Fall of the Ottoman Empire on 1840

[mac]

http://youtu.be/jm7qm7aMpu8

[Kevin H]

Mac: I am not saying that the Papacy is NOT involved. The Papacy was VERY much a part of the 5th head (Holy Roman Empire/Papal Supremacy) 1798 did not give the papacy a deadly wound as the Popes of the 1800s were some of the most powerful in history, still having power, and the beast did get a deadly wound as there was no world empire from around the late 1700s until now, yet the Pope was still influentual. And today we are seeing the world uniting the way Revelation 18 predicted, the merchants of the earth, the corporations, the Federal Reserve/The Counsel of Forigen Affairs/the banking families (which started in Babylon) and their moral voice is the Pope. Liberal Adventists will fall because they poo-poo the warnings about the pope, and conservative Adventists will fall because they are going to look for the Pope to fulfill these prophecies in a specific way and while waiting for those prophecies to be fulfilled, the Pope is currently fulfilling them right now with it's role in the international market place and banking.

[mac]

I agree in the sense that UN for example is another religio-political power that wants to dominate the world. People who do not see Vatican behind it will be fooled.

But you say popes were very powerful on 1800s. Do you have examples? Did some king stand in the snow for three days to get his kingdom also on 1800's or did these popes do anything else like that?

[Lysimachus]

Maybe so Marcos, but that is what I honestly believe that an exegesis of the Bible and Mrs. White teaches. I use to feel the same way you do until in class we studied it out and the professors showed the evidence which I found quite convincing.

I have done too much reading of too many books over the years (Bible, EGW, and scores of prophecy books) in order to except this method of interpretation. There's no way you can be right Kevin. No way.It is so far from exegesis, I'm sorry, I just can't except it. Those professors who showed you the "evidence" are wrong. Dead wrong. Without question.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

Maybe so Marcos, but that is what I honestly believe that an exegesis of the Bible and Mrs. White teaches. I use to feel the same way you do until in class we studied it out and the professors showed the evidence which I found quite convincing.

So true. lol

If someone who knew nothing about God or the bible read Rev. 9 about the 6th trumpet they would never in a million years come up with the Ottoman empire! It’s so completely off the wall that you have to be spoon fed it from the time you’re a kid to accept it in the first place.

Everyone wants to look up to the pioneers like they were these great spiritual leaders but the more I study the things they actually believed – it’s like wow, what were they thinking. Histoicists are so legalistic and condemning and would excommunicate anyone who doesn’t tow the party line. They act more like catholics than christians.

Your problem is you are looking at the prophecies from a very limited and narrowed perception--in a mechanical sense. Therefore, you completely miss the "big picture" of the symbolic imagery concerning divine Judgments God sent against Rome to punish her, and prevent her from destroying God's people over the centuries.

Like I said, if you really want to get a grasp of the trumpets, and understand the RIGHT perspective to study them (first, you must understand what the trumpets really are trying to teach in Revelation before you can even dare compare them to history), start reading the 2 books I recommended by Dr. Treiyer on the Trumpets. Those two books are not what you think--the same old exposition of our former interpretations--rather, they are designed specifically to deal with the concerns you raise Cheddar---which means you're just the person who needs to read them. Without question.

Treiyer shows how although Uriah Smith was right in many basics, he still did not have the full picture. We have come a long way since then. Historical annals and deeper insight into Revelation reveal a far greater and bigger picture than most even begin to imagine.

If I were you, I would not laugh at the Divine Leadings of God through our pioneers. Ellen White clearly saw that we do not realize just how firm our foundation has been laid.

The primary sources of history are now coming out of the woodwork and confirming most of the basic foundational structures of prophetic interpretation by our pioneers to be correct after all. An example are 508, 538, 1798, and 1843 -- Source Books by Heidi Heiks (www.TheSourceHH.org). I've read these books---all of them. After I was done, I almost fell down and wept when I began to realize just how lacking in knowledge so many of our Adventists or ex-Adventist friends are, and therefore, end up failing so miserably in explaining these divine prophetic dates in relation to history.

By painting wrong significance to these dates, we hamper our ability to vindicate our historicist views.

[Lysimachus]

(Maximum edit time expired too soon again. I wish the moderators here would extend it at least 15-30min. longer. I previewed my post several times, but still later saw salient points I needed to add. At ChristianForums.com -- the world's largest Christian forum, there is no limit to how much we can edit posts.)

[Lysimachus]

Mac: I am not saying that the Papacy is NOT involved. The Papacy was VERY much a part of the 5th head (Holy Roman Empire/Papal Supremacy) 1798 did not give the papacy a deadly wound as the Popes of the 1800s were some of the most powerful in history, still having power, and the beast did get a deadly wound as there was no world empire from around the late 1700s until now, yet the Pope was still influentual. And today we are seeing the world uniting the way Revelation 18 predicted, the merchants of the earth, the corporations, the Federal Reserve/The Counsel of Forigen Affairs/the banking families (which started in Babylon) and their moral voice is the Pope. Liberal Adventists will fall because they poo-poo the warnings about the pope, and conservative Adventists will fall because they are going to look for the Pope to fulfill these prophecies in a specific way and while waiting for those prophecies to be fulfilled, the Pope is currently fulfilling them right now with it's role in the international market place and banking.

The Papacy, however, is not just "involved". It is the "central head". The UN is "part" of the Papacy. It is "part" of Rome. The UN and other world agencies just operates as the "tentacles of Rome". So yes, while you are correct that the Beast definitely includes a conglomerate of world powers, you are failing to grasp the big picture here of how this Papal Power is behind the scenes, pulling the strings, and is the brain that moves the heads. It's all part of the same "body", but it is the brain that counts as to what the Beast is to be identified to. That is, the Papacy.

So when you look at the UN, you're looking at the Papacy. When you are looking at the EU, you're looking at the Papacy. But these are just independently operative organizations all part of the same Papal System.

Thus, you cannot look at it in the perspective you're looking at it. It's not that the Papacy is "involved". It's the UN, Secret Societies, and World Governments that are "involved", and are intricately tied as being a part of the Beast power--Rome. The woman that rides the beast is also seen in a similar light.

This is why I believe your interpretation is false, simply because you're looking at it in a wrong perspective. And I think those professors that went over it with you are lacking this deeper perspicacious insight that is absolutely integral to ascertaining the overall big picture of prophecy.

If you want a deep exegetical study in how to understand the relation of the Woman to the Beast she Rides, I recommend you read this article I wrote here:

The Whore of Babylon = Papal Rome but not Antichrist??

[Lysimachus]

Kevin, I wanted to encourage you to read that article I wrote above carefully. At first, you may think it is unrelated to your point, but keep reading it through and you will see the bigger picture. God bless.

[cheddar]

Your problem is you are looking at the prophecies from a very limited and narrowed perception--in a mechanical sense. Therefore, you completely miss the "big picture" of the symbolic imagery concerning divine Judgments God sent against Rome to punish her, and prevent her from destroying God's people over the centuries.

Like I said, if you really want to get a grasp of the trumpets, and understand the RIGHT perspective to study them (first, you must understand what the trumpets really are trying to teach in Revelation before you can even dare compare them to history), start reading the 2 books I recommended by Dr. Treiyer on the Trumpets. Those two books are not what you think--the same old exposition of our former interpretations--rather, they are designed specifically to deal with the concerns you raise Cheddar---which means you're just the person who needs to read them. Without question.

I don’t care to study those authors. I think the bible is the best interpreter of the bible. The imagery of the 5th and 6th trumpets can be found in the OT, specifically the book of Joel. Joel chap. 2 gives an almost identical description of the armies of the 5th and 6th trumpets. He even talks about the warning trumpet being blown in Zion. Is the book of Joel talking about the Ottoman empire too?

[Lysimachus]

Cheddar. That is what really bugs me. These books are designed to CONVINCE people like you. But what good are they when you don't read them?

I get very irritated when people refuse to read books. Just for the record. If people would read these books more, it would save us a lot of time, typing and argument.

Prophecy of Scripture of no private interpretation. Your job is to of course study for yourself, and compare scripture with scripture--but also to evaluate the positions of others who have gone before, and give their interpretations a candid evaluation before dismissing them.

[Lysimachus]

Edit:

Cheddar. That is what really bugs me. These books are designed to CONVINCE people like you. But what good are they when you don't read them? They are specifically designed to answer the challenges and questions of the critics. It would save a lot of time for those upholding these positions if the critics would actually become well acquainted with the "full" arguments.

I get very tempted to be irritated when people refuse to read books. Just for the record. If people would read these books more, it would save us a lot of time, typing and argument. Hey listen, I take out a lot of time to read articles and books written by authors that I disagree with. It is healthy to become acquainted with their beliefs.

Prophecy of Scripture of no private interpretation. Your job is to of course study for yourself, and compare scripture with scripture--but also to evaluate the positions of others who have gone before, and give their interpretations a candid evaluation before dismissing them.

My challenge to you Cheddar, be a true prophecy of student and do not take the pen of other men who have sweated in and lost much sleep in their studies go to waste. Show some respectability.

[Kevin H]

Cheddar. That is what really bugs me. These books are designed to CONVINCE people like you. But what good are they when you don't read them?

I get very irritated when people refuse to read books. Just for the record. If people would read these books more, it would save us a lot of time, typing and argument.

Prophecy of Scripture of no private interpretation. Your job is to of course study for yourself, and compare scripture with scripture--but also to evaluate the positions of others who have gone before, and give their interpretations a candid evaluation before dismissing them.

Amen, it is good to study the evidence and decide whether we agree or see where we dissagree.

[cheddar]

For your information I am very well read. I don't just casually dismiss things. I was a historicist for a long time and I read every book I could get my hands on both for and against. Your historical arguments are weak and lacking that's why they need outside sources to prop them up. If you could defend them from the bible it would shut up the nay sayers real quick. Outside sources do not have the same weight as the bible. And if you want to use Ellen White I have no problem with that – I’ve read almost every book she ever wrote.

The topic at hand is the Ottoman empire being the 6th trumpet. I disagree with that and have been sharing my reasons why – it’s not a personal attack on you. The 5th and 6th trumpets draw their imagery from the book of Joel. Joel is speaking to the ‘day of the lord’ and the last days not the Ottoman empire.

Quote:

Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand; A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations. A fire devoureth before them; and behind them a flame burneth: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them. The appearance of them is as the appearance of horses; and as horsemen, so shall they run. Like the noise of chariots on the tops of mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame of fire that devoureth the stubble, as a strong people set in battle array. Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness. They shall run like mighty men; they shall climb the wall like men of war; and they shall march every one on his ways, and they shall not break their ranks: Neither shall one thrust another; they shall walk every one in his path: and when they fall upon the sword, they shall not be wounded. They shall run to and fro in the city; they shall run upon the wall, they shall climb up upon the houses; they shall enter in at the windows like a thief. The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining: And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it? Joel 2:1-11

[jasd]

>>So when you look at the UN, you're looking at the Papacy. When you are looking at the EU, you're looking at the Papacy. But these are just independently operative organizations all part of the same Papal System.<<

Umm, granted, that there is presently no Muslim State having a permanent seat on the Security Council – the power on the floor of the General Assembly of the UN lies with the Muslim States because of their numbers and their caucus.

Disabuse me should I err, but it is my understanding that despite heavy [lobbying] pressure from the Vatican/Papacy and the Church Universal – mention of either Gd or Xtianity was successfully kept out of the European Union’s Constitution. The decision to not include mention of Gd or Xtianity in the final text of the EU’s Constitution had its strongest support from France (thought to be the most Catholic of European Countries and most loyal daughter of the Church), which feared to alienate its Muslim immigration population, but rather – pandered to it.

What is this!?—the minority population of Muslims in France more heavily influenced than did the wishes of the Little Horn?—or is it the Wounded Head?—Horn/Head?—err, blep-blep, blep-blep... Anyway, seems the Head is still in its ‘wounded’ phase, yes?—well, vis-à-vis Islam, anyway.

Mention of Gd and Europe’s Xtian roots was excluded from the Preamble, as well.

“The long-awaited preamble to the document used the words ‘spiritual’, ‘religious’ and ‘humanistic’ to describe Europe’s heritage and references traditions in Europe ‘nourished by the Greek and Roman civilizations,’ but makes no reference to the deity.”

Wha’sup?—Church Universal lost its Mojo?

Doesn’t Malachy’s prophecy foretell of just one more Pope (Petrus Romanus) before Rome and the Vatican is destroyed by Muslims? (isn’t it said that Ratzinger will not last out the year?) hmmm...

[whatisthis]

Mac,

I just ordered Treiyer's 2 books on the trumpets. You might want to do the same. Can order them via PayPal. So easy. Just follow the ordering instructions. I can't wait for these 2 books to get here. You'll find tons of primary historical sources.

Last two books at the bottom:

http://www.adventistdistinctivemessages.com/English/books.html

What does Revelation 9:15 really mean? And what does Albert Treier mean? Those are both questions that come to mind when you read these documents.

Here's an excerpt from Symposium on the Trumpets of Revelation - by Dr. Alberto R. Treiyer - 3 ABN February 18-20, 2011

"The confrontation took place in three clear directions.

First of all, let us say that the staff of 3 ABN is historicist, excepting Pr. John Lomacang (local pastor) who proposed a futurist view on the trumpets. In the discussions of the panel, Pr. John Stanton (another local pastor), sided with Pr. Lomacang in a futurist view. Hugo Leon, a good young physician from Chico, California, invited by Kenneth Cox who was also in the panel, sided likewise with the futurist scope, with an opening to believe in a double fulfillment. A long and strong discussion took place about what is understood by the term "futurism." It was clearly stated that it has to do with a projection of all the seals and all the trumpets to the future.

Pr. Lomacang, for instance, could not see in the Destroyer of the fifth trumpet another person out of the devil Himself, who is expected to appear at the end just prior to the coming of the Lord. We told him that the devil always operates through human entities who oppose the Lord and His people, like the king of Babylon in Isa 14, the Roman empire that is represented by the dragon in Rev 13 (and through different ways, always revealing his character of murder and liar summarized by Jesus in John 8:44).

A second view was seen in Ranko Stefanovic (Andrews University) and Jon Paulien (Loma Linda), who despite their claim of being historicists, joined the futurist rejection of the historicist fulfillment of several trumpets, and offered, at the same time,"

And here's the point to pay special attention to--

"spiritualized view of the trumpets similar to what we may find among the catholic interpreters of the Middle Ages. Instead of armies falling upon Rome, they spiritualized the content of the trumpets to project philosophies. They believe that they are historicists because the different philosophies they bring into consideration may be placed in history."

Now keep going and see how that becomes "spiritualism".--

"But the outcome of their views is elusive, at the point of admitting that "it is uncertain whether John intended every detail of this description to be interpreted" (R. Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ, 304-5). Both futurists and spiritualists cannot offer a clear projection of the prophetic dates specified in the fifth and sixth trumpets."

Well, that's Dr Treier's point of view, and as he explained earlier, that particular symposium had been organized by 3 ABN because many viewers had reacted in one way or another to a reference made in a series they had aired. It was a conference held by retired conference evangelist Pr. Kenneth Cox. Cox had based his remarks on the trumpets, and toward the end of July, 2010 he had included Al Qaida in the trumpets of Revelation.

Cox's remark about Al Qaida set off fireworks in the sleepy town of Adventism! Many called this a "futuristic interpretation" of this section of Revelation, hence the opening remarks in the article quoted above.

Now, for people not used to theologians, let's try to interpret. Theologians think in terms of "isms" or things that are "istic" (tend toward one ism or another.) They may not always tend to think in terms of prophecy being a set of ongoing stories, as much, (stories that we are all part of the action in.) So, they'll get stuck on a term like "futuristic" as if prophecy were anchored in cement and certain events could always be in the future!

For Al Qaida being part of the trumpets to be "futuristic" it would have to be future to a certain date that has already passed, but Al Qaida, at the time of the conference, was a very much present piece of news. So, does the term "futuristic" mean "had not been resolved in 1844? Or does it mean, "is going to happen sometime way ahead of wherever I live"?

Whatever it may mean, it's the term for a whole camp of scholars who shake hands and agree. Likewise "historicist" is another camp of theologians who agree. These words are epithets, or quick ways to describe a whole train of thought.

Using an epithet like "futurist" or "historicist" is a bit similar to the people stranded on an island who got tired of repeating the same jokes over and over, and numbered them, so they could just say a number and laugh. It's a way of mainlining a whole topic into one word!

After you do that, then everybody can laugh along comfortably. However, a new guy washed up on the island where they were numbering jokes, and was kind of bewildered by all this. He tried a few numbers when he heard the fellows spouting numbers, and everybody laughed. Then he tried joke number 21 and nobody laughed. He asked why, and was told, "That's old Jake's joke, he never could tell a joke right."

Likewise, there's another epithet that is kind of joke number 21 with both the "futurists" and the "historicists". It's "spiritualist". Lest we be beguiled by the epithet "spiritualist", let's clarify that "spiritualist" here does not mean "people who consort with psychics and peep and mutter about the dead living after death".

A name like that can also be a theologians way of name-calling, so coining that epithet was pretty clever, considering that "spiritualist" usually does mean "people who talk to spirits"!

However, what "spiritualist" is supposed to mean here is that these scholars say that the events being described have to do with philosophical movements. Treier, who is a "historicist" by his own definition, called paying attention to philosophical movements, "spiritualizing the prophecy away". So, when you read the word "spiritualist" in this particular context, it might be a bit more accurate to think "philosophy-aware".

Another trick to make this joke number 21, is to mention that anybody Catholic ever thought something similar. I'm not sure how it's "Catholic" to think that prophecies can refer to philisophical movements as well as wars and political events, and Dr. Treier doesn't say so at this particular point. This is strong name-calling, and it pre-disposes us not to listen to what scholars like Paulien are trying to express. But let's look at the facts now, and not do quite so much name-calling.

I haven't yet decided what kernels of truth are in which of these "ists", and I don't think the matter is actually solved. It's time to stretch our brains around facts, though, without name-calling, isn't it?

[whatisthis]

I want to say that while I haven't yet decided what kernels of truth are in which of these "ists", and I don't think the matter is actually solved, (nor that I will solve all of it, either,) I'd like to study "to show thyself approved" and find out more on this topic, from all the Adventist scholars and from the Bible and history!

[mac]

But still.

None of these books or articles are worth anything if there is no event in history.

You see, if I want to say to someone that: "Look, it happened exactly as The Bible predicted", then I must have something that actually happened.

From my point of view at the moment it is absolutely irrelevant how thick books there are written about trumpets until there is no actual event that we could compare them with.

Let's say I come to you and say that I have predicted things which have come to pass and I have my predictions all written down on a paper, would you believe me?

You would probably want me to show you what those things are. Right?

Let's say I am not able to show show you anything that happened - all I have is my written predictions and all I do is keep referring back to that paper. I insist that you believe me and take me seriously.

Would you take me seriously?

If there is no real event then all those wise books are just like books on Evolution. Tons of science about something that does not exist.

[whatisthis]

I'll catch ya later, Mac, I'm listening, but can I just see who else says what for a little before I join back in? I just want to apologize for misspelling Dr. Treiyer's name, though! Shame on me!

[Lysimachus]

But still.

None of these books or articles are worth anything if there is no event in history.

But what if I told you that the books contain a plethora of primary quotations and also from historians? Exact book, page, or document is cited, then all you have to do is go to Archive.org to find them.

[jasd]

Quote:

a "futuristic interpretation" of this section of Revelation, [...] So, they'll get stuck on a term like "futuristic" as if prophecy were anchored in cement and certain events could always be in the future!

Indeed, as with all text subsequent to the explicit words found in Revelation 4:1 – “Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.”

Plainly stated, yes? Indeed. Which obliges the expositor to determine at which point in the timeline of the hereafter did that which was/is measurable begin – as it was shown to St John. Well, implicitly, the expositor might begin when the event of Revelation5:13 occurs, “Every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that in the, ...” saying and with us hearing as did St John – has to remain in the realm of the implicit – as the stream of logic says that we shall not hear a fish or a toad saying, “Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, [be] unto him...”

That places the explicit point of where the timeline of our Apocalypse begins – upon the opening of the Seals of the Four Horsemen – one following another until – we can measure or apprehend the event “A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and [see] thou hurt not the oil and the wine. (Rev 6:6)

That would seem to place the first of the futuristic events occurring whilst man may still purchase with coins/cash; that is, before man receives the mark whereby it seems that he will be able to only buy and sell by ‘credit points’ only... As Sweden and Spain (with other States surely soon to follow suit) have both begun to abolish ‘monies’ – the ‘times of the end’ may be sooner upon us than realized. Perhaps, nearer even than at the door.

Lastly, does the term “hereafter” allow for juxtaposing, conflating, or otherwise – events that occur here, hither, thither, and yon – all mixmashed – with the explanation that: Well, it’s a story that is not told either chronologically or sequentially – but must be apprehended by taking from history, from the present, and from the future to make a cogent storyline. I don’t think so, else Gd is an awfully confused Revealer of what shall come upon the earth.

The book of Revelation is unique to the book of Revelation.

[Lysimachus]

Quote:

a "futuristic interpretation" of this section of Revelation, [...] So, they'll get stuck on a term like "futuristic" as if prophecy were anchored in cement and certain events could always be in the future!

Indeed, as with all text subsequent to the explicit words found in Revelation 4:1 – “Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.”

Do not the 7 trumpets begin "hereafter" the time of John? Is not Historicism in alignment with this principle?

Yet do not ignore Revelation 1:4, 8 and 19. These 3 verses nail down that Revelation is in alignment with the Historicist Hermeneutic.

Remember, Historicism allows for numerous future unfilfilled events. Those "future" events, however, are simply the "acme" reaching point of the historicist hermeneutic. Many things are yet to come.

Historicism has withstood the test of time. It reveals God's dealing with mankind throughout history, not just exclusively in the past or exclusively in the future. That is an irresponsible handling of God's Word.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Indeed, as with all text subsequent to the explicit words found in Revelation 4:1 – “Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

”

>>Do not the 7 trumpets begin "hereafter" the time of John?<<

Exactly. “hereafter” means “hereafter” –and does not lend itself to willy-nilly textcraft. The honest expositor cannot presume upon Gd, as do those who’ve prematurely wrested the book of Daniel (chapter 12, verse 4).

>>Is not Historicism in alignment with this principle?<<

Do you think the explicitly defining ‘event’ of Revelation 6:6 has already occurred? If so, show wherein history it occurred. If not, then Historicism re things that are yet to come can only begin thereafter they occur; but for now - it all belongs to the Futurists.

One simply cannot take one of the recurring Leonid meteor showers event and correlate it to Sixth Seal with its “stars of heaven fell unto the earth,” of Revelation 6:13 – and proclaim, “Historicism!”

>>Yet do not ignore Revelation 1:4, 8 and 19. These 3 verses nail down that Revelation is in alignment with the Historicist Hermeneutic.<<

Only where it pertains to that which preceded “the things which shall be hereafter:” Because, it is as I’ve already noted: “hereafter” means “hereafter” (Rev 4:1).

>>Remember, Historicism allows for numerous future unfilfilled events.<<

Historians collate. They are dependent upon the material available to them and their interpretation of said material. Some interpret well – others do not. The Biblical Historcist’s collation is often mishmash and mixmashed.

>>Those "future" events, however, are simply the "acme" reaching point of the historicist hermeneutic. Many things are yet to come.<<

As I’ve noted: “Historians write by collation” – and that which remains to be fulfilled belongs to the Futurist.

>>Historicism has withstood the test of time.<<

That is generally true wherein they’ve stayed within their purview – yet note that even the nonpareil Gibbons erred. What of those less sung?

>>It reveals God's dealing with mankind throughout history, not just exclusively in the past or exclusively in the future.<<

You attempt to redefine the meaning of the word history and those who write of it. It is history that belongs to the historian, and not the future – which is represented in the greater part of the book of Revelation.

>>That is an irresponsible handling of God's Word.<<

What is “an irresponsible handling of Gd’s Word?”

[mac]

But what if I told you that the books contain a plethora of primary quotations and also from historians? Exact book, page, or document is cited, then all you have to do is go to Archive.org to find them.

That would be splended. Can you give me two examples?

[whatisthis]

"Josiah Litch, one of the leading ministers preaching the second advent, published an exposition of Rev_9:1-21, predicting the fall of the Ottoman Empire. According to his calculations, this power was to be overthrown "in A.D. 1840, sometime in the month of August;" and only a few days previous to its accomplishment he wrote: "Allowing the first period, 150 years, to have been exactly fulfilled before Deacozes ascended the throne by permission of the Turks, and that the 391 years, fifteen days, commenced at the close of the first period, it will end on the 11th of August, 1840, when the Ottoman power in Constantinople may be expected to be broken. And this, I believe, will be found to be the case."--Josiah Litch, in Signs of the Times, and Expositor of Prophecy, Aug. 1, 1840." p. 334 Great Controversy

I googled Deacozes and found this reprint. I don't personally agree with the "code" that the brother on that site feels he sees in the commandments, but the copy of Josiah's work is important to me, and after everyone has had a chance to look it over, later I'd like to comment on it, some:

http://www.revealed.org/josiahlitch.htm

THE THREE WO TRUMPETS. WO! WO!! WO!!!

Fall of the Ottoman Empire,

or Ottoman Supremacy Departed, August 11, 1840

by Josiah Litch

The book of Revelation has long been looked upon as a book of inexplicable mysteries, altogether beyond the reach of the comprehension of mortals. And this opinion has received too much encouragement from professed teachers and expounders of the word of God, many of them of eminent talents and various learning. . .much evil has been done by their unguarded remarks respecting the obscurity of unfulfilled prophecy in general, and the book of Revelation in particular. . . . The Holy Spirit is grieved, and the God of Revelation slighted and insulted, by such insinuations and remarks. . . . How differently has the author of the book expressed himself in reference to it! He calls it, "The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass . . . ."

If it is a revelation, then it is not an inexplicable mystery, but the mind of God made known to man. "Blessed," then "is he that readeth, and they which hear the words of the prophecy of this book." If God, then, has pronounced a blessing on the reader of this book, who shall disannul it?

Rev. 8:13. "Wo [sic], wo, wo to the inhabiters of the earth, by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels which are yet to sound."

Rev. 9:1. "And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth; and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit."

A star, in the figurative language of Revelation, is a minister of religion. See Rev. 1:20.... A fallen star, then would signify a fallen or heretical minister of religion. This was undoubtedly the Arabian imposter, Mahomet. [Mohammed] There is so general an agreement among Christians, especially protestant commentators, that the subject of this prediction is Mahommedism [islam], I shall not enter into the argument at large to prove it; but in passing, shall merely give a brief exposition of the emblems used, and their application in the text.

Verse 2: "And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. . . . "

The smoke was the cloud of errors which arose through his instrumentality, darkening the sun, (gospel light,) and the air, (the influence of Christianity on the minds of men.) In this enterprise, he and his followers were so successful that the light of Christianity almost disappeared wherever he gained an influence; and the smoke of the pit produced nearly total darkness throughout the eastern church.

Verse 3: "And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth; and unto them was given power as scorpions of the earth have power. . . . "

That these locusts were emblems of an army, is clear. . . : "And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were crowns like gold, and their faces were the faces of men. And they had hair like the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions," &c. . . . Such is the description of a Mahommedan [Muslim] horseman prepared for battle. A horse, a rider with a man's face, long flowing beard, woman's hair, flowing or plaited, and the head encircled with a yellow turban, like gold.

"Was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. . . ." Martinicus says, Scorpions have nippers, or pincers, with which they keep hold of what they seize, after they have wounded it with their sting.... "

Like the scorpion, Mahomet stung the subjects of his proselytism, and infused the poison of his doctrines, and continued to hold them by the force of arms, until it had affected the whole man, and the subject settled down in the belief of his delusive errors. . . . Wherever his arms triumphed, there his religion was imposed on men, whether they believed it or not. . . .

"The successors of the prophet propagated his faith and imitated his example; and such was the rapidity of their progress, that in the space of a century, Persia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, and Spain had submitted to the victorious arms of the Arabian and Saracen conquerors." Ruter

Verse 4: "And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth neither any green thing, neither any tree [a direct command found in the Koran]; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. "

"Grass, green thing, and tree" are here put in opposition to those men who have not the seal of God, &c. If so, they must mean those who have the seal of God - his worshipers.

". . .Infidels, who rejected the Christian religion, and also all idolaters, they forced to receive the Mahommedan religion [islam], upon pain of death. But Jews and Christians, who had their Bibles and their religion, they left to the enjoyment of them, upon their paying large sums, which they exacted. But where the payment of such sums was refused, they must either embrace the new religion or die." Smiths Key to Revelation.

Verse 5: "And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months."

As the language thus far has been figurative, so it must be here also. To kill, signifies, a political death, or subjection. The nation of Christians who were the subjects of this plague were to be tormented five months, but not politically slain. Five months is one hundred and fifty days; each day a full solar year; the whole time, one hundred and fifty years.

Verse 6: "And in those days men shall seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."

This, of course, is the same death as that in verse 5, viz., political. Such was the misery of the Greeks, occasioned by the wars in which they were almost continually embroiled with the Mahommedan powers, that very many would have preferred an entire subjection of the empire to them, to the protracted miseries the war occasioned. But this was not permitted; political death fled from them.

THE EXTERMINATOR TORMENTS THE GREEKS ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS

Verse 10: "Their power was to hurt men five months. "

1. The question arises. What men were they to hurt five months? Undoubtedly the same they were afterwards to slay; (See verse 15.) "The third part of the men," or third of the Roman empire - the Greek division of it.

2. When were they to begin their work of torment? The 11th verse answers the question: "They had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek hath his name Apollyon [meaning destroyer]."

a. "They had a king over them." From the death of Mahomet. . .the Mahommedans were divided into various factions, under several leaders, with no general civil government extending over them all. Near the close of the 13th century, Othman founded a government, which has since been known as the Ottoman government, or empire, extending over all the principal Mahommedan tribes, consolidating them into one grand monarchy.

b. The character of the king. "Which is the angel of the bottomless pit." An angel signifies a messenger, or minister, either good or bad; not always a spiritual being. "The angel of the bottomless pit," or chief minister of the religion which came from hence when it was opened. That religion is Mahommedism [islam], and the Sultan is its chief minister.

"The Sultan, or Grand Signior, as he is indifferently called, is also Supreme Caliph, or high priest, uniting in his person the highest spiritual dignity with the supreme secular authority." Perkins, "World as it is," p. 361. . . .

3. His name. In Hebrew, "Abaddon," the destroyer; in Greek, "Apollyon," one that exterminates or destroys. Having two different names in the two languages, it is evident that the character rather than the name of the power is intended to be represented. . . . Such has always been the character of the Ottoman government. . . .

But when did Othman make his first assault on the Greek empire? According to Gibbon ("Decline & Fall," &c.) "Othman first entered the territory of Nicomedia on the 27th day of July, 1299. . . ."

"And their power was to torment men five months. . . ." Commencing July 27th, 1299, the one hundred and fifty years reach to 1449. During that whole period the Turks were engaged in an almost perpetual war with the Greek empire, but yet without conquering it. They seized upon and held several of the Greek provinces, but still Greek independence was maintained in Constantinople. But in 1449, the termination of the one hundred and fifty years, a change came. Before presenting the history of that change, however, we will look at verses 12-15...: "One wo is past; and behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice, from the four horns of the golden alter which is before. Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed which were prepared for an hour, a day, a month, and a year, for to slay a third part of men."

The first wo was to continue from the rise of Mahommedism until the end of the five months. Then the first wo was to end, and the second begin. And when the sixth angel sounded, it was commanded to take off the restraints which had been imposed on the nation, by which they were restricted to the work of tormenting men, and their commission extended to slay the third part of men."

This command came from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God. "The four angels," are the four principal sultanies of which the Ottoman empire is composed, located in the country of the Euphrates. They had been restrained; God commanded, and they were loosed.

In the year 1449, John Paleologus, the Greek emperor, died, but left no children to inherit his throne, and Constantine Deacozes succeeded to it. But he would not venture to ascend the throne without the consent of Amurath, the Turkish Sultan. He therefore sent ambassadors to ask his consent, and obtained it, before he presumed to call himself sovereign . . . . Let this historical fact be carefully examined in connection with the prediction above. This was not a violent assault made on the Greeks, by which their empire was overthrown and their independence taken away, but simply a voluntary surrender of that independence into the hands of the Turks, by saying, "I cannot reign unless you permit."

The four angels were loosed for an hour, a day, a month, and a year, to slay the third part of men. This period amounts to three hundred and ninety-one years and fifteen days; during which Ottoman supremacy was to exist in Constantinople.

Commencing when the one hundred and fifty years ended, in 1449, the period would end August 11th, 1840. Judging from the manner of the commencement of the Ottoman supremacy, that it was by a voluntary acknowledgment on the part of the Greek emperor that he only reigned by permission of the Turkish Sultan, we should naturally conclude that the fall or departure of Ottoman independence would be brought about in the same way; that at the end of the specified period, the Sultan would voluntarily surrender his independence into the hands of the Christian powers, from whom he received it.

When the foregoing calculation was made, it was purely a matter of calculation on the prophetic periods of Scripture. Now, however, the time has passed by, and it is proper to inquire what the result has been - whether it has corresponded with the previous calculation.

1. Has the ottoman independence in Constantinople departed, and is it in christian hands? Let the following testimony answer the question. . . .

The London Morning Herald, after the capture of St. Jean dAcre, speaking of the state of things in the Ottoman empire, says: "We have dissipated into thin air the prestige that lately invested as with a halo the name of Mehemet Ali. We have in all probability destroyed forever the power of that hitherto successful ruler. But have we done aught to restore strength to the Ottoman empire? we fear not. we fear that the sultan has been reduced to the rank of a puppet; and that the sources of the turkish empires strength are entirely destroyed.

"If the supremacy of the Sultan is hereafter to be maintained in Egypt, it must be maintained, we fear, by the unceasing intervention of England and Russia . . . ."

2. When did Mahommedan independence in Constantinople depart?

In order to answer this question understandingly, it will be necessary to review briefly the history of that power for a few years past.

For several years the Sultan has been embroiled in war with Mehemet [Mohammed] Ali, Pacha [sic] of Egypt. In 1838 there was a threatening of war between the Sultan and his Egyptian vassal. Mehemet Ali Pacha, in a note addressed to the foreign consuls, declared that in the future, he would pay no tribute in the Porte, and that he considered himself independent sovereign of Egypt, Arabia, and Syria. . . . In 1839, hostilities again commenced, and were prosecuted, until, in a general battle between the armies of the Sultan and Mehemet, the Sultans army was entirely cut up and destroyed, and his fleet taken by Mehemet and carried into Egypt . . . . This fleet Mehemet positively refused to give up and return to the Sultan. . . . In 1840, England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, interposed, and determined on a settlement of the difficulty; for it was evident, if let alone, Mehemet would soon become master of the Sultans throne. . . .

The Sublime Porte, with a view of putting a stop to the effusion of Mussulman blood, and to the various evils which would arise from a renewal of hostilities, accepted the intervention of the great powers....

Here was certainly a voluntary surrender. . . ,[part of the official document reads:] The powers have, together with the ottoman plenipotentiary, drawn up and signed a treaty, whereby the Sultan offers the Pacha, the hereditary government of Egypt, and all that part of Syria extending from the gulf of Suez to the lake of Tiberias, together with the province of Acre, for life; the Pacha, on his part, evacuating all other parts of the Sultans dominions now occupied by him, and returning the Ottoman fleet. A certain space of time has been granted him to accede to these terms; and, as the proposals of the Sultan and his allies, the four powers, do not admit of any change of qualification, if the Pacha refuse to accede to them, it is evident that the evil consequences to fall upon him will be attributable solely to his own fault.

"His Excellency, Rifat Bey, Musleshar for foreign affairs, has been despatched in a government steamer to Alexandria, to communicate the ultimatum to the Pacha." [Moniteur Ottoman, Aug. 22, 1840.]

The question now comes up, when was that document put officially under the control of mehemet ali?

"By the French steamer of the 24th, we have advices from Egypt to the 16th. . . . The Turkish government steamer, which had reached alexandria on the 11th, with the envoy rifat bey on board, had by his (the Pachas) orders been placed in quarantine, and she was not released from it till the 16th. . . however. . .on the very day [August 11, 1840] on which he had been admitted to pratique, the above named functionary had had an audience of the Pacha, and had communicated to him the command of the Sultan, with respect to the evacuation of the Syrian province, appointing another audience for the next day, when, in the presence of the consuls of the European powers, he would receive from him his definite answer, and inform him of the alternative of his refusing to obey; giving him the ten days which have been allotted him by the convention to decide on the course he should think fit to adopt. . . ." The London Morning Chronicle, Sept. 18, 1840.

According to previous calculation, therefore, ottoman supremacy did depart on the eleventh of August [August 11, 1840] into the hands of the great Christian powers of Europe.

Then the second wo is past, and the sixth trumpet has ceased its sounding; and the conclusion is now inevitable, because the word of God affirms the fact in so many words, "Behold, the third wo cometh quickly."

END

[whatisthis]

If I handled anything lightly or irresponsibly concerning God's word, I apologize.