Leaderboard

Kevin said below, in regard to the OT Hebrew word: My comment is tangential to the main focus of this thread, but he raises an interesting point. He is correct in what he said. It is on this basis that one cannot compute with Biblical certainty the actual numbers of the Children of Israel who departed Egypt. The number may have been far less than commonly thought.

The truth is out there but for many it is hard to believe. People often respond by saying "they (the government) would never do that". Robin Cook, a former foreign secretary for the British government writes: Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development I believe ISIS came about in similar fashion.

I admit that this is also a feasible scenario.

Compared to the others, the seventh king (dictator) was to rule for only a very "short" period of time. The seventh king certainly did include Islam, as the Muslims were (and remain) Hitler's foremost allies in the Middle East against the Jews. So the eighth incarnation --of global fascism-- includes Islam again, ultimately joining with Muslims against the Jews, just as under Hitler.

Hey Martin, I like the way your post proceeded. If I may, I would like to identify these kings using another viewpoint - one in which the succession of Kingdoms is based on the succession of those who have ruled over Israel by conquering the previous Kingdom. The first Kingdom was Egypt; which ruled most of the "world" (Middle East including Israel) from the time of Joseph until Assyria conquered Egypt and the rest of the Middle East. The second Kingdom was Assyria, which ruled until it was conquered by Babylon The third Kingdom was Babylon, until it was conquered by the Medo-Persians The fourth Kingdom was Medo-Persia, until it was conquered by the Greeks The fifth Kingdom was Greece, until it was conquered by Rome. This covers the five kingdoms which have "fallen". The sixth Kingdom (the Kingdom which "is") was Rome; which actually ruled until the 15th century (Constantinople; the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire was named after King Constantine or 4th century Rome). Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Empire Muslims on May 29, 1453 The seventh Kingdom was the Muslim Ottoman Empire, which ruled from the mid 15th century until World War 1 when it was toppled by Attaturk when Turkey (home country of Constantinople) became a "secular" country. Following the logic of Rev. 17:11, (" The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.") I would propose that the 8th King will be a resurgence of the Muslim Empire, or Caliphate. This seems to be the current direction in which history is taking us. If I had to choose between an Islamic antichrist/beast or an Obama or papal antichrist/beast, I'd bet on the Islamic option.

Maybe the better question would be: Do I - does anyone, NEED Ellen White's writings in order to be saved? I would say - NO. Do I - does everyone, NEED the Scriptures in order to be saved? I would answer YES.

All lives matter: acceptable Blue lives matter: acceptable Black lives matter: unacceptable Seems like the word Black makes the difference.

While there may be truth on both sides of this discussion, the discussion itself is not helpful given its present context. Black people have been murdered for no reason at a seemingly much higher ratio than white people by the police in America of late. The case deserves attention, and the BLM movement has a legitimate cause to draw attention to it by the "black lives matter" slogan. As has been pointed out, black people are not saying that others' lives don't matter. If such were true, I would certainly not be defending the movement. For it to succeed, though, it must absolutely remain a peaceful protest. The actions of a single extremist will counteract the influence of countless peaceful protestors. For whites to start a contrasting "all lives matter" appears to many as a clear indication of disagreement with the BLM movement and its concept that "black lives matter." Ironically, the emotional implication becomes, then, that black lives don't matter, even though the semantics indicate they do. Thus, such a movement as "all lives matter" in its present context becomes a myopic endeavor from the outset, and it will not have the positive effect its founders may have anticipated--and that gives them the benefit of the doubt, for it could easily be seen as a thinly veiled protest against the black movement. Much of what bonnie says here is true, but her attitude and bias in presenting it show she has no clear understanding of the black people's plight. If she truly understood the situation, she might have more of a heart, and a greater leniency toward blacks who tend to indulge and defend some who may have committed punishable wrongs. Criminals are not the only ones to receive the police officers' bullets, and black people can see that more clearly than the average white person who ignorantly believes racial prejudices have been largely stamped out.

John was told five "are" fallen, and that one "is" while another is "yet" to come. Past, present, and future. The normal understanding of time. There is no real justification, within the text itself, for not using the normal understanding of time. Using the normal understanding of time, this really leaves us no reasonable doubt about who the first five were. And, therefore, who the sixth was. And, thus, who the seventh (and eighth) will be. When John was given the vision, Rome was still very much in power. There were other empires, but Rome was the only one under which John was living. This tells us, in no uncertain terms, that Rome was the sixth king. Which leaves us no reasonable doubt of who the previous five were. Since all seven kings are heads (incarnations) of the eighth king which is the beast himself, the previous five kings must be of the same body as the sixth king. And so, likewise, the seventh and eighth kings. Rome of course grew out of the Greek empire. Greece grew out of the Medo-Persian realm. And Medo-Persia grew out of Babylon. This gives us the identity of three of the five kings which preceded Rome. Greece, Medo-Persia, and Babylon. To determine who the first two were, we need only follow the same line of progression, further back in time. Which empire did Babylon grow out of? There are various theories (assumptions), but the Bible plainly tells us that Babylon grew up out of Babel. We often forget that Babel was itself a global empire, not just a single city. According to the Bible, Babel was the first civilization which developed among men after the Flood, and all others since have been attempts at restoring it, Babylon being of course one of them. According to the Bible, there was one global civilization which preceded Babel. The Antediluvian civilization. The beast which rises out of the sea is the same one which went into the sea, destroyed by the Flood. Among the Greeks and Egyptians, it was called Atlantis (Adamah in the Hebrew text). According to Plato, Atlantis was made up of ten kingdoms. An ancient United Nations. The first king. Babel was an attempt to restore it. To rebuild what had been lost. The second king. Babylon, then, was the third king. Followed by Medo-Persia, the fourth king. Followed by Greece, the fifth king. Followed by Rome, the sixth king. The one still standing when John received his vision. The Roman Empire actually never fell completely. This is because, even in John's day, it was set up as a business corporation, not just a political entity. All subsequent business corporations derive their authority from it. The "Universal Person" (as the Roman emperors called their corporation) still exists. There is a name for this kind of government. Fascism. Fascism, as both Hitler and Mussolini defined the term, is the union of government and business corporations. The opposite of communism, where government controls business, fascism is when business controls government. As Mussolini put it, fascism more accurately should be called corporatism. When government itself becomes a business corporation, that is fascism by definition --Rome revived. This is precisely what happened under Hitler and Mussolini. For the first time in history, since the ancient Roman Empire, business corporations joined forces to control not just a single country, but the entire world. This attempt at "globalization" was, thank heavens, short-lived. The seventh king. Who lived for a "short space" exactly as the prophecy foretold. But its deadly wound is being healed. Global fascism is again on the rise. For the eighth and final time. (Contrary to what communists would like us to believe, fascism and capitalism are not the same thing. Unlike pure capitalism, fascism like communism is a form of socialism, where finance is manipulated through government intervention. Remarkably Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, a capitalist Bible, warned against this, saying that businessmen are the one group of people who, ordinarily, should not be allowed in government. In pure capitalism, there should be observed a distinct separation between business and state, just as there should be separation between church and state.)

Your first statement is strange. What does it mean that some black people don't support BLM? Should they all think the same? Just because some do not support does it mean the cause is not just? What cause/organization do ALL white people support. Name one. Seems like you are suggesting that the high profile families of those killed are families not doing their best to raise their kids. A highly objectionable and ignorant statement but lets see some examples.

Take a look at the photo below. It is a licensed NEV. It is totally electric, with a battery and an electric motor. How much do you think it weighs, without me sitting in it and as it was made? a. Under 1,200 pounds? b. 1,200 to 1,399 pounds? c. 1,400 to 1,599 pounds? d. 1,600 to 1,799 pounds? e. 1,800 to 2,000 pounds? f. More than 2,000 pounds?

I'm sorry Green but Leviticus 23 and Deuteronomy are clear on the Hebrew cycles. Unless you can give evidence of Leviticus 23 and Deuteronomy either being completely wrong, or that the writer neglected for one reason or another one of the cycles the day-thousand years, I am going to have to follow Leviticus 23 and Deuteronomy. Those two sources actually are talking about the Hebrew cycle. Neither the Psalm nor Peter text say that they are talking about the cycles as Leviticus 23 and Deuteronomy do. I am hesitant to read into a text what we do not find there in either words, linguistic or cultural context. When you have two quotes and one of these say "I am specifically talking about this issue" and the other has a pretty poetic phrase but does not give in the context of "I'm talking about this issue" we have to accept the "I'm talking about this issue" quote is the definitive quote. Yes, William Miller was a good student of the Bible. But while is Principles were correct, he did not always have enough information to have all his applications correct. Don't forget using his methods but not having the information he concluded that the Millerites that were keeping Saturday as the Sabbath were wrong, and also as we have what he taught about the seals and trumpets over history, he had a similar application of the Plagues. We have given up his teachings of the plagues.

Some of what JoeMo is trying to say in the above is not clear so would make it harder to discuss. But I would like to try to discuss these issues and numbered them to make it easier to follow: 1. The day-year principle is based on the ancient world's cyclic thought and the application of this found in Leviticus 23 as well as scattered throughout the book of Deuteronomy. If you can get the book "Before Philosophy" by Henri Frankfort and others; university of Chicago press 1946 you can have a better understanding of the issue. When Joachim of Flore was away on the crusades in becoming aware of the middle eastern culture he became aware of the cyclic thought including the day-year application. We do NOT use the day-year application at every time we run into the word "Day" or a time frame. For example, a typical Greek term for "A short time" is to say that something happened in an hour and in a day. Thus we misapply the principle when we try to figure out the time of the plagues and fall of Babylon in Revelation. Other times the Bible is talking about specific literal days within an already day-year framework. And there are times where it simply talking about days. The day-year principle is when you deal with cyclic situations and from the Leviticus/Deuteronomy the cycles are that a day equals a literal day, the two growing seasons, either fall to spring or spring to fall, so a literal half year. A full year, and a difference between Leviticus and Deuteronomy is that Leviticus would have a 7 year period. Deuteronomy doesn't. I'm sorry but day-thousand year is NOT one of these. The text in Psalms and Peter is only talking about the vastness of God that a thousand years is only a moment to him. It is a misapplication to read more into the texts than this. And NO there is not a corresponding verse saying "Leviticus and Deuteronomy forgot to include the day=thousand years when it gave the other cyclic equivalents." Also, the word thousand has not always meant numbers. It started out meaning a family unit or a military unit which frequently consisted of around 10 people give or take a few. It was only when an army increased their basic unit from approximately 10 people to a hundred times more that we got the large number out if it. Also, with the millennium, we are again getting into the popular culture of the day. Teachers were sometimes to give quick answers by "Standing on one foot" or they might have plenty of time to make sure that there was a more detailed answer in which to have a thousand years to deal with the answer. The millennium is where we have enough time to have all our questions answered and understood. and for Satan and the demons If after 750 years these goals are all reached Jesus won't say to us "Ok, we have 250 years to twiddle our thumbs, but if you come up with anymore questions feel free to ask." on the other hand if it's new years eve at the end of 999 years and we are still asking questions Jesus is not going to look at his clock and say "Come on and hurry up, we have to return to the earth in a few hours, I can take your question and your question but the rest of you will have to stop asking we've run out of time. "

I would never have picked that one. When I lived up in Worcester, Massachusetts they had a soda company that had a polar bear on the roof of there building. I can't for the life of me think of the name of that company!! Actually I just googled it and the name of the company is: Polar Beverages! Answer: The polar bear first debuted in a Coca Cola print advertisement in France in 1922 and then appeared periodically for the next 70 years. The modern polar bear did not make its debut until the 1993 “Always Coca Cola” campaign in a television ad called “Northern Lights”, which featured polar bears gathering to drink Coke and watch the aurora borealis. Since then, the polar bear has appeared in numerous television and print advertisements becoming one of the most popular symbols of Coca-Cola advertising. The Coca-Cola polar bear commercials, are often featured during the winter months and the Super Bowl. The beverage company has pledged over $2 million dollars to protect the Arctic environment that polar bears call home.

There's a judgement, by an all seeing, all knowing God. And black lives matter to the extent that whoever takes a life will answer for it sooner or later. It could be a police man, a gang banging thug or a character assassinating message board junkie.

Your sarcastic snarky response is noted and I am sure considered appropriate and much appreciated by some here. No problem. If looting ,burning,killing,blocking freeways is considered an effective means of dealing with those allegedly innocent victims of the police,certainly it should have some impact against the thugs killing innocent children and others. There isn't even so much as a whimper from BLM when an innocent black child is killed by a black gang member. If that same child is killed by police suddenly they are all over it. Not much mileage to be gained by a black child killed by a black gang member. BLM seem to be quite adept at multi tasking with various efforts in different area's. They certainly address both issues as both deal with the loss of a life they feel has been unfairly taken

See if you think Mrs White is consistent in her interpretation of Zechariah's vision - specifically concerning the "golden oil". How is it conveyed to humans? THE GOLDEN OIL represents the Holy Spirit. “The oil is a symbol of the Holy Spirit (Zechariah 4 quoted).” Christ’s Object Lessons pg.406 “The oil with which the wise virgins filled their lamps represents the Holy Spirit. (Zechariah 4 quoted) Review and Herald 07/20/97 “The golden oil, representing the Holy Spirit, is communicated to God’s servants by the two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” Review and Herald 01/25/98 “These heavenly messengers empty the golden oil out of themselves . . .” Review and Herald 4/20/97 “Unless God shall work through the two olive-trees, his witnesses, causing them to empty from themselves the golden oil through the golden tubes into the golden bowls, . . . “ Review and Herald 09/14/97 “From the two olive-trees, the golden oil was emptied through golden pipes into the bowl of the candlestick, and thence into the golden lamps that gave light to the sanctuary. So from the holy ones that stand in God’s presence, his Spirit is imparted to human instrumentalities that are consecrated to his service.” Review and Herald 03/02/97 “Through the golden pipes, the olive-branches empty the golden oil out of themselves. These olive-branches are the anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. Through them the Holy Spirit is communicated to the churches. Thus heaven and earth are united.” Review and Herald 05/16/99 NOW CHANGE: Rather than the Holy Spirit, the oil now represents "the word". “. . . and the Holy Spirit fulfils his office work to empty the golden oil into the golden bowls, . . . “ Review and Herald 10/07/09 “The Holy Spirit’s office work is to empty the golden oil into the golden bowls . . .” Review and Herald 04/20/97 “As we consecrate ourselves to God, the Holy Spirit will impart to us the holy oil . . . “ Review and Herald 05/16/99 “The word itself must be as represented, the golden oil, emptied from the two olive trees that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. This is the baptism by the Holy Spirit with fire.” Bible Commentary Vol. 4, pg.1180 “The gracious utterances of the word are the holy golden oil, emptied from the two olive branches into the hearts ...” General Conference Bulletin 04/01/99 Here the oil represents grace. “By the holy beings surrounding His throne, the Lord keeps up a constant communication with the inhabitants of the earth. The golden oil represents the grace with which God keeps the lamps of believers supplied. Bible Commentary Vol. 4 pg.1179 COMMENT: The writer is not consistent in her interpretation of the imagery of Zechariah’s vision. Which interpretation are we to believe, and quote, and hold up as equal in inspiration to the Scriptures?

Green, I did not say that everyone who claimed the SDA denomination had committed apostasy was not an Adventist. I did not generalize my statement. I was very specific. I applied my statement only to you. Furthermore, I did not say that you were not a SDA. What I said was that due to your statements regarding apostasy and the SDA Church, I was beginning to question whether or not you were SDA. That is a true statement. I have not yet reached a decision on that point. I am only considering it. Take it as applicable to you, and do not generalize it to others.

'All lives matter', if I'm correct, came in response the 'Black lives matter'. On the surface it could very well be seen as a 'shut up' to the black lives movement and at times probably does with some voices. To me the 'Black Lives Matter' movement came about because of the disproportion of activity, often extreme, in black vs white situations. Prejudice, bigotry is alive and well in this country even though we have made progress,often great strides. But down on the streets where average america lives, not so much. I am not talking about just Black, but all ethnic minorities. Of course many of these 'minorities' are fast becoming larger in population and not so much minority any more. That concerns a lot of WASP's. (my opinion)

Pam, Couldn't have said it better. Thank you. It's good when there are white folks out there who will listen, empathize, and be willing to engage in real discussion. Can't always agree on everything but there can be progress.

Being deliberately obtuse is not helpful. The slogan is not JUST black lives matter. It's black lives matter.

I don't like the fringe group of the BLM who call for murdering police and causing destruction of property. I might be entirely off in my perceptions, but I'm under the impression that the majority of folks who use the "Black Lives Matter" mantra aren't trying to diminish the value of Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or other lives. It is more that they are sounding the alarm on a historical trend of black lives seeming to have less value to many (not all) people, and the inequality of the way one group of people is overtly and covertly treated vs other groups. A person can say to their son, "I love you." Does that mean s/he doesn't love their other children? Of course not. A person who says s/he loves their son, or daughter, or mother, or father, isn't diminishing the fact that they love all of their family. Even the Bible reads that Jesus had a "disciple whom He loved".... does that mean He didn't love His other disciples, or that He didn't love *all* His followers? Nope. It is like calling 911 to report that your house is on fire, or is being burglarized. Dispatch could tell you they don't want your address, because *your* house isn't any more important than anyone else's. Isn't that how the response of "All lives matter" might sound to those whose racial group seems to be "on fire" or is being "burglarized" and they're shouting for help? It doesn't matter how the fire started, or who is trying to steal — it's just the fact that it is happening. A solution needs to be addressed — it is too big to be handled alone, and if the fire isn't put out (or the ransacking of the home isn't stopped), then those very same issues spread, become even more out of control, and affect wider and wider concentric circles of racial and other groups. Telling someone whose house is on fire to use their garden hose to put out the fire themselves because their house isn't any more important than anyone else's seems ridiculous, but that's really what the "all lives matter" response is doing... at least that's how it seems to me.

You're right - this is a terrible translation - or paraphrase as the case may be. The red-letter stuff appears to be someone's private interpretation. There is nothing in the original language that points directly at Obama - but you already knew that. I don't see anything in Daniel or Revelation that even vaguely refers to Obama, even now that I think I know what to look for. Over and out.

hch, Do you have an idea of how many people follow your logic and embrace your eschatology? Maybe I'm just dense; but I don't understand it at all. Also, I see many people on here who embrace the 3 angels message as pertinent in these, the last days. They just don't see it the same way that you or traditional SDA's understand it. Just curious - not trying to start anything.

Once again. Very offensive. Once again. Too personal. Also offensive. All I can say is - in YOUR OPINION hch. In YOUR OPINION. I will no longer respond to your posts if you continue to use arrogant, know-it-all, personally offensive language. Rachel, I certainly am sorry that I came across as being offensive. It was never my overt intention to use an arrogant tone. I may have unintentionally been offended by your comment without realizing it: "I disagree hch. Which is OK. I'm giving my opinion (based in Scripture), and you are giving us your opinion." Being human, I was looking for the Scripture to back up your statement that indeed did come across as being rather arrogant and offensive now that you mention it. Had I realized that it was offensive, I should have brought it to your attention rather than replying in tone, which I did not realize that I had done until you brought it to my attention. That aside, if you would extend me some grace, I would like to see the Bible texts that you used to formulate the opinions that you shared. Without them, it looks like your opinion. "Without knowing who these five kings are, it is not possible to know the timing of the harlot's fulfillment of Bible prophecy." [Better phraseology] Since the meat of my questions in my note was pretty much cut out of the reply that focused on the perceived tone, rather than the point of the question that was lost in the dialog: "Linking Revelation 17" (that I showed belonged to current events) "to Daniel 7" (that you indicated that you clearly placed it in some past age) it is "obviously a mismatch of Bible prophecy if Daniel 7 is about events that happened centuries ago and Revelation 17 is current events." Thus I am trying to reconcile what you are communicating to me to see if these Scriptures are about the past, present, or the future or a combination of the above. your statement in response to my question "All I can say is - in YOUR OPINION hch. In YOUR OPINION." From Bible study, I am on record in the TWITTER archives as saying the following before Benedict quit: Pope Benedict XVI has but a very short time left (9/3/11) #Pope Benedict XVI marks his last year with a Latin America trip that includes a visit to #Cuba (23 March 2012) With Benedict XVI in his last year, Who’s going to be the new pope? … (3 April 2012) Is Pope Benedict going to be pope in 2013? (29 April 2012) Months ago I tweeted that pope Benedict XVI is a short timer. Now Vatican power play is news! Y u b last 2 know? (28 May 2012) If Pope Benedict’s 8th year is really his 7th, his time ends before May 2013 (7 July 2012) Pope Benedict’s 8th year is really his 7th, because his ascension year was John-Paul II’s last year. Will Benedict XVI’s 7th year B his last (8 August 2012) Pope #Benedict XVI As I read Daniel’s prophecy, 7’s number of completeness. His ascension year (zero) 2005. He might last till spring 2013? (30 September 2012) Pope Benedict announced this morning (Monday February 11, 2013) that he is resigning as of 28 February 2013. You said that I came across as being offensive: "The way you worded this reply to me, sounds like you are telling me that your interpretation of Bible prophecy is the only one with merit. Such wording is offensive." Rachel, I can make no apology for partially understanding this Bible prophecy correctly before the fact. And now that the Holy Spirit has confirmed my understanding and blessed me with more understanding, I have a reliable standard with which to compare other peoples opinions. It is like I tell my friends. If somebody can't understand Bible prophecy that is measurable (God said it, it happens and we match the prophecy with the fulfillment) then we cannot trust their spiritual counsel (spiritual advice is not concrete -- some folks can make anything sound good). You are certainly welcome to dialog with me on this topic, but I will most likely come across as having an authoritative opinion when I know what I am talking about. I won't be soft peddling the truth as I understand it. Which is not to say that you have to believe as I do. You are welcome to your opinion right or wrong. I'm not one that would rather fight than switch. I believe what I believe because I have studied it out and I have taken time to listen to others who have looked at things from a different perspective. In conclusion, I am sorry if my wording came across as offensive. It was never my intention to belittle you or your views, as I expect that you did not offend me intentionally. Christian regards, His child

hch, The way you worded this reply to me, sounds like you are telling me that your interpretation of Bible prophecy is the only one with merit. Such wording is offensive. Once again. Very offensive. Once again. Too personal. Also offensive. All I can say is - in YOUR OPINION hch. In YOUR OPINION. I will no longer respond to your posts if you continue to use arrogant, know-it-all, personally offensive language.

God defines Himself in the First Angel's message: "Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come: and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" (Revelation 14:7). It is no coincidence that when Adventists were proclaiming that God is the Creator and Christ is coming in 1844, that the devil proclaimed the false doctrine -- evolution in 1844 through the origin of species by Darwin. Christian regards His child

The angel cried, "Give glory to HIM." We are discussing who "HIM" is.