his view on when the 69th Week ended does not agree with anyone today, he ended it at Jesus Birth.
I first started work on this 70th Week study when I was still against seeing the 70th Week as already fulfilled. But as you can see my open minded study of the evidence lead me to become convinced that yes the 70th Week was fulfilled from 30-37 AD. I talked more on that subject here.
I have also shown that Daniel 11:36-45 was about Augustus.
Gaps have nothing to do with making Daniel 2 or 7 End times, they are in nature incredibly broad symbolic visions of all history. But the visions in Hebrew Daniel are usually more narrow in scope. The way in which Revelation draws on Daniel is only really explicitly to Daniel 7 and to some extent 12. That Daniel 12 is jumping from the first to second Advent isn't a Gap really, it is again a broader in scope prophecy.
Matthew 24 is indisputably End Times. The basis for making material from Hebrew Daniel end times relevant is Jesus saying "The Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel The Prophet". Thing is while terminology similar to that is arguably used in the last verse of Daniel 9, the exact phrase is used in Daniel only in 11 and 12, and in 11 it's not the part any reasonable person argues is before the gap but in the part clearly about Antiochus Epiphanes.
Now I do think it's possible that the 70th Week and Daniel 11:36-45 could have end times relevance via Double Fulfillment. And I think to an extent even Daniel 12's End Times relevance is via double fulfillment. But the only thing I see absolutely required to happen again is what Jesus specifically refereed to.
But in the case of the 70th Week I've come to view that as only being applicable if the entire 70 Weeks is fulfilled twice, which I have argued a possible model for on this blog. If that model doesn't bear out, then Daniel 9 is not End Times relevant.
If Daniel 11's relevance is via double fulfillment Then when it starts being End Times relevant may have to be pushed sooner, because again it's the phrase "Abomination of Desolation" that is the key to Daniel's End Times relevance.
One thought I just started considering is that maybe two End Times Abomination of Desolation events will happen, one that seems more like a direct repeat of what Epiphanes did at the start of the 70th Week, and then what II Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 depicts at the Midway Point. (Update Sept2016: I've now considered an entirely new take on the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 11.)
Going back to Daniel 9:24, let's look again at what the purpose for the 70 Weeks are.
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.It is commonly argued that the Second Advent is required for this to be fully fulfilled, that certain aspects of this clearly aren't fulfilled already. In fact I've even seen some Christians try to remove the First Advent from this altogether, like Chris White. To me that grossly undervalues what happened in 30 AD in a way no Christian, no matter how Futurist and Premillennial they are, should be willing to do.
If you think "make an end of sins" means no one will be sinning anymore then you have to move the end of the 70 Weeks to after the Millennium, not before it. I would be curious to hear someone argue such a theory. This is referring to Jesus paying the price for Sin on The Cross, when He said "It Is Finished".
Some take "seal up the vision and prophecy" to mean no more Prophecies left to be fulfilled. Again you have to move the 70th Week to after the Millennium in that case.
I think that the anointing of the most Holy can be seen as fulfilled at Pentecost.
Every argument that the first advent wasn't enough to fulfill that requires an interpretation that places the fulfillment after not before the Millennium.
I feel there is a perfectly very real sense in which all those details were satisfied in 30-37 AD.
In my past study on the first 69 Weeks proving they ended in 30 AD. I justified the gap concept not with the usual Pre-Tirb/Dispensationalist the Gap is the Church Age logic. But by arguing that since it revolved around The Temple, the Gap was from when the Second Temple lost it's Holy Anointing when the Veil was Torn till when the future Temple will be consecrated. I brought that up in some other posts too.
I feel ashamed of that argument now, because it implies what the Veil being Torn achieved is gonna be undone. I won't remove that argument from that post because it's intent was to refute Chris White which it still does At any-rate when studying the possible dual fulfillment I realized it didn't revolve around The Temple as much as I thought. In fact it's barely mentioned at all.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Is The Bride of Christ also his Sister?
I realize one thing that may make the argument I have made for The Man Child in Revelation 12 being The Church uncomfortable to some people is how it kind of makes Christ and his Bride siblings, both having the same spiritual mother (Israel, the Woman of Revelation 12) and spiritual father, God The Father.
I have used incestuous implications against other interpretations of the Bride of Christ, but those are against making The Bride his Mother. Sibling incest is a different matter.
Strictly speaking no Incest restrictions existed before the time of Moses, they became needed because of genetic deterioration. But while descendant-ancestor incest was painted negatively in the situation with Lot and his daughters, Abraham was in fact married to his half-sister Sarah.
Not to mention, Eve/Havvah would have been genetically Adam's twin.
The Song of Solomon is popularly interpreted by Christians as having a typological application to Christ and The Church.
I'm all for that, but I'm against using that as an excuse to render it irrelevant to Sexual Morality. Clearly the only book of The Bible that actually deals with Sex in detail should be relevant to the issue. But it's positive depictions of clearly non reproductive sex acts (before the marriage has actually happened) is very uncomfortable for the Prudes who base their Sexual Morality on Plato more then God's Word.
At any-rate back to the topic. If it is applicable to Christ and The Church, then it's notable that the couple in this book do poetically refer to each other as brother and sister, in chapters 4 and 5, and 8:1.
Jesus is the only Begotten Son of God, but all of us believers are his children by Adoption.
I have used incestuous implications against other interpretations of the Bride of Christ, but those are against making The Bride his Mother. Sibling incest is a different matter.
Strictly speaking no Incest restrictions existed before the time of Moses, they became needed because of genetic deterioration. But while descendant-ancestor incest was painted negatively in the situation with Lot and his daughters, Abraham was in fact married to his half-sister Sarah.
Not to mention, Eve/Havvah would have been genetically Adam's twin.
The Song of Solomon is popularly interpreted by Christians as having a typological application to Christ and The Church.
I'm all for that, but I'm against using that as an excuse to render it irrelevant to Sexual Morality. Clearly the only book of The Bible that actually deals with Sex in detail should be relevant to the issue. But it's positive depictions of clearly non reproductive sex acts (before the marriage has actually happened) is very uncomfortable for the Prudes who base their Sexual Morality on Plato more then God's Word.
At any-rate back to the topic. If it is applicable to Christ and The Church, then it's notable that the couple in this book do poetically refer to each other as brother and sister, in chapters 4 and 5, and 8:1.
Jesus is the only Begotten Son of God, but all of us believers are his children by Adoption.
The Revealing, The Rapture and The Abomination of Desolation
In the inaugural post of this Blog I argued that the Abomination of Desolation must happen before The Rapture. Latter I argued that maybe not, then I did another post going back to my original position but without really refuting the reasons I gave previously.
I have changed my mind again, I think this is my last change on this subject because I now feel I've unraveled the mysteries that confused me before.
Let me clarify, the way II Thessalonian 2 refutes Pre-Tribe remains fully in tact. The Abomination incident is mentioned there but it's strictly only his Revealing that must happen before The Rapture. And before that the restrainer must be removed.
I Believe as the new name for this Blog declares, but I've always felt this way, that the events in Revelation will happen in the order they are described, with few exceptions like referencing time periods that span 3.5 years. And Revelation does include examples of God speaking past tense of this yet to happen like Babylon's fall in chapter 14. But I firmly reject the idea of it starting once or multiple times.
Other Bible Prophecies are snap shots of the End Times that unless they contain clear timing statements are not chronological, but Revelation's Purpose is to tell us how it all fits together.
Only other single visions even close to being large enough to consider worth taking as strictly chronologically as Revelation, and that are irrefutably End Times. Are the last 2 visions that make up Ezekiel. 34-39 and 40-48. Those don't conflict with Revelation's chronology in my view, I see 40-48 as correlating to Revelation 21-22. And I see 37-39 as Revelation 20. What's before that can fit the Day of Wrath.
Revelation 9 is when the Restrainer is removed.
When The Beast kills the Witnesses is when he's irrefutably revealed. That is the first time Revelation irrefutably mentions The Beast, identifying him with earlier personages is valid speculation but still ultimately speculation. Now I'm unsure if the Beast that does is the first or second, I believe both Ascend out of the Bottomless Pit. That's a minor issue however, since I now think the second beast may be the more important one anyway.
Three and a half days latter they are resurrected, then they ascend into Heaven and the Gentile Population of Jerusalem repents and believes.
Then the Seventh Trumpet sounds, and then Revelation 12 depicts The Rapture. Then Revelation 13 depicts The Abomination of Desolation.
I'm still open the possibility of it happening first, my point here is there is room for interpretation on it. If it does happen first it happens very close, the same day the Witnesses were killed would be the longest before that it could happen. The chronology I suggested in this post remains compelling to me.
Here is the thing however. When we get to Revelation depiction of The Abomination of Desolation incident in Chapter 13 Verse 6.
I have changed my mind again, I think this is my last change on this subject because I now feel I've unraveled the mysteries that confused me before.
Let me clarify, the way II Thessalonian 2 refutes Pre-Tribe remains fully in tact. The Abomination incident is mentioned there but it's strictly only his Revealing that must happen before The Rapture. And before that the restrainer must be removed.
I Believe as the new name for this Blog declares, but I've always felt this way, that the events in Revelation will happen in the order they are described, with few exceptions like referencing time periods that span 3.5 years. And Revelation does include examples of God speaking past tense of this yet to happen like Babylon's fall in chapter 14. But I firmly reject the idea of it starting once or multiple times.
Other Bible Prophecies are snap shots of the End Times that unless they contain clear timing statements are not chronological, but Revelation's Purpose is to tell us how it all fits together.
Only other single visions even close to being large enough to consider worth taking as strictly chronologically as Revelation, and that are irrefutably End Times. Are the last 2 visions that make up Ezekiel. 34-39 and 40-48. Those don't conflict with Revelation's chronology in my view, I see 40-48 as correlating to Revelation 21-22. And I see 37-39 as Revelation 20. What's before that can fit the Day of Wrath.
Revelation 9 is when the Restrainer is removed.
When The Beast kills the Witnesses is when he's irrefutably revealed. That is the first time Revelation irrefutably mentions The Beast, identifying him with earlier personages is valid speculation but still ultimately speculation. Now I'm unsure if the Beast that does is the first or second, I believe both Ascend out of the Bottomless Pit. That's a minor issue however, since I now think the second beast may be the more important one anyway.
Three and a half days latter they are resurrected, then they ascend into Heaven and the Gentile Population of Jerusalem repents and believes.
Then the Seventh Trumpet sounds, and then Revelation 12 depicts The Rapture. Then Revelation 13 depicts The Abomination of Desolation.
I'm still open the possibility of it happening first, my point here is there is room for interpretation on it. If it does happen first it happens very close, the same day the Witnesses were killed would be the longest before that it could happen. The chronology I suggested in this post remains compelling to me.
Here is the thing however. When we get to Revelation depiction of The Abomination of Desolation incident in Chapter 13 Verse 6.
"And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.""Them that dwell in heaven" can only make sense to be as the already Raptured Church. Blaspheming Angels wouldn't be such a big deal.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
More on my 2018-2025 Theory
I don't want this theory to ever become like the Blood Moon or Smeitah fads we see now. I want awareness of my research to increase, but I don't want Christians radio shows getting people all riled up and frightened over it. We who are in Christ have nothing to fear, because we cannot die. And Satan can't touch us unless God allows him to.
I'm not dogmatic on this. And I'm not playing games with it, I have very specific things I expect to see happen by Pentacost (Karaite reckoning) of 2018 if this is true or I will fully admit to being wrong and that Suleiman's decree has no Biblical relevance.
I'm never gonna try to make money off this either, as much as I want to become more financially independent, the Spirit is leading me to make everything I know about this available to the Public for Free.
First of all, before we even reach the time in question The Temple needs to be rebuilt. Now modern technology could allow them to build a Temple (or it could be just a Tabernacle) pretty quickly. And while I'm certain of where Solomon and Herod's Temples were, I'm not so sure the next Temple will be built on the exact right spot. And Revelation 11 is the only reason I'm certain it has to be in Jerusalem, not somewhere else like Shiloh where I believe Ezekiel's Temple will be.
Even if The Temple is built by then, there are still things (at least 3, maybe 4) I expect to happen in Nisan of 2018, maybe the idea of some happening in Iyar, on Second Passover could be possible, but that's it, once Spring of 2018 is over my time for being vindicated is past.
This theory being wrong will not throw out most of how I interpret Bible Prophecy, the only significant change it would make I'll discus latter, but how I view the events of Revelation playing out over 7 years, and how I view the first fulfillment of the 70 Weeks, remain in tact.
If some of what I'll discus below happens but not all then maybe I could say I'm part right and just need to rethink some things. In fact being part right on what would happen in 2018 would probably change my overall view of Bible Prophecy more then being completely wrong on this time frame would.
Properly speaking the 70th Week would begin on the Rosh Codesh of Nisan (Karaite reckoning) of 2018. But the events that will single we're now in it will happen latter, but will happen probably in Nisan, and by Pentecost on the absolute latest.
I'll list what I expect to happen in basically the order I expect them to. Reasons for why I view the Chronology of the 70th Week this way are explained here.
1. The Two Witnesses will begin their Ministry. Possibly on Nisan 7. Now this is tricky because I do feel counterfeit Witnesses are possible, so we need to show discernment if anyone makes such claims for themselves. But I also have a feeling no counterfeit could do the exact same miracles they can perform. The False Prophet can call fire down from heaven, but the Witnesses shoot fire from their mouths.
2. The Sixth Seal events will happen, probably on the 14th of Nisan, (or maybe Second Passover a month latter) in fact I think they'll correlate to the same time Jesus was on The Cross. All of Revelation 6 I expect to happen when The Week starts, but the 6th seal has the most unmistakable identifying events.
Now on this I'm far less certain because of my shifting Antichrist views. But it could be at about the same time as 2 or 3 that a person who is either a leader or ally of Israel will be killed and heralded by the Jews and maybe also Christians as Messiah Ben-Joseph. This individual would be the White Horseman, and possibly his killer the Red Horseman who might be a Mahdi claimant. It may be that when he's resurrected 2.5-3.5 years latter he'll turn out to be the First Beast, the Eight King, the Little Horn.
3. Jerusalem will be invaded by an enemy, maybe a Muslim army, the Walls Suleiman had rebuilt will be breached and maybe even brought down completely in a manner that parallels the Walls of Jericho (perhaps even on the same day). And from that point all of Jerusalem but the Temple itself, including everyplace settled by Jews now, will be under Gentile Control, hence trodden under the foot of the Gentiles for 42 months.
4. On Pentecost of 2018 would be when Revelation 7 is fulfilled, and I expect it's fulfillment to be like a massive global repeat of Acts 2.
If none of that happens I'll drop this issue, look for other possible dates but fully admit that my logic for this model was wrong, there is no other model I can build based on the entire 70 Weeks prophecy having a second fulfillment.
Here is the big thing. They way I've redefined how I look at the 70 Weeks, and reject much Dispensationalist logic I used to buy into. I will then if this theory is wrong reject the idea of the 70th Week being End Times relevant at all.
Now I can and have already proven that Revelation implies a 7 year time period, appealing to Daniel isn't needed. Revelation 11 describes 3.5 years that must end before the 7th Trumpet sounds, while 12-13 describes 3.5 years that can't begin till after the 7th Trumpet sounds. The 7th Trumpet I'm convinced is The Rapture Trumpet.
Seven Year time periods are a theme throughout Scripture, I don't need Daniel to prove that point.
And I'll still unlike most who view the 70th Week as fulfilled in the first advent reject the whole Crucifixion being the halfway point idea. He was Crucified when the 69th Week ended and the 70th Began. I explain somewhat a 30-37 AD 70th Week model here. Jesus ministry was about 1 year not three.
A lot of this puts me on par with some of Rob Skiba's recent views. His point about why Jacob's Trouble should be 20 years is interesting. But he's assuming those 20 years can't have started yet, or at most started 3 years ago.
My current theory has the 7 years ending in 2025, 20 years before that is 2005, when Israel was forced to pull out of Gaza, evicting many Jews from their homes, and turning Gaza into a launching pad for terrorist attacks on Israel. This was really Israel's first set back since they got their Nation in 1948. Now that didn't happen in Nisan but still.
Now I am critical of how Israel has dealt with the Gaza situation recently, I do consider Israel's government as corrupt as any other. But it's not the Israeli government who suffered, it's the Israeli people. Just as the Cuban Embargo hurts the Cuban people, not it's Government.
Or if we view the 20 years of affliction as ending with The Rapture which I put at the midway point, which in this model is Yom Teruah in 2021. That's about 20 years from 9/11.
Rob still makes the mistake of viewing the "Great Tribulation" as only the last half of the 7 years. As I've argued firmly the Great Tribulation is all Church Age persecution. If it's a time period at all then it began when Stephen was stoned and will end at The Rapture. The "After the Tribulation" reference in Matthew 24 Post-Tribbers obsess over only proves that the Church's Tribulation by definition ends at the Rapture, no matter when The Rapture happens. God's Wrath is still after and that and spans 42 months as a face value reading of Revelation proves.
The Woman of Revelation 12 who is national Israel still has tribulation however hiding in the Wilderness. I agree with Rob that the Church is grafted into Israel in a sens,e but we're still distinct and National/Biological Israel still matter, the Woman of Revelation 12 is a mother not a bride, she can't be the Church.
Some Preterists have argued Stephen was stoned 1290 days after The Crucifixion (Tishri of 33 AD). They made that argument equating that to the first half of the 70th Week, not the last, but still it's interesting, though different from the date for Stephen's stoning I speculated on originally as being around Hanukkah of 36/37 AD.
I'm not the biggest fan of allegorizeing numbers, especially the Day=Year method of Historicists. But when the reference is an allegory to being with, like connecting Jacob's 20 year Affliction to the Eschatological Time of Jacob's Trouble, then to some extent why not. Maybe 20 years can become 20 Centuries, Two Thousand years from the Stoning of Stephen till The Rapture. That could certainly fit the 2030-2037 model I'd speculated on long ago. For this 2018-2025 model it'd work to say about 2000 years but not exactly.
If this theory is proven wrong, and I may consider it most likely wrong before the Nisan in question even starts if Temple progress isn't made. I may consider a theory that while there is certainly a 7 year period in Revelation, it may not cover everything in Revelation 6-19 but rather only 11-19. And maybe the proceeding 13 years could be where the Seals and first 6 Trumpets happen. But I'd have to put a lot of thought into that.
Or maybe we should consider that a 20 year Time of Jacob's trouble refers not to before the Millennium but after it. That it begins with Satan's getting let out of the Abyss.
The biggest inconvenience abandoning an Eschatological 70th Week would have for me is that I'd have to change the name of this Blog (Which was MidSeventitWeekRapture when I first made this Blog post). The issue there is I've linked to this Blog in so many places, as references in many blog posts on this and my other blogs. That I could never find and change all of them. I'll have to check with Blooger on if it's possible to change the name but keep the old URLs in tact.
I may change the name even before abandoning this view, just for other reasons. The new name for my Rapture model (which is distinct from traditional Mid-Trib) would be The Midway Point Rapture.
I may abandon having my rapture model as the name of the Blog at all, since it's a constant pain when I link to it in certain Facebook groups and people just respond to my Rapture model and not the subject of the actual post.
Update:
The ONLY think that could allow me to adjust this theory to a different timeline is if the Date for Suileman's decree is wrong. And if I become convinced it is I will hope to do so and renounce this 2018-2025 timeline well before it become nigh.
The January 14 1546 Earthquake provides the only reason suspect something amiss there. It is an odd coincidence that it seems Construction projects had started in Jerusalem less then 15 years before this Earthquake demanded further construction.
And it would be interesting if one cold re-date the Decree of Suileman to a year a couple months after the Earthquake, to the Nisan of 1547 AD, then that could cause line up with the 2030-2037 Model I'd already argued for awhile ago for completely unrelated reasons. And it would mean Suleiman's decree was exactly 2000 years after Artaxerxes.
But in order for any of that to work one would have to argue against the reasons the rebuilding of the Walls is dated to 1535-1538. And if that is solid it could be the usual date for the Earthquake that is wrong.
Another Update: I've for now abandoned this theory as explained here.
I'm not dogmatic on this. And I'm not playing games with it, I have very specific things I expect to see happen by Pentacost (Karaite reckoning) of 2018 if this is true or I will fully admit to being wrong and that Suleiman's decree has no Biblical relevance.
I'm never gonna try to make money off this either, as much as I want to become more financially independent, the Spirit is leading me to make everything I know about this available to the Public for Free.
First of all, before we even reach the time in question The Temple needs to be rebuilt. Now modern technology could allow them to build a Temple (or it could be just a Tabernacle) pretty quickly. And while I'm certain of where Solomon and Herod's Temples were, I'm not so sure the next Temple will be built on the exact right spot. And Revelation 11 is the only reason I'm certain it has to be in Jerusalem, not somewhere else like Shiloh where I believe Ezekiel's Temple will be.
Even if The Temple is built by then, there are still things (at least 3, maybe 4) I expect to happen in Nisan of 2018, maybe the idea of some happening in Iyar, on Second Passover could be possible, but that's it, once Spring of 2018 is over my time for being vindicated is past.
This theory being wrong will not throw out most of how I interpret Bible Prophecy, the only significant change it would make I'll discus latter, but how I view the events of Revelation playing out over 7 years, and how I view the first fulfillment of the 70 Weeks, remain in tact.
If some of what I'll discus below happens but not all then maybe I could say I'm part right and just need to rethink some things. In fact being part right on what would happen in 2018 would probably change my overall view of Bible Prophecy more then being completely wrong on this time frame would.
Properly speaking the 70th Week would begin on the Rosh Codesh of Nisan (Karaite reckoning) of 2018. But the events that will single we're now in it will happen latter, but will happen probably in Nisan, and by Pentecost on the absolute latest.
I'll list what I expect to happen in basically the order I expect them to. Reasons for why I view the Chronology of the 70th Week this way are explained here.
1. The Two Witnesses will begin their Ministry. Possibly on Nisan 7. Now this is tricky because I do feel counterfeit Witnesses are possible, so we need to show discernment if anyone makes such claims for themselves. But I also have a feeling no counterfeit could do the exact same miracles they can perform. The False Prophet can call fire down from heaven, but the Witnesses shoot fire from their mouths.
2. The Sixth Seal events will happen, probably on the 14th of Nisan, (or maybe Second Passover a month latter) in fact I think they'll correlate to the same time Jesus was on The Cross. All of Revelation 6 I expect to happen when The Week starts, but the 6th seal has the most unmistakable identifying events.
Now on this I'm far less certain because of my shifting Antichrist views. But it could be at about the same time as 2 or 3 that a person who is either a leader or ally of Israel will be killed and heralded by the Jews and maybe also Christians as Messiah Ben-Joseph. This individual would be the White Horseman, and possibly his killer the Red Horseman who might be a Mahdi claimant. It may be that when he's resurrected 2.5-3.5 years latter he'll turn out to be the First Beast, the Eight King, the Little Horn.
3. Jerusalem will be invaded by an enemy, maybe a Muslim army, the Walls Suleiman had rebuilt will be breached and maybe even brought down completely in a manner that parallels the Walls of Jericho (perhaps even on the same day). And from that point all of Jerusalem but the Temple itself, including everyplace settled by Jews now, will be under Gentile Control, hence trodden under the foot of the Gentiles for 42 months.
4. On Pentecost of 2018 would be when Revelation 7 is fulfilled, and I expect it's fulfillment to be like a massive global repeat of Acts 2.
If none of that happens I'll drop this issue, look for other possible dates but fully admit that my logic for this model was wrong, there is no other model I can build based on the entire 70 Weeks prophecy having a second fulfillment.
Here is the big thing. They way I've redefined how I look at the 70 Weeks, and reject much Dispensationalist logic I used to buy into. I will then if this theory is wrong reject the idea of the 70th Week being End Times relevant at all.
Now I can and have already proven that Revelation implies a 7 year time period, appealing to Daniel isn't needed. Revelation 11 describes 3.5 years that must end before the 7th Trumpet sounds, while 12-13 describes 3.5 years that can't begin till after the 7th Trumpet sounds. The 7th Trumpet I'm convinced is The Rapture Trumpet.
Seven Year time periods are a theme throughout Scripture, I don't need Daniel to prove that point.
And I'll still unlike most who view the 70th Week as fulfilled in the first advent reject the whole Crucifixion being the halfway point idea. He was Crucified when the 69th Week ended and the 70th Began. I explain somewhat a 30-37 AD 70th Week model here. Jesus ministry was about 1 year not three.
A lot of this puts me on par with some of Rob Skiba's recent views. His point about why Jacob's Trouble should be 20 years is interesting. But he's assuming those 20 years can't have started yet, or at most started 3 years ago.
My current theory has the 7 years ending in 2025, 20 years before that is 2005, when Israel was forced to pull out of Gaza, evicting many Jews from their homes, and turning Gaza into a launching pad for terrorist attacks on Israel. This was really Israel's first set back since they got their Nation in 1948. Now that didn't happen in Nisan but still.
Now I am critical of how Israel has dealt with the Gaza situation recently, I do consider Israel's government as corrupt as any other. But it's not the Israeli government who suffered, it's the Israeli people. Just as the Cuban Embargo hurts the Cuban people, not it's Government.
Or if we view the 20 years of affliction as ending with The Rapture which I put at the midway point, which in this model is Yom Teruah in 2021. That's about 20 years from 9/11.
Rob still makes the mistake of viewing the "Great Tribulation" as only the last half of the 7 years. As I've argued firmly the Great Tribulation is all Church Age persecution. If it's a time period at all then it began when Stephen was stoned and will end at The Rapture. The "After the Tribulation" reference in Matthew 24 Post-Tribbers obsess over only proves that the Church's Tribulation by definition ends at the Rapture, no matter when The Rapture happens. God's Wrath is still after and that and spans 42 months as a face value reading of Revelation proves.
The Woman of Revelation 12 who is national Israel still has tribulation however hiding in the Wilderness. I agree with Rob that the Church is grafted into Israel in a sens,e but we're still distinct and National/Biological Israel still matter, the Woman of Revelation 12 is a mother not a bride, she can't be the Church.
Some Preterists have argued Stephen was stoned 1290 days after The Crucifixion (Tishri of 33 AD). They made that argument equating that to the first half of the 70th Week, not the last, but still it's interesting, though different from the date for Stephen's stoning I speculated on originally as being around Hanukkah of 36/37 AD.
I'm not the biggest fan of allegorizeing numbers, especially the Day=Year method of Historicists. But when the reference is an allegory to being with, like connecting Jacob's 20 year Affliction to the Eschatological Time of Jacob's Trouble, then to some extent why not. Maybe 20 years can become 20 Centuries, Two Thousand years from the Stoning of Stephen till The Rapture. That could certainly fit the 2030-2037 model I'd speculated on long ago. For this 2018-2025 model it'd work to say about 2000 years but not exactly.
If this theory is proven wrong, and I may consider it most likely wrong before the Nisan in question even starts if Temple progress isn't made. I may consider a theory that while there is certainly a 7 year period in Revelation, it may not cover everything in Revelation 6-19 but rather only 11-19. And maybe the proceeding 13 years could be where the Seals and first 6 Trumpets happen. But I'd have to put a lot of thought into that.
Or maybe we should consider that a 20 year Time of Jacob's trouble refers not to before the Millennium but after it. That it begins with Satan's getting let out of the Abyss.
The biggest inconvenience abandoning an Eschatological 70th Week would have for me is that I'd have to change the name of this Blog (Which was MidSeventitWeekRapture when I first made this Blog post). The issue there is I've linked to this Blog in so many places, as references in many blog posts on this and my other blogs. That I could never find and change all of them. I'll have to check with Blooger on if it's possible to change the name but keep the old URLs in tact.
I may change the name even before abandoning this view, just for other reasons. The new name for my Rapture model (which is distinct from traditional Mid-Trib) would be The Midway Point Rapture.
I may abandon having my rapture model as the name of the Blog at all, since it's a constant pain when I link to it in certain Facebook groups and people just respond to my Rapture model and not the subject of the actual post.
Update:
The ONLY think that could allow me to adjust this theory to a different timeline is if the Date for Suileman's decree is wrong. And if I become convinced it is I will hope to do so and renounce this 2018-2025 timeline well before it become nigh.
The January 14 1546 Earthquake provides the only reason suspect something amiss there. It is an odd coincidence that it seems Construction projects had started in Jerusalem less then 15 years before this Earthquake demanded further construction.
And it would be interesting if one cold re-date the Decree of Suileman to a year a couple months after the Earthquake, to the Nisan of 1547 AD, then that could cause line up with the 2030-2037 Model I'd already argued for awhile ago for completely unrelated reasons. And it would mean Suleiman's decree was exactly 2000 years after Artaxerxes.
But in order for any of that to work one would have to argue against the reasons the rebuilding of the Walls is dated to 1535-1538. And if that is solid it could be the usual date for the Earthquake that is wrong.
Another Update: I've for now abandoned this theory as explained here.
Friday, September 18, 2015
The New Moon of Tishri was late this year
It was spotted September 15th 2015, not the 14th.
That means Biblically Yom Kippur starts at sunset September 24th, not the 23rd, which damages those theories.
And this also damages the Blood Moon theory.
That means Biblically Yom Kippur starts at sunset September 24th, not the 23rd, which damages those theories.
And this also damages the Blood Moon theory.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
The Tiburtine Sibyl and The Last Roman Emperor Constans
A Prophecy attributed to the Tiburtine Sibyl in 380 AD forms the embryo of the Last Roman Emperor tradition.
Of all the false prophecies I view as Antichrist seeds, The Last Roman Emperor is perhaps the most directly like the Biblical Antichrist, being defined as Greek and Roman at the same time, since it developed largely in the Byzantine Empire, it easily reconciles the way Daniel points to both Rome and Greece as the nations the Antichrist will rule. And in some of the 7th century apocalypses he's said to conquer both Syria and Egypt, which is interesting if you still think Daniel 11:40 is about the Antichrist.
Usually, when dealing with these false prophecies my view is that the Antichrist figure within said Prophecy is in the role of a Decoy Antichrist. And that is certainly the case with the later elaborations of the Last Roman Emperor tradition.
But this is short, and it's attributed to a pagan Oracle. Oracles usually give cryptic prophecies, that could have two potentially opposite meanings, or an unexpected meaning that in hindsight should have been obvious. "A Prophecy that misread could have been"-Yoda, Revenge of The Sith.
So let's look at what this Prophecy says closely.
2. Although the Antichrist is mentioned while Constans is still reigning, it's not till after Constans puts down his Crown in Jerusalem that the Antichrist is "openly revealed", and reigns in the House of God in Jerusalem. Same place we were just told Constans was.
I think this prophecy, even as it's author originally intended, is open to a reading where Constans and The Antichrist are the same individual. That he will "give up" his authority to beings that present themselves as being God and Jesus but are perhaps actually Satan and The False Prophet.
Constans is an interesting name, it's a diminutive form of Constantine and Constantinius (but a few lesser known Emperors are known by that name exactly). The seventh century Syrian elaborations on the Last Roman Emperor figure didn't give him a name. And the Western Catholic tradition of the Great Catholic Monarch removed the Greek affiliation altogether saying he'll descend from Clovis, the Merovingian. However...
When Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 AD. Emperor Constantine XI removed his royal garments on the battlefield when he knew it was lost so no one could tell who he was. After the battle was over the Turks identified a body as his and marched it around the city in victory, but the people failed to recognize it as Constantine. No body was ever indisputably identified as Constantine. A rumor spread that an Angel had saved him and turned him into a marble statue and hid him beneath the wall of Constantinople, and that one day God would revive him to drive out the Turks. The legacy of this legend remained important to the Greeks ever since, it was rekindled during their War of Independence in the 1800s and lingers to this day.
You may be thinking of course, "How can the same person be both King of the Greeks and a Prince from the Tribe of Dan?"
Ezekiel 27 speaks of Dan and Javan having a connection. And indeed Greek mythology speaks of the Danoi. This further leads to speculation about connecting Dan to the Tutha de Dannan who in Irish mythology came from Northern Europe. I'm highly skeptical of most British Israelism claims, but the Tribe of Dan is very interesting.
Britam identifies Dan with Denmark (which is the only Britam identification I kinda agree with). The Royal family of modern Greece from George I on are also Danish Royalty by virtue of their direct Pater-lineal descent from Christian IX of Denmark. Every modern King of Greece (King of the Hellenes as they call themselves) is also officially a Prince of Denmark. King of the Greeks and Prince of Dan.
I discus the genealogy of George I of Greece and Christian IX of Denmark on a different blog. That information can be overlapped with my Genealogy of The Antichrist study to show that they descend from the Seleucid Dynasty. as well as probable Merovingian descent from Clovis. This family is also taking over the British Royal family, involving a few of the lines different people have in different ways sought to connect to the House of David.
The current King in exile is Constantine II and is often called by his supporters Constantine XIII, viewing the modern Greek Kingdom as heir to the Byzantine Empire, and evoking the mythology about Constantine XI.
Constantine II has 4 children, Pavolos the oldest son is the Crown-Prince. Pavolos has 5 children, 4 of whom were born in the United States. Princess Maria-Olympia, Prince Constantine-Alexios, and Prince Achileas-Andreas all three of whom were born in New York. Prince Odysseus-Kimon and Prince Aristidis-Stravos who was born in Los Angeles.
The pieces are in place for some charismatic leader of this royal family to bring together the Byzantine Last Roman Emperor tradition, the Great Catholic Monarch Tradition, and the British Israelite understanding of Messiah Ben-Joseph and/or the Talmudic tradition that says Messiah Ben-David will also be half Danite, like how Samson was half Danite and half Judean.
Modern Greece had 7 Kings when it was a Kingdom. Now that is certainly not what the 7 Kings of Revelation mainly mean as I've firmly shown elsewhere, but it's interesting how patterns repeat.
Long ago when I hadn't settled on my current view of the 7 heads, when discussing a possible connection to the Kings of Rome, I argued that the 7th reigning a little while might not be about reign length so much as implying being driven from his position rather then reigning till he died as a King normally does. Which also happened to Constantine II.
From there it is interesting that it was during the reign of the Sixth King that Israel was reestablished in 1948.
Update Feb21st2016: Another option I just considered re-reading the Oracle is maybe the "Antichrist" there is really The False Prophet.
Of all the false prophecies I view as Antichrist seeds, The Last Roman Emperor is perhaps the most directly like the Biblical Antichrist, being defined as Greek and Roman at the same time, since it developed largely in the Byzantine Empire, it easily reconciles the way Daniel points to both Rome and Greece as the nations the Antichrist will rule. And in some of the 7th century apocalypses he's said to conquer both Syria and Egypt, which is interesting if you still think Daniel 11:40 is about the Antichrist.
Usually, when dealing with these false prophecies my view is that the Antichrist figure within said Prophecy is in the role of a Decoy Antichrist. And that is certainly the case with the later elaborations of the Last Roman Emperor tradition.
But this is short, and it's attributed to a pagan Oracle. Oracles usually give cryptic prophecies, that could have two potentially opposite meanings, or an unexpected meaning that in hindsight should have been obvious. "A Prophecy that misread could have been"-Yoda, Revenge of The Sith.
So let's look at what this Prophecy says closely.
THE LATIN TIBURTINE SIBYL1. It never describes Constans as actually fighting the Antichrist, the enemy he goes to war with is Gog and Magog.
Then will arise a king of the Greeks whose name is Constans. He will be king of the Romans and the Greeks. He will be tall of stature, of handsome appearance with shining face, and well put together in all parts of his body. His reign will be ended after one hundred and twelve years. In those days there will be great riches and the earth will give fruit abundantly so that a measure of wheat will be sold for a denarius, a measure of wine for a denarius, and a measure of oil for a denarius. The king will have a text before his eyes that says: "The king of the Romans will claim the whole Christian empire for himself." He will devastate all the islands and the cities of the pagans and will destroy all idolatrous temples; he will call all pagans to baptism and in every temple the Cross of Christ will be erected. "Then Egypt and Ethiopia will be eager to stretch their hands to God." ~ Whoever does not adore the Cross of Jesus Christ will be punished by the sword. When the one hundred and twelve years have been completed, the Jews will be converted to the Lord, and "his sepulchre will be glorified by all." In those days Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell with confidence. At that time the Prince of Iniquity who will be called Antichrist will arise from the tribe of Dan. He will be the Son of Perdition, the head of pride, the master of error, the fullness of malice who will overturn the world and do wonders and great signs through dissimulation. He will delude many by magic art so that fire will seem to come down from heaven. The years will be shortened like months, the months like weeks, the weeks like days, the days like hours, and an hour like a moment. The unclean nations that Alexander, the Indian king, shut up (i.e., Gog and Magog) will arise from the North. These are the twenty-two realms whose number is like the sand of the sea. When the king of the Romans hears of this he will call his army together and vanquish and utterly destroy them. After this he will come to Jerusalem, and having put off the diadem from his head and laid aside the whole imperial garb, he will hand over the empire of the Christians to God the Father and to Jesus Christ his Son. When the Roman empire shall have ceased, then the Antichrist will be openly revealed and will sit in the House of the Lord in Jerusalem. While he is reigning, two very famous men, Elijah and Enoch, will go forth to announce the coming of the Lord. Antichrist will kill them and after three days they will be raised up by the Lord. Then there will be a great persecution, such as has not been before nor shall be thereafter. The Lord will shorten those days for the sake of the elect, and the Antichrist will be slain by the power of God through Michael the Archangel on the Mount of Olives.
Translated from the edition of E. Sackur, Sibyllinische Texte und Forschungen. pp. 185—86.
2. Although the Antichrist is mentioned while Constans is still reigning, it's not till after Constans puts down his Crown in Jerusalem that the Antichrist is "openly revealed", and reigns in the House of God in Jerusalem. Same place we were just told Constans was.
I think this prophecy, even as it's author originally intended, is open to a reading where Constans and The Antichrist are the same individual. That he will "give up" his authority to beings that present themselves as being God and Jesus but are perhaps actually Satan and The False Prophet.
Constans is an interesting name, it's a diminutive form of Constantine and Constantinius (but a few lesser known Emperors are known by that name exactly). The seventh century Syrian elaborations on the Last Roman Emperor figure didn't give him a name. And the Western Catholic tradition of the Great Catholic Monarch removed the Greek affiliation altogether saying he'll descend from Clovis, the Merovingian. However...
When Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 AD. Emperor Constantine XI removed his royal garments on the battlefield when he knew it was lost so no one could tell who he was. After the battle was over the Turks identified a body as his and marched it around the city in victory, but the people failed to recognize it as Constantine. No body was ever indisputably identified as Constantine. A rumor spread that an Angel had saved him and turned him into a marble statue and hid him beneath the wall of Constantinople, and that one day God would revive him to drive out the Turks. The legacy of this legend remained important to the Greeks ever since, it was rekindled during their War of Independence in the 1800s and lingers to this day.
You may be thinking of course, "How can the same person be both King of the Greeks and a Prince from the Tribe of Dan?"
Ezekiel 27 speaks of Dan and Javan having a connection. And indeed Greek mythology speaks of the Danoi. This further leads to speculation about connecting Dan to the Tutha de Dannan who in Irish mythology came from Northern Europe. I'm highly skeptical of most British Israelism claims, but the Tribe of Dan is very interesting.
Britam identifies Dan with Denmark (which is the only Britam identification I kinda agree with). The Royal family of modern Greece from George I on are also Danish Royalty by virtue of their direct Pater-lineal descent from Christian IX of Denmark. Every modern King of Greece (King of the Hellenes as they call themselves) is also officially a Prince of Denmark. King of the Greeks and Prince of Dan.
I discus the genealogy of George I of Greece and Christian IX of Denmark on a different blog. That information can be overlapped with my Genealogy of The Antichrist study to show that they descend from the Seleucid Dynasty. as well as probable Merovingian descent from Clovis. This family is also taking over the British Royal family, involving a few of the lines different people have in different ways sought to connect to the House of David.
The current King in exile is Constantine II and is often called by his supporters Constantine XIII, viewing the modern Greek Kingdom as heir to the Byzantine Empire, and evoking the mythology about Constantine XI.
Constantine II has 4 children, Pavolos the oldest son is the Crown-Prince. Pavolos has 5 children, 4 of whom were born in the United States. Princess Maria-Olympia, Prince Constantine-Alexios, and Prince Achileas-Andreas all three of whom were born in New York. Prince Odysseus-Kimon and Prince Aristidis-Stravos who was born in Los Angeles.
The pieces are in place for some charismatic leader of this royal family to bring together the Byzantine Last Roman Emperor tradition, the Great Catholic Monarch Tradition, and the British Israelite understanding of Messiah Ben-Joseph and/or the Talmudic tradition that says Messiah Ben-David will also be half Danite, like how Samson was half Danite and half Judean.
Modern Greece had 7 Kings when it was a Kingdom. Now that is certainly not what the 7 Kings of Revelation mainly mean as I've firmly shown elsewhere, but it's interesting how patterns repeat.
Long ago when I hadn't settled on my current view of the 7 heads, when discussing a possible connection to the Kings of Rome, I argued that the 7th reigning a little while might not be about reign length so much as implying being driven from his position rather then reigning till he died as a King normally does. Which also happened to Constantine II.
From there it is interesting that it was during the reign of the Sixth King that Israel was reestablished in 1948.
Update Feb21st2016: Another option I just considered re-reading the Oracle is maybe the "Antichrist" there is really The False Prophet.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Which Beast is actually in Control?
I'm still highly skeptical that the Islamic Anitchrist model will be how things play out. But I also remain firmly confident that the Mahdi prophecy was made for the purpose of being a potential seed for the Antichrist. The Abomination of Desolation itself shouldn't be expected in such false prophecies though, these are merely potential plans to set the stage for it, the Abomination is when the mislead ends and the real agenda is revealed.
Chris White in his criticism of the Islamic Antichrist theory, has among other things criticized the desire of Christians to misrepresent Islamic Eschatology so that Isa (Muslim Jesus) is subordinate to The Mahdi. And all that is very good.
Here is the thing, is our traditional assumption that the Second Beast is subordinate to the First Beast possibly wrong?
For starters if either is being possessed or indwelt by Satan it would be the Second Beast, that's the one speaking with The Dragon's voice.
The First Beast is defined as the object of worship. But that could be consistent with being a mere figure head, a flesh and blood Idol for the people to focus on while someone else holds the real power. In George Orwell's 1984 the possibly exists that Big Brother isn't even real, or who he's based on is long dead. He's now merely a poster, a Face of the Party designed to be an object of both adoration and fear.
The First Beast is a political system, his Empire, not just the individual. So the whole "Who is able to make war with him" I feel is explained in chapter 17 where it seems clear the 10 Horns are the source of his military power. The individual of the Eight King may not be a military figure at all. The other major reason for seeing The Antichrist as a conqueror is Daniel 11:36-45 which I've discussed elsewhere.
The First Beast remains a central object of discussion after the Second Beast is introduced, that helps make it seem like he's more important. But perhaps what we're told after the Second Beast is introduced is meant to help us better understand what was said before.
At the beginning we're told The Dragon gave his Power and Authority and his Seat/Throne to the First Beast. But in Verse 12 it's the Second Beast who "exerciseth all the Power of the First Beast". It's the Second who speaks with The Dragon's voice. He's the architect of the Mark system.
In the first part of my False Prophet study I discussed the possibility that many Prophecies outside Revelation we assume are about The Antichrist could really be The False Prophet. Including that the title Son of Perdition might belong to the False Prophet. I saw at least one website long ago argue that the Second Beast not the First is the one we should apply the title Antichrist too.
I argued in the third part of my False Prophet study that that term Antichrist could in fact require both Beasts put together. John defines the Antichrist heresy as denying the Deity of Christ. So the ultimate expression of that could be two individuals, one claiming to be God and not Jesus, and the other claiming to be Jesus and not God. And that is an even more Ironic deception if even the False Jesus is in fact closer to having godlike powers then the false god.
At the beginning of the Book of Kings people like to see Adonijah as a type of The Antichrist, a usurper to the Throne of David. But Adonijah was a pawn, a puppet, Joab (the type of Satan) and Abithar the Priest (False Prophet) are the real players of that Game of Thrones, opposed by Nathan and Zadok, and also Bathsheba.
Let's discus the mystery of The Image of The Beast. Today we're obsessed with seeing this through a SciFi lens, wanting to see it as a Robot/Android, or a Hologram, or an Artificial Intelligence program on the Internet. I myself have been guilty of that in the past, preferring the A.I. theory. But I noticed reading Revelation 13 today it never describes the Image being made, just the Second beast giving Life to it.
Let's use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and go back to the first use of the term Image. Genesis tells us Adam was made in the Image of God. So there is a Scriptural precedent for describing a body of flesh as an Image.
And many including Chris White have conjectured independent of considering that, that The False Prophet will be responsible for The Beast's resurrection/mortal wound healing, or at least be publicly given the credit for it.
What if the Image of The Beast in Revelation 13 is the same thing as the Eight King in Revelation 17? One of the first 7 Kings, probably one of the first 5, in some way "resurrected".
It's been confusing to me in the past about whether when the Man of Sin stands himself in the Temple and deifies himself as II Thessalonians 2 describes, or when the Image of Revelation 13 is set up is the more precise Abomination event. But what if those are not separate things at all?
In the past I'd suggested the resurrection of the Antichrist is like an early form of the second resurrection. Lately I've been rethinking the nature of the second resurrection (not in a way that conflicts with being Premillenal and Futurist).
What if the Eight King's resurrection is more like the original concept of a Zombie (before George A Romaro)? A dead body that has been reanimated, but merely to be the pawn of the Witch-doctor who reanimated it.
Chris White in his criticism of the Islamic Antichrist theory, has among other things criticized the desire of Christians to misrepresent Islamic Eschatology so that Isa (Muslim Jesus) is subordinate to The Mahdi. And all that is very good.
Here is the thing, is our traditional assumption that the Second Beast is subordinate to the First Beast possibly wrong?
For starters if either is being possessed or indwelt by Satan it would be the Second Beast, that's the one speaking with The Dragon's voice.
The First Beast is defined as the object of worship. But that could be consistent with being a mere figure head, a flesh and blood Idol for the people to focus on while someone else holds the real power. In George Orwell's 1984 the possibly exists that Big Brother isn't even real, or who he's based on is long dead. He's now merely a poster, a Face of the Party designed to be an object of both adoration and fear.
The First Beast is a political system, his Empire, not just the individual. So the whole "Who is able to make war with him" I feel is explained in chapter 17 where it seems clear the 10 Horns are the source of his military power. The individual of the Eight King may not be a military figure at all. The other major reason for seeing The Antichrist as a conqueror is Daniel 11:36-45 which I've discussed elsewhere.
The First Beast remains a central object of discussion after the Second Beast is introduced, that helps make it seem like he's more important. But perhaps what we're told after the Second Beast is introduced is meant to help us better understand what was said before.
At the beginning we're told The Dragon gave his Power and Authority and his Seat/Throne to the First Beast. But in Verse 12 it's the Second Beast who "exerciseth all the Power of the First Beast". It's the Second who speaks with The Dragon's voice. He's the architect of the Mark system.
In the first part of my False Prophet study I discussed the possibility that many Prophecies outside Revelation we assume are about The Antichrist could really be The False Prophet. Including that the title Son of Perdition might belong to the False Prophet. I saw at least one website long ago argue that the Second Beast not the First is the one we should apply the title Antichrist too.
I argued in the third part of my False Prophet study that that term Antichrist could in fact require both Beasts put together. John defines the Antichrist heresy as denying the Deity of Christ. So the ultimate expression of that could be two individuals, one claiming to be God and not Jesus, and the other claiming to be Jesus and not God. And that is an even more Ironic deception if even the False Jesus is in fact closer to having godlike powers then the false god.
At the beginning of the Book of Kings people like to see Adonijah as a type of The Antichrist, a usurper to the Throne of David. But Adonijah was a pawn, a puppet, Joab (the type of Satan) and Abithar the Priest (False Prophet) are the real players of that Game of Thrones, opposed by Nathan and Zadok, and also Bathsheba.
Let's discus the mystery of The Image of The Beast. Today we're obsessed with seeing this through a SciFi lens, wanting to see it as a Robot/Android, or a Hologram, or an Artificial Intelligence program on the Internet. I myself have been guilty of that in the past, preferring the A.I. theory. But I noticed reading Revelation 13 today it never describes the Image being made, just the Second beast giving Life to it.
Let's use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and go back to the first use of the term Image. Genesis tells us Adam was made in the Image of God. So there is a Scriptural precedent for describing a body of flesh as an Image.
And many including Chris White have conjectured independent of considering that, that The False Prophet will be responsible for The Beast's resurrection/mortal wound healing, or at least be publicly given the credit for it.
What if the Image of The Beast in Revelation 13 is the same thing as the Eight King in Revelation 17? One of the first 7 Kings, probably one of the first 5, in some way "resurrected".
It's been confusing to me in the past about whether when the Man of Sin stands himself in the Temple and deifies himself as II Thessalonians 2 describes, or when the Image of Revelation 13 is set up is the more precise Abomination event. But what if those are not separate things at all?
In the past I'd suggested the resurrection of the Antichrist is like an early form of the second resurrection. Lately I've been rethinking the nature of the second resurrection (not in a way that conflicts with being Premillenal and Futurist).
What if the Eight King's resurrection is more like the original concept of a Zombie (before George A Romaro)? A dead body that has been reanimated, but merely to be the pawn of the Witch-doctor who reanimated it.
Monday, September 7, 2015
Witnesses and The Seventh Trumpet
This is copied from a Pre-Trib Website arguing against linking the Seventh Trumpet of Revelation 11 to the Rapture's Last Trumpet of Yom Teruah.
After the witnesses are interviewed, to confirm that they are indeed two agreeing witnesses, the High Priest was informed. Then The High Priest stood at the top of the Temple Mount (because the witnesses brought this news to the bottom of the mount) and tells the two witnesses to "Come up" and they ascend the Temple Mount to the High Priest, and then they sound the Last Trump.
This site's argument against tying this to the Seventh Trumpet was.
This site also talks about how Jewish thought also has a First Trumpet, and the First Trumpet is sounded on Pentecost.
Well I've argued on this Blog extensively why I see the Sixth Seal and Revelation 7 as the second fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32. And the sealing of the 144,000 is the latter rain, the final great outpouring of the Holy Spirit. So the First Trumpet being sounded right after that fits perfectly.
This site assumes the Great Trumpet and Last Trumpet can't be the same simply because Rabbinic Tradition distinguishes them I guess.
I believe when The Witnesses are Resurrected will be when the sliver of the New Moon of Tishri is seen. The World will witnesses their rising, they'll preach some more, The Gospel will spread and then God will call them up to Heaven and they will Ascend to Heaven.
Then the people of Jerusalem (who we know from the beginning of chapter 11 are mostly Gentiles at this time) will Believe and Repent and Praise God. That will be when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in. Then the Seventh Trumpet is sounded.
Jesus said in Luke 21 that Jerusalem will be "Trodden under foot of the Gentiles till the Times of the Gentiles are fulfilled". And that is when he will return.
They leave out another important detail however.Yom Teruah is the only festival that no man knows when exactly it will occur. This is due to the fact that it begins on the new moon. The new moon was sanctified when two witnesses see the new moon and attest to it before the Sanhedrin in the Temple.This sanctification could happen during either of two days, depending on when the witnesses come. Since no one knew when the witnesses would come, no one knew when the Feast of Trumpets would start.On the 30th of each month, the members of the High Court assembled in a courtyard in Jerusalem, where they waited to receive the testimony of two reliable witnesses. They then sanctified the new moon. The new moon is very difficult to see on the first day because it can be seen only about sunset, close to the sun, when the sun is traveling north. So, looking for a very slim faint crescent moon, which is very close to the sun, is a very difficult thing to do. If the moon’s crescent was not seen on the 30th day, the new moon was automatically celebrated on the 31st day.
After the witnesses are interviewed, to confirm that they are indeed two agreeing witnesses, the High Priest was informed. Then The High Priest stood at the top of the Temple Mount (because the witnesses brought this news to the bottom of the mount) and tells the two witnesses to "Come up" and they ascend the Temple Mount to the High Priest, and then they sound the Last Trump.
This site's argument against tying this to the Seventh Trumpet was.
We cannot go to the Book of Revelation and say that the voice of the seventh angel (Revelation 11:15) is the last trump. In the first century, the last trump (shofar) meant a specific day in the year.It's not an argument, people are just under the assumption Yom Teruah and the 7th Trumpet can't be the same cause we are conditioned to think the Fall Feast begin/end years even though Biblically they mark the middle. So we're not prepared to see them in the middle of Revelation unless you're a post-tirbber who garbles the chronology.
This site also talks about how Jewish thought also has a First Trumpet, and the First Trumpet is sounded on Pentecost.
Well I've argued on this Blog extensively why I see the Sixth Seal and Revelation 7 as the second fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32. And the sealing of the 144,000 is the latter rain, the final great outpouring of the Holy Spirit. So the First Trumpet being sounded right after that fits perfectly.
This site assumes the Great Trumpet and Last Trumpet can't be the same simply because Rabbinic Tradition distinguishes them I guess.
I believe when The Witnesses are Resurrected will be when the sliver of the New Moon of Tishri is seen. The World will witnesses their rising, they'll preach some more, The Gospel will spread and then God will call them up to Heaven and they will Ascend to Heaven.
Then the people of Jerusalem (who we know from the beginning of chapter 11 are mostly Gentiles at this time) will Believe and Repent and Praise God. That will be when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in. Then the Seventh Trumpet is sounded.
Jesus said in Luke 21 that Jerusalem will be "Trodden under foot of the Gentiles till the Times of the Gentiles are fulfilled". And that is when he will return.
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Mormon views on Native Americans being Israelites
There is a tendency for the claims of the Book of Mormon to come up any time theories about Israelites coming to the Americas in any form are discussed.
Even when it comes up in completely secular contexts like on Coast to Coast AM just talking about Pre-Colombian contact in general, someone will say "maybe we shouldn't write off the Mormons' claims", but The Book of Mormon actually makes a point out of the new world civilizations NOT having contact with the Old World. Part of God's Promise to Lehi was that God would protect his land from being found by the Nations. So at least from when Lehi arrives in the 6th century BC to when the narrative of the Book of Mormon ends in 422 AD, there can be no trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific contact according to Mormonism, but I believe there certainly was.
And when a History channel show like America Unearthed discusses the possibility without bringing up the Book of Mormon, Mormons see it as some kind of anti-Mormon conspiracy and so make a video mocking Scott Wolter (who is easy to mock, he's a clown who thinks he's Indiana Jones).
Many of my fellow Fundamentalist Sola Scriptura Christians feel the need to oppose the idea of any Israelite contribution to Pre-Columbian American History simply for the sake of opposing Mormonism. This unfortunately I feel makes them come off not unlike the Bible skeptics we like to make fun of, who essentially feel "if The Bible said it happened it can't possibly be even remotely true".
But there are Mormons in the public eye who don't advertise their Mormonism, bringing the subject of Israelites in America up without telling people the Book of Mormon is the reason for their interest in the subject. Like Glenn Beck. So concern that this subject could be a gateway drug to Mormonism is a legit concern.
First of all The Book of Mormon is NOT about the Lost Tribes or deported Northern Israelites.
Lehi's tribal identity may be identified as Manasseh, but he didn't leave the Holy Land till the fall of Jerusalem. Some Northern Israelites were left behind, especially in West Manasseh, Lehi's family may have been meant to be among those who migrated South for Josiah or Hezekiah's Passovers.
In fact one Mormon blog I've looked at called the NephiCode makes a point of distinguishing between the House of Lehi and their promises/destiny, and the Diaspora of either Kingdom. In fact it's not uncommon for Mormons to believe in British Israelism. But also Joseph Smith had claimed that at least some of the Lost Tribes were taken to another planet. I'm in no position to mock that view since I've argued something similar for my own totally separate reasons.
And Lehi left by sea (as did the Jaredites) in Arabia, because Joseph Smith imagined all this before the bearing strait hypothesis became the standard.
So the genetic affinity Native Americans have to East Asia, in both their Y-Chormosone and Mithocondrial DNA Haplogroups is a problem for the Book of Mormon.
But not for me since I don't think Israelites were the only people involved. And because I believe they traveled across Asia, intermingled with East Asian populations, and became ancestral to people groups in East Asia, before some of them came to the Americas and mingled with people already here. I talk about my theories on Israelite DNA here.
Many Mormons now insist the Book of Mormon does leave room for other populations, this mostly correlates to if they hold a Limited Geography interpretation rather then a Hemispheric one.
If a limited Geography model were the correct interpretation, only the Heartland Model would be plausible, because Joseph Smith's intent was definitely entirely about making special the land he lived in, drawing on prior speculation about the Missipian Mound Builders.
But the only DNA support the Heartlanders have cited is mtDNA Haplogroup X, which is mater-lineal and the least common of ones fond among Native Americans.
The NephiCode blog I mentioned stands by believing all Native Americans of both continents are Lamanites. And their answer to the DNA issue? That when God changed the skin color of the Lamanites to punish them making them look how modern Native Americans look (yes this was brought up on a Mormon blog talking to Mormons, it's not something the Godmakers made up), God also changed their DNA.
That is of course absurd. The parts of DNA used for ancestry studies are completely separate from the parts related to skin tone and eye muscle (the reason East Asians peoples' eyes look "slanted' is really because they have more eye muscle) and other ethnic features.
But if God supernaturally changed their DNA to erase their Hebrewness. They should simply have completely unique Haplogroups. Instead this Mormon blog asserted God changed their DNA to PUNISH them by making them genetically similar to East Asians. So a Mormon doctrine that was once only racist against Native Americans is now racist against East Asians too. Great work guys.
Second of all, The Book of Mormon claims the Nephites practiced strict Mosiac Judaism, but not the Lamanites.
I believe it's clearly stated in II Kings that the Lost Tribes ceased following Yahweh and lost their Israelite identity. A few remnants may have been different, and such groups have been found in Asia. So some Hebraic or Mosaic clues could have come with them, but mostly I expect to see the Lost Tribes being polytheistic pagans until they encountered Christianity, and that the vast majority stopped even speaking Hebrew before they came here.
Once again my view is more compatible with the Evidence. Because while the occasional random controversial seemingly Hebrew relic has been found, most of the Native Americans, including the Mississippian culture (who the Heartland model sees as the Nephites) were polytheistic pagans, many of whom practiced Human Sacrifice. And the languages spoken were not Semitic.
Third of all, the Israelites in America issue isn't the Book of Mormon's real doctrinal problem.
On a different blog I'll maybe some day talk about how the Book of Mormon doesn't even agree with later developed LDS doctrine, often agreeing with The Bible over it. But the Book of Mormon is definitely heretical.
First and foremost, Nephi prophesied that the Bible will be a "stumbling block". Now many Mormons disagree on how harsh this is to The Bible. Some off shoots like Temple Lot say they believe the King James Bible "so far as it has been translated correctly" implying they see the problem only in how it's translated not in the actual Masoretic or Textus Receptus texts.
LDS Mormons debate back and forth. Some saying the only things in The Bible that Mormons should agree with are what the Book of Mormon or other Mormon Scriptures explicitly endorse. Others saying all the potential "stumbling block" issues are what modern Mormon Revelations have addressed so anything in The Bible not in conflict with other Mormon scripture should be taken as God's Word. Essentially Mormons treat The Bible how Biblical Christians sometimes treat Apocryphal books that interest us.
Point remains however, the seed for doubting God's word is planted, and from that all kinds of heretical madness has developed that the Book of Mormon itself didn't talk about. Like Cosmic Pluralism and Polytheism.
But the reason this post is relevant for my Prophecy Blog is because of Mormon Eschatology.
The ancient Nephite Prophets of The Book of Mormon foretell The United States of America, referring to it as a Great Nation appointed by God to do his will. In other words, American Exceptionalism, Divine Providence and Manifest Destiny, all those ideas Christians should condemn as Patriotic Idolatry but instead fully support, that is all Canonical Scripture for Mormons.
Mormons believe America is the Promised Land, but not as a replacement for Israel. They believe Israel still has it's destiny (Joseph Smith actually was an early Christian Zionist), but they believe New Jerusalem will be in America. Old Jerusalem for the Old World and New Jerusalem for the New World. And because most modern Futurist Premillenial Evangelicals also believe New Jerusalem is distinct from Yahweh-Shammah of Ezekiel, they aren't adequately prepared to refute that false doctrine.
I have shown on this blog that New Jerusalem/Heavenly Zion is the same as Yahweh-Shammah and will be in Israel, where the current Jerusalem is.
Add to that Joseph Smith's separate Prophecies about "One Mighty and Strong" and the White Horse Prophecy. And the potential for the Mormon church to be a seed for an American Antichrist is something to be concerned about. And I also have my suspicions that Revelation 9 may begin with a counterfeit of the descend of New Jerusalem.
Even when it comes up in completely secular contexts like on Coast to Coast AM just talking about Pre-Colombian contact in general, someone will say "maybe we shouldn't write off the Mormons' claims", but The Book of Mormon actually makes a point out of the new world civilizations NOT having contact with the Old World. Part of God's Promise to Lehi was that God would protect his land from being found by the Nations. So at least from when Lehi arrives in the 6th century BC to when the narrative of the Book of Mormon ends in 422 AD, there can be no trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific contact according to Mormonism, but I believe there certainly was.
And when a History channel show like America Unearthed discusses the possibility without bringing up the Book of Mormon, Mormons see it as some kind of anti-Mormon conspiracy and so make a video mocking Scott Wolter (who is easy to mock, he's a clown who thinks he's Indiana Jones).
Many of my fellow Fundamentalist Sola Scriptura Christians feel the need to oppose the idea of any Israelite contribution to Pre-Columbian American History simply for the sake of opposing Mormonism. This unfortunately I feel makes them come off not unlike the Bible skeptics we like to make fun of, who essentially feel "if The Bible said it happened it can't possibly be even remotely true".
But there are Mormons in the public eye who don't advertise their Mormonism, bringing the subject of Israelites in America up without telling people the Book of Mormon is the reason for their interest in the subject. Like Glenn Beck. So concern that this subject could be a gateway drug to Mormonism is a legit concern.
First of all The Book of Mormon is NOT about the Lost Tribes or deported Northern Israelites.
Lehi's tribal identity may be identified as Manasseh, but he didn't leave the Holy Land till the fall of Jerusalem. Some Northern Israelites were left behind, especially in West Manasseh, Lehi's family may have been meant to be among those who migrated South for Josiah or Hezekiah's Passovers.
In fact one Mormon blog I've looked at called the NephiCode makes a point of distinguishing between the House of Lehi and their promises/destiny, and the Diaspora of either Kingdom. In fact it's not uncommon for Mormons to believe in British Israelism. But also Joseph Smith had claimed that at least some of the Lost Tribes were taken to another planet. I'm in no position to mock that view since I've argued something similar for my own totally separate reasons.
And Lehi left by sea (as did the Jaredites) in Arabia, because Joseph Smith imagined all this before the bearing strait hypothesis became the standard.
So the genetic affinity Native Americans have to East Asia, in both their Y-Chormosone and Mithocondrial DNA Haplogroups is a problem for the Book of Mormon.
But not for me since I don't think Israelites were the only people involved. And because I believe they traveled across Asia, intermingled with East Asian populations, and became ancestral to people groups in East Asia, before some of them came to the Americas and mingled with people already here. I talk about my theories on Israelite DNA here.
Many Mormons now insist the Book of Mormon does leave room for other populations, this mostly correlates to if they hold a Limited Geography interpretation rather then a Hemispheric one.
If a limited Geography model were the correct interpretation, only the Heartland Model would be plausible, because Joseph Smith's intent was definitely entirely about making special the land he lived in, drawing on prior speculation about the Missipian Mound Builders.
But the only DNA support the Heartlanders have cited is mtDNA Haplogroup X, which is mater-lineal and the least common of ones fond among Native Americans.
The NephiCode blog I mentioned stands by believing all Native Americans of both continents are Lamanites. And their answer to the DNA issue? That when God changed the skin color of the Lamanites to punish them making them look how modern Native Americans look (yes this was brought up on a Mormon blog talking to Mormons, it's not something the Godmakers made up), God also changed their DNA.
That is of course absurd. The parts of DNA used for ancestry studies are completely separate from the parts related to skin tone and eye muscle (the reason East Asians peoples' eyes look "slanted' is really because they have more eye muscle) and other ethnic features.
But if God supernaturally changed their DNA to erase their Hebrewness. They should simply have completely unique Haplogroups. Instead this Mormon blog asserted God changed their DNA to PUNISH them by making them genetically similar to East Asians. So a Mormon doctrine that was once only racist against Native Americans is now racist against East Asians too. Great work guys.
Second of all, The Book of Mormon claims the Nephites practiced strict Mosiac Judaism, but not the Lamanites.
I believe it's clearly stated in II Kings that the Lost Tribes ceased following Yahweh and lost their Israelite identity. A few remnants may have been different, and such groups have been found in Asia. So some Hebraic or Mosaic clues could have come with them, but mostly I expect to see the Lost Tribes being polytheistic pagans until they encountered Christianity, and that the vast majority stopped even speaking Hebrew before they came here.
Once again my view is more compatible with the Evidence. Because while the occasional random controversial seemingly Hebrew relic has been found, most of the Native Americans, including the Mississippian culture (who the Heartland model sees as the Nephites) were polytheistic pagans, many of whom practiced Human Sacrifice. And the languages spoken were not Semitic.
Third of all, the Israelites in America issue isn't the Book of Mormon's real doctrinal problem.
On a different blog I'll maybe some day talk about how the Book of Mormon doesn't even agree with later developed LDS doctrine, often agreeing with The Bible over it. But the Book of Mormon is definitely heretical.
First and foremost, Nephi prophesied that the Bible will be a "stumbling block". Now many Mormons disagree on how harsh this is to The Bible. Some off shoots like Temple Lot say they believe the King James Bible "so far as it has been translated correctly" implying they see the problem only in how it's translated not in the actual Masoretic or Textus Receptus texts.
LDS Mormons debate back and forth. Some saying the only things in The Bible that Mormons should agree with are what the Book of Mormon or other Mormon Scriptures explicitly endorse. Others saying all the potential "stumbling block" issues are what modern Mormon Revelations have addressed so anything in The Bible not in conflict with other Mormon scripture should be taken as God's Word. Essentially Mormons treat The Bible how Biblical Christians sometimes treat Apocryphal books that interest us.
Point remains however, the seed for doubting God's word is planted, and from that all kinds of heretical madness has developed that the Book of Mormon itself didn't talk about. Like Cosmic Pluralism and Polytheism.
But the reason this post is relevant for my Prophecy Blog is because of Mormon Eschatology.
The ancient Nephite Prophets of The Book of Mormon foretell The United States of America, referring to it as a Great Nation appointed by God to do his will. In other words, American Exceptionalism, Divine Providence and Manifest Destiny, all those ideas Christians should condemn as Patriotic Idolatry but instead fully support, that is all Canonical Scripture for Mormons.
Mormons believe America is the Promised Land, but not as a replacement for Israel. They believe Israel still has it's destiny (Joseph Smith actually was an early Christian Zionist), but they believe New Jerusalem will be in America. Old Jerusalem for the Old World and New Jerusalem for the New World. And because most modern Futurist Premillenial Evangelicals also believe New Jerusalem is distinct from Yahweh-Shammah of Ezekiel, they aren't adequately prepared to refute that false doctrine.
I have shown on this blog that New Jerusalem/Heavenly Zion is the same as Yahweh-Shammah and will be in Israel, where the current Jerusalem is.
Add to that Joseph Smith's separate Prophecies about "One Mighty and Strong" and the White Horse Prophecy. And the potential for the Mormon church to be a seed for an American Antichrist is something to be concerned about. And I also have my suspicions that Revelation 9 may begin with a counterfeit of the descend of New Jerusalem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)