Are the three Angels' Messages Dead or Alive?

[JoeMo]

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 4:21 AM, hch said:

 Agitate, agitate, agitate. The subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny.  {5T 708.1}

The doctrines and truth EGW speaks of here are the doctrines of the SDA Church; not the doctrines of hch.  I myself express opinions in opposition to EGW; but I try to express them as merely my opinions, not as doctrines that all must accept or be in danger of being lost or inferior.

[hch]

13 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I am suggesting that we watch for Jesus instead of popes or presidents, who are not included in the scripture texts that you named. But Jesus is named therein. Did you somehow miss Him? As I have tried to say before, Jesus is the center and point of all prophecy. "H.I.S.-S.T.O.R.Y." is what Bible prophecy is. I do not see the story of Jesus named or described here. Only the one about Obama. Christ and Him crucified is the central truth around which all other truths are clustered. All other truths have power and influence, ACCORDING TO their relation to this theme. This is the mistake that name droppers and time setters keep making. They do somehow keep missing out on what would give them great power & influence. The texts you mention actually do deal with Christ and Him crucified, and so I would say that yes, based upon this point alone; this message is alive and well.

That may be what you are attempting to suggest, but that is not what I am hearing.

I hear -- Don't try to understand the books of Daniel and Revelation if the increase of knowledge goes beyond what has been settled in the past.

The story of Jesus includes the story of of our redemption, the command to not take the Mark of the beast, and to be faithful to God. Since my study identifies President Obama as the American President who will implement the Mark of the beast, why would you think that God would put that information in the Bible and not want us to understand it? And when it is understood, why would you suggest that we wait and see before we say anything? 

[hch]

19 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

HCH asked, below:

Esigesis

Matthew you say Esigesis (the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions )

So perhaps you can help me with sorting it out correctly?

The facts:

Daniel saw 4 sea-beasts (7:1-3)

Heaven explained 4 earth-beasts (7:17)

Traditionally the sea-beasts have been explained as the "worldwide" kingdoms (Babylon to Rome)

Revelation 13 differentiates a sea-beast from an earth-beast.

The problem:

Traditionally the sea-beasts in Daniel 7 have been taken symbolically and the earth-beasts literally. That Esigesis flies in the face of sound Bible study because the same symbolism exists in Daniel 7 as in Revelation 13 (lion, bear, leopard, sea-beast, and earth-beast) so to have the same item (and only that item) to be symbolic in one chapter and literal in the other cannot be correct.

If the traditional Esigesis that the sea-beasts in Daniel 7 are the earth-beasts stands true; then that view destroys the Eschatology, (the study of 'end things', whether the end of an individual life, the end of the age, the end of the world and the nature of the Kingdom of God) that is set forth in Revelation 13.

If the Eschatology that has been applied to Revelation 13 by Adventists in the past is correct, then the sea-beasts in Daniel 7 are the old world kingdoms that foreshadow an endtime revelation about the earth-beasts that relates to the new world. 

The Scriptures don't contradict each other. The symbolic sea-beasts and earth-beasts in Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 are to be interpreted by the same standard. So if a sea-beast is an earth-beast in Daniel 7 then a sea-beast is an earth-beast in Revelation 13. If a sea-beast is different than an earth-beast in Revelation 13, then a sea-beast is different than an earth-beast in Daniel 7.

Esigesis?

[hch]

14 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Is it your position that we must understand Bible prophecy in the way you interpret it?

Why did God give us prophecy if he didn't want us to investigate it for ourselves, like the noble Bereans?  Or are you the only "noble Berean"?

Are you implying that Christians are closer to Christ only if they agree with your "out-of-the-box" interpretation of God's word?

1) Is it your position that we must understand Bible prophecy in the way you interpret it? -- If I am interpreting it correctly yes. If I am mistaken, then I expect those who have a love for my soul to show me from the Bible my error.

2) Why did God give us prophecy if he didn't want us to investigate it for ourselves, like the noble Bereans?  Or are you the only "noble Berean"?-- The Bereans "searched the Scriptures to see if those things were so." I do not know how many people are searching the Scriptures to see if what I say is true. I do prayerfully search the Scriptures and I encounter lots of folks who search the writings of other people and then cut and paste those canned opinions in an attempt to enlighten me.

3) Are you implying that Christians are closer to Christ only if they agree with your "out-of-the-box" interpretation of God's word?-- No But I am saying that Christians that settle for a superficial study of the Bible will have a superficial relationship with Jesus.

[hch]

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Wanderer,

you say "Even Jesus did not once relegate anyone to "Laodiceans"  just because they did not see the Scriptures the way He did."

Who said this to the Laodiceans? "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:16).

*****

The explanation is right there in the scripture passage you cited, and backs up what i said: Jesus did not call them "Laodiceans" because they did not have the same understanding of scripture. You have presented an excellent ad-hominem argument here.

Jesus said that the Laodicdeans were blind. He told them to get eyesalve from Him. Does that not mean that they had the option to see if they would get the eyesalve?

Were they literally blind or were they blind to Scriptural truths that they had the opportunity to see if the Laodiceans used the eyesalve available to them? Was Jesus not telling the Laodiceans that they needed to see the Scriptures from His point of view and that because they failed to do so they were blind?

Did Jesus say things that were not true?

[hch]

14 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Quote

 

Agitate, agitate, agitate. The subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny.  {5T 708.1} 

 

The doctrines and truth EGW speaks of here are the doctrines of the SDA Church; not the doctrines of hch.  I myself express opinions in opposition to EGW; but I try to express them as merely my opinions, not as doctrines that all must accept or be in danger of being lost or inferior.

Quote

“There is no assurance that our doctrine is right, and free from all chaff and error, unless we are daily doing the will of God. If we do His will, we shall know of the doctrine. We shall see the truth in its sacred beauty. We shall accept it with reverence and godly fear, and then we can present that which we know is truth to others.” 1888 201.2

 

Quote

“The world is preparing for the closing work of the third angel’s message. The truth is now to go forth with a power that it has not known for years. The message of present truth is to be proclaimed everywhere. We must be aroused to give this message with a loud voice, as symbolized in the four­teenth chapter of Revelation. There is danger of our accepting the theory of the truth without accepting the great responsibility which it lays upon every recipient. My brethren, show your faith by your works. The world must be prepared for the loud cry of the third angel’s message—a message which God declares shall be cut short in righteousness.” 10MR 218.3

 

[hch]

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

3) Are you implying that Christians are closer to Christ only if they agree with your "out-of-the-box" interpretation of God's word?-- No But I am saying that Christians that settle for a superficial study of the Bible will have a superficial relationship with Jesus.

***************

Its obvious you will accept no other opinions except that of your own here. Labelling everyone here as "superficial" does not help your case at all.

Correction: Thank you for your comment, but please be advised that there is a reference to "everyone" being superficial in the text that I posted. I spoke for myself and about Christians that settle for a superficial study of the Bible But I did not say ALL Christians are superficial bible students nor did I intend to imply such a thing. Such a characterization of what I wrote is unfounded. It is difficult to communicate with people that hold such a myriad of views and doubly so when what is written is not received as it is intended. Thank you

[hch]

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I...

666 Hub Bub

Rev 3:14-17 does not refer to anyone’s understanding of, or agreement with some point of scripture. The Laodiceans were called by Jesus “lukewarm,” along with several other things, and correctly understood, these terms have nothing to do with how much of the Bible they knew/understood and accepted. It had everything to do with the way they were, and the condition of their hearts, which disqualifies you from calling other people “Laodicean” simply because they do not accept your point of view. Only Jesus can read the heart. [underlining mine hch]

 

Quote

     In the words spoken to the Laodicean church we can see the sure result of half-hearted service. There are many who claim to believe the truth, who do not obey the truth in a way that the world can take knowledge of them that they have been with Jesus and learned of him. This condition of lukewarmness is a pitiable condition in which to be. "I would thou wert cold or hot," the Lord declares; "so then, because thou are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."  {GCB, June 6, 1909 par. 4}  

     Let none think that their understanding of the Scriptures, their knowledge of the truth for this time, will suffice to save them. Let none take the position before God that was taken by the people spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, who offered to God only outward service. "Wherefore have we fasted," they said to God, "and thou seest not? wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge?" God showed this people that their worship was unacceptable to him because it lacked heart service. "Behold, in the day of your fast," he said to them, "ye find pleasure, and exact all your labors. Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high."  {GCB, June 6, 1909 par. 5}  

 

Quote

The Lord here shows us that the message to be borne to his people by ministers whom he has called to warn the people, is not a peace-and-safety message. It is not merely theoretical, but practical in every particular. The people of God are represented in the message to the Laodiceans in a position of carnal security. They are at ease, believing themselves in an exalted condition of spiritual attainments.  {RH, September 16, 1873 par. 3}  

 

[hch]

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

August 1st you posted -

First of all, both Russia and Iran are east of the USA, and second, there is no scripture that denotes the US as “king or kingdom of the north,” there is nothing in scripture to denote Russia or Iran as this “troubling news from the east and the south.” Making Iran the “southern” kingdom from the US makes no geographical sense, or Bible sense. There are many other countries both south and north of the US that could be plugged in here that would be much closer, atleast geographically. This is the first of many errors in this Obama theory. This theory completely fails to prove decisively what Daniel 11 is really talking about.

The following chart is from America, the Obama Nation, May 1, 2015, p.259

Kings of the North – Kings of the South

Babylon (605-539 BC)                    Egypt (605 BC-1798 AD)

Medo-Persia (539-331)

Greece (331-168)

Imperial Rome (168 BC-1453 AD)

 

Ottoman Empire (1453-1840)          France (1798-1870 AD)

Great Britain (1840-1941)                           Italy (1870-1945)

(USA*) King of the North

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1941-1945)   Mussolini (1922-1945)

 

Truman (1945-1953)                                  Egypt (1945-1973)

Eisenhower (1953-1961)

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)

LB Johnson (1963-1969)

Richard Nixon (1969-1974)                bin Laden (1973-2001)

Gerald Ford (1974-1977)

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)

Ronald Wilson Reagan (1981-1989)

George HW Bush (1989-1993)

William J. Clinton (1993-2001)

 

George W. Bush (2001-2009)                Afghanistan (2001-2003)

                                                                           Iraq (2003-2010)

Barack Obama (2009…)                                      Iran (2010…)

 

*The last power “that is to wage war against the church and the law of God, is…the United States” (ST, 2/8/1910 par. 5).

If you cannot follow Daniel 11 from the 3 Persian kings that issued the decree to restore Jerusalem and the Temple through to Christ standing for His people in 1844 AND -- then back to verse 6 and from there to our day; we are not on the same page. might not even be in the same book. But when Daniel 11 is understood, what I have written previously is correct.

You can take the challenge I gave to Matthew and show me where my study goes astray. If I am wrong, I would appreciate being shown the straight and narrow. 

[hch]

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Trying to promote any kind of hub bub about Obama, or any other individual pope or ruler becoming “the antichrist” who will terrorize the world is simply the repetition of an old error, under a new guise not to mention that the Bible is clear in saying there are “many antichrists” now in operation so, according to scripture it cannot be just one man anyways. Here is the old error you are repeating in a new guise:

Additionally, this Obama theory will take many years to play out and would require much more than the downing of one helicopter to ignite the kind of fury this theory proposes.  Jesus says that when He does come, it will be “quickly” and will take much less time than what this Obama theory could possibly allow. Also supported in 9T, pg 11 as well as many other places:...The Obama theory would not be very “overwhelming" or surprising at all.

"Trying to promote" --poor terminology IMHO. "Warn" about the endtime meaning of Bible prophecy so that God's professed people don't get caught... One wrong calculation between now and January 20, 2017 is all it will take for Obama to invoke constitutional powers to set aside the Constitution an then God's Covenant (the Sabbath)  

The Bible is not in error, the people who misinterpret it are in error. When the papal beast in Revelation 13 had its deadly wound healed in 1929, 7 popes ruled as solo kings until Benedict resigned. Now there are two popes and soon to be a third. Benedict fulfilled the short space in Revelation 17 and the hour identified for this to happen was from 14 October 1929 through 14 February 2013. When the last solo pope ruled (Benedict) the papal beast in Revelation transitioned to the beast with the two lamblike horns. Horns are kings / rulers. The rulers on the earth-beast are limited by the number of horns: 2.

President Bush II aligns with the beginning of Benedict's rule and Obama with its ending. We are at the end of the prophetic road. The 4th angel in Revelation 18 has begun to sound in conjunction with the 3rd angel's message "Don't take the Mark for the Beast" The papacy's mark will be enforced by Obama. That is important to know and warn about rather than waiting until we cannot get the warning out. Those who are railing against the right message at the right time will be overwhelmingly surprised when that which they denied is upon them. 

The parable of the Ten virgins teaches that some don't wake up until it is too late.

Quote

The Lord calls upon His slumbering people to awake out of their sleep. Many who in their ignorance consider themselves to be wise--like the foolish virgins in the parable--do not realize that their lamps are going out. When they awake to their condition it will be too late…they will be unready to meet the Bridegroom. 9MR 206.2  

 

[CoAspen]

>The Bible is not in error, the people who misinterpret it are in error.<

I'm just quessing here.....That does not apply to you!

[hch]

5 hours ago, CoAspen said:

>The Bible is not in error, the people who misinterpret it are in error.<

I'm just quessing here.....That does not apply to you!

And how shall I know?

1) Those who take positions against my reading of Scripture fail to enter into a serious study of the issues.

(Examples: Gregory summarizes my comment Esigesis and when my reply clearly expresses an issue that leads me to my conclusion and I ask him to resolve what appears to be a conflict in historical biblical study-- thus far he is silent. And Wanderer labels one of my post as fallacy in spite of a Spirit of Prophecy statement that makes the very point that I said.)

2) It will be evident by Jan 20, 2017 if President Obama is fulfilling Bible prophecy as I read it. Then what happens to those who neglected the opportunity to study the issues before it happens? In the days of Noah, they knew Noah was right when it started raining-- too late. In the days of Lot those who received the warning to flee the city realized when it was too late that they had rejected the warning that they needed to hear. Will it be any different on Jan 20? I DO NOT KNOW!

But I do not see any virtue in in belittling the messenger, picking apart pieces of the message that are not well understood, pigeon holing the message with a label, and not bothering to look at the specifics of the whole message.

Coaspen you can answer your own question by answering the post that I posted earlier (everybody should do it): And at the end of the repost I briefly give my answer.

 Esigesis (the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions )

So perhaps you can help me with sorting it out correctly?

The facts:

Daniel saw 4 sea-beasts (7:1-3)

Heaven explained 4 earth-beasts (7:17)

Traditionally the sea-beasts have been explained as the "worldwide" kingdoms (Babylon to Rome)

Revelation 13 differentiates a sea-beast from an earth-beast.

The problem:

Traditionally the sea-beasts in Daniel 7 have been taken symbolically and the earth-beasts literally. That Esigesis flies in the face of sound Bible study because the same symbolism exists in Daniel 7 as in Revelation 13 (lion, bear, leopard, sea-beast, and earth-beast) so to have the same item (and only that item) to be symbolic in one chapter and literal in the other cannot be correct.

If the traditional Esigesis that the sea-beasts in Daniel 7 are the earth-beasts stands true; then that view destroys the Eschatology, (the study of 'end things', whether the end of an individual life, the end of the age, the end of the world and the nature of the Kingdom of God) that is set forth in Revelation 13.

If the Eschatology that has been applied to Revelation 13 by Adventists in the past is correct, then the sea-beasts in Daniel 7 are the old world kingdoms that foreshadow an endtime revelation about the earth-beasts that relates to the new world. 

The Scriptures don't contradict each other. The symbolic sea-beasts and earth-beasts in Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 are to be interpreted by the same standard. So if a sea-beast is an earth-beast in Daniel 7 then a sea-beast is an earth-beast in Revelation 13. If a sea-beast is different than an earth-beast in Revelation 13, then a sea-beast is different than an earth-beast in Daniel 7.

THIS IS MY SOLUTION

Revelation 13 is correct (Revelation Supplements Daniel) earth- beast and sea-beast are different

The sea beasts in Daniel 7 depict the kingdoms from Babylon to Rome

The earth beasts in Daniel 7 have an endtime meaning that is sealed until history catches up to prophecy

Then the earth beasts that Heaven clearly explains: "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth" (Daniel 7:17) are exactly what Heaven says they are. Earth kings are a prophetic way to say American Presidents. Thus the only challenge remaining is to understand who they are.

IMHO pigeon holing the study process that identifies the endtime individuals that Heaven revealed to Daniel, as being Esigesis --is itself an example of Esigesis.

[CoAspen]

12 hours ago, CoAspen said:

>The Bible is not in error, the people who misinterpret it are in error.<

I'm just quessing here.....That does not apply to you!

And how shall I know?

1) Those who take positions against my reading of Scripture fail to enter into a serious study of the issues.

Now we know what you think of yourself. When one doesn't agree, you simply say "you didn't seriously study the issue". Convienent! When your predictions are wrong, you modify them and still say you are right. Sort of like a catch-22! What you do is not new. Many a fortune teller has come and gone over my life in the church. In your studies, take away what you want the Bible to say, stop looking to astound others, get rid of any desire to say "I told you so", stop and think about what you say and post and try to understand what it means to write clear and concisely. Many, many of your sentance structures wind around on themselves leading you, I suspect, into thinking you have found an answer. Drawing parallels to your self and Noah do you no good, it sounds prideful.

[hch]

9 hours ago, CoAspen said:

And how shall I know?

1) Those who take positions against my reading of Scripture fail to enter into a serious study of the issues.

Now we know what you think of yourself. When one doesn't agree, you simply say "you didn't seriously study the issue".

Convienent! When your predictions are wrong, you modify them and still say you are right. Sort of like a catch-22!

What you do is not new. Many a fortune teller has come and gone over my life in the church. In your studies,

take away what you want the Bible to say, stop looking to astound others, get rid of any desire to say "I told you so",

stop and think about what you say and post and try to understand what it means to write clear and concisely.

Many, many of your sentance structures wind around on themselves leading you, I suspect, into thinking you have

found an answer. Drawing parallels to your self and Noah do you no good, it sounds prideful.

CoAapen,

I told you what I have discovered through prayerful Bible study. When all is said and done, it is between you and the Lord as to whether this information was a blessing to you  or not.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I suppose that even if Obama doesn't continue to be the POTUS, the election of Hillary Clinton could be seen as the continuing of President Obama's legacy...  in that sense, Henry might be on track..

 

[hch]

5 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

I suppose that even if Obama doesn't continue to be the POTUS, the election of Hillary Clinton could be seen as the continuing of President Obama's legacy...  in that sense, Henry might be on track..

 

Thanks Pam,

By understanding that the deadly wound is healed in Revelation 13, the prophecy identifies the 7 heads as the 7 pope form 1929 through 2013 (Pius XI - Benedict XVI) it is possible to know that the prophecy transitioned from the papal sea beast to the earth beast. The earth beast has two horns. Horns depict kings or in this case presidents and it only has 2. Thus during the reign of Benedict, the focus of the prophecy moved to Presidents Bush II and Obama.

Unless there is something that I missed in the study (and that is always possible since I am not infallible), Obama is going to speak like a dragon and very soon.

[hch]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

May I ask you please to help me keep track of what you are saying, to tell me the specific texts that mentions "sea beasts" and "earth beasts?" I would like to explore something you have said about this, but I want to make sure I don't "pigeon-hole" anything, and to be referring to the texts that you are. Thanks, in advance for bearing with me.

Daniel saw 4 sea-beasts (Daniel 7:1-3)

Quote

Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea.  Daniel 7:2
And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.  Daniel 7:3

Heaven explained 4 earth-beasts (Daniel 7:17)

Quote

These great beasts, which are four, are four kings that shall arise out of the earth. Daniel 7:17

Tradition explains that the 4 sea beasts in the vision ARE symbolic of four earthly kingdoms.
4 symbolic sea beasts = 4 actual earthly kingdoms.

Revelation 13 uses the same symbolism as Daniel 7
lion, bear, leopard, sea-beast, and earth-beast

In Revelation 13 lion, bear, leopard, sea-beast, and earth-beast are all symbolic. 

 

Quote

The prophecies of Daniel and of John are to be understood. They interpret each other.{7BC 949.6} 

Quote

Revelation is the supplement of Daniel. {17MR 19.1}

Yes Daniel and Revelation explain each other, but Revelation supplements Daniel. Example: Daniel saw beasts arise from the sea and Revelation 17:15 explains the gathered waters (seas) as--"The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues."

So when Revelation 13 uses the same symbols as Daniel 7; Revelation 13 clearly supplements Daniel 7 in that the sea-beast and earth-beast in Revelation 13 are both symbolic, BUT traditionally in Daniel 7 it is thought that the sea-beast is symbolic and earth-beast is literal.

Tradition disregards the fact that Revelation 13 indicates that both the sea-beast and earth-beast are symbolic when the meaning of Daniel 7 is out of harmony with Revelation 13. But rather than allow the Scriptures to explain themselves, the traditional view places these two texts in contradiction of each other.

So the position that Daniel 7 is about "4 symbolic sea beasts = 4 actual earthly kingdoms" cannot be correct:

1) It makes Daniel 7 contradict Revelation 13
2) It does not follow the pattern of Revelation 13 that supplements Daniel 7
3) The book of Daniel was sealed until the endtime--the kingdom view was established hundreds of years before the endtime--it cannot be the meaning that was unsealed in the endtime
4) God promised to increase knowledge in the endtime
5) The translation of some words in Daniel contradict the context of Daniel 7 for example:

Quote

 

These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. Daniel 7:17

The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom <04437> upon earth,  Daniel 7:24

"Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth reign <04437> upon earth, which shall be diverse from all reigns <04437>, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces" (Daniel 7:23, supplemented). 

"And the ten horns out of this realm <04437> are ten kings that shall arise: and another [reign] shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings" (Daniel 7:24, supplemented).

 

Heaven explained the meaning of the 4 earth beasts as kings and the translators turned them back into kingdoms because:

1) they understood the 4 kingdoms in the past as the meaning of the prophecy before the prophecy was unsealed and opened in the endtime

2 God had commanded to seal the meaning until a later time (the use of the word kingdom accomplished God's command)

[hch]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

...Daniel 11, has a much broader meaning for the world today, and does not denote proof of Obama stuff or of exactly what  or who is "the king of the north." These other 3 Persian kings/Kingdoms are all east of the US on the map I use. BTW, I have often wondered why you still dont post much about Christ and Him crucified, as the center and point of ALL Bible prophecy. Your preference seems to be Obama, or Popes and to laud their great power and accomplishments to be coming in "the end times."  When I look at Daniel 11; I see Jesus in the heart of His people, with His law written on their hearts, and not all of them will have/do have the same doctrinal slants. Why dont we talk a bit about what or who does this "corruption by flatteries" as mentioned in Dan 11:32, and what kind of "action" do  "the people who know their God" take in response to this "corruption?"...

I don't disregard the generalities of Daniel 11, but the specifics are just as important and mostly overlooked.

There are about 8 prophecies +/- in Daniel and Revelation that specify Obama.

Christ is my Savior and His word is sure. The testimony of His word gives glory to Him.

My focus is understanding the word that Christ gave to John and Daniel.

The   "corruption by flatteries" as mentioned in Dan 11:32 relates to Bush II and Obama, I speak of them quite frequently thank you

[hch]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Quote

He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant, but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. Dan 11:32, ESV

Here is what Uriah Smith says re Dan 11:32

Quote

Those who forsake the book of the covenant, the Holy Scriptures, who think more of the decree of popes and the decisions of councils than they do of the word of God--these shall he, the pope, corrupt by flatteries. That is, they shall be led on in their partisan zeal for the pope by the bestowment of wealth, position, and honors.
At the same time a people shall exist who know their God, and these shall be strong, and do exploits. These were Christians who kept pure religion alive in the earth during the Dark Ages of papal tyranny, and performed marvelous acts of self-sacrifice and religious heroism in behalf of their faith. Prominent among these stand the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the Huguenots.

The word Covenant can also be translated Constitution (see Strong)

Mr Obama will move against the Constitution with the help of a few (could be 1 or 2  Justices on the Supreme court to legalize his setting aside the Constitution or a few members of Congress that would prefer to have him remain in office in spite of the 22 amendment rather than have Donald or Hillary in office) thus he will remain in office.

The word of the Lord is sure (we have a more sure word of prophecy) but our understanding has to mature

After he moves against the Constitution, he will implement the National Sunday law a move against God's Covenant (the Ten Commandments)

the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action I don't know how I could be more firm in declaring that Mr Obama is the President of which the 3rd angel's message warns who will support Sunday sacredness that has no authority higher than Rome. I don't know what other actions I could take beside counseling my pastor, conference President, 3ABN, It Is Written, Amazing Facts, VOP SDA college professors, and myriads of others within the sound of my voice or pen. 

The consolation: In the background I continue to work on a book that puts it all together and there are a few souls that have preordered hundreds of copies, They have read previous books and it has come together for them. They see Jesus in the message and His soon coming with the specifics that we need to know for this hour. 

[Gregory Matthews]

HCH said below:

A reasonable person would believed that you did imply such, whether you intended to do so or not, the implication was all Christians who disagreed with you.  Of course, there was no implication that those who agreed with you were superficial.     

Quote

 

But I did not say ALL Christians are superficial bible students nor did I intend to imply such a thing.

[hch]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

HCDH said below:

A reasonable person would believed that you did imply such, whether you intended to do so or not, the implication was all Christians who disagreed with you.  Of course, there was no implication that those who agreed with you were superficial.     

A reasonable person? 

There are those who will read into another's comments...thing that were not said and that were not intended. That is the way that misunderstandings often develop. And it is good to be able to clear the air and move on.

[hch]

3 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

So, in this case, "heaven" stands for Henry. When a new theory comes up and says the Bible[translators] was wrong, then it is automatically disqualified as "truth."  If the only way you can "explain yourself is by saying the Bible isn't right, that you are right, sorry. Thats when I quit

Quote

7:13    I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.  
 7:14    And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed. 

 7:15    I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of [my] body, and the visions of my head troubled me.  
 7:16    I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.  
 7:17    These great beasts, which are four, [are] four kings, [which] shall arise out of the earth.  

 

[hch]

2 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I think you are just trying to sell books. There is no biblical justification for trying to jimmy around a Bible text when you feel like it, and just say the "word covenant" can be translated as "constitution." There is no biblical principle or precident to do this, and then suddenly switch it all over to Obama. I hope Obama is not reading this.

 

Quote

I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen and was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. This will have its effect upon the heart of the receiver, and will lead him to exalt the standard and pour forth the straight truth. Some will not bear this straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this is what will cause a shaking among God's people.  {EW 270.2}

 

[hch]

2 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

...You also ignored my comment about the Bible using "antichrists" in the plural, as opposed to your use of just one man

Ignored? No such thing. Did not comment on it -- true. No need to. It is true. But because there are many antichrists, it does not mean that an antichrist that is clearly identified in Scripture should be lost in the croud when he is outstanding. EGW knew that there were many antichrists:

Quote

 

Those who become confused in their understanding of the Word, who fail to see the meaning of antichrist, will surely place themselves on the side of antichrist. There is no time now for us to assimilate with the world. Daniel is standing in his lot and in his place. The prophecies of Daniel and of John are to be understood. They interpret each other. They give to the world truths which every one should understand. These prophecies are to be witnesses in the world. By their fulfillment in these last days they will explain themselves.  {7BC 949.6} 

 

 

[hch]

16 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I think you are just trying to sell books. There is no biblical justification for trying to jimmy around a Bible text when you feel like it, and just say the "word covenant" can be translated as "constitution." There is no biblical principle or precident to do this, and then suddenly switch it all over to Obama. I hope Obama is not reading this.

Quote

 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant <01285>: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant <01285>. Daniel 11:30

Strong's Concordance states and gives definitions

01285 ברית bᵉriyth ber-eeth’ 

from 01262 (in the sense of cutting [like 01254]); n f; [BDB-136a] {See TWOT on 282 @@ "282a" } 

AV-covenant 264, league 17, confederacy 1, confederate 1, confederate + 01167 1; 284 

1) covenant, alliance, pledge 
1a) between men 
1a1) treaty, alliance, league (man to man) 
1a2) constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects) 
1a3) agreement, pledge (man to man) 
1a4) alliance (of friendship) 
1a5) alliance (of marriage) 
1b) between God and man 
1b1) alliance (of friendship) 
1b2) covenant (divine ordinance with signs or pledges) 
2) (phrases) 
2a) covenant making 
2b) covenant keeping 
2c) covenant violation