Are the three Angels' Messages Dead or Alive?

[hch]

5 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I did not ask about usa name in scripture. I asked about Obamas name. I want you to give exact qote of one verse Obama is named in. If you think he is in several texts please give them

“People of the LORD...awake, awake… arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive...” (Judges 5:11-12).

And there is that fellow who said that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the disciples translated what He said into Greek when they wrote the New Testament. He sites Luke 10:18  “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” KJV as pointing to Barack Obama.

The Hebrew word for “lightning” is “baraq.” And Heaven in his view of Hebrew is “bama” as found in Isaiah 14:14 the term refers to “the heights of the clouds” (KJV) or “the back of a cloud” (a Jewish translation called Tanakh) or “the tops of the clouds” (NRSV).

He reasons that Jesus could have actually said “baraq u/o bama” while speaking. That is stretching it a bit according to scholars, but not as much as your prediction. Even if Jesus did not say ubama or obama for the word Heaven in Luke 10:18, there is a good probability that he said “I beheld Satan as lightning (baraq) fall from heaven.”

But the point that I was making that you skirted around was that the name Barack Obama does not have to be in the Bible to prove that a prophecy is about him because God usually uses symbolism to reveal truth to His people in the Bible. The example of the USA being in Bible prophecy proves that the USA is there even if it is not named specifically.

Now it is your turn to provide the Scripture to validate your "prediction"

 

[CoAspen]

 And the world is still Flat !! Roundness is an illusion! Bible proof...."four corners of the earth"!!!

[Martn]

On 10/14/2016 at 3:31 AM, hch said:

It would lengthen our tranquility if you should be right

But woe to them who cry peace

"The prophet who prophesies of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him." Jeremiah 28:9.

Prophets almost always prophesy of negative things. Peace is not their favorite topic. We live in a predominantly negative environment, and so it usually does not prove much when their forecasts come to pass. But when, in this same environment, a prophet instead foretells peace, and the things of peace prove true, that is especially significant, and so that prophet, above all else, is the one to watch.

Jeremiah 28:8-9.

[hch]

18 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Hch...I could not ha e provided better proof for what I am saying than you just did above Thank you.

 

19 hours ago, CoAspen said:

 And the world is still Flat !! Roundness is an illusion! Bible proof...."four corners of the earth"!!!

When sound Bible study is rejected there is always the less sound methodology that will appeal to some folks.

[Gregory Matthews]

HCH said, or quoted another person as saying, below:

I am totally confused by his statement:

1)  Yes, one Hebrew word for lightening is "baraq."  But, according to Youngs that word is never translated in the book of Isaiah as lightening.

2)  The Hebrew word translated as "heights" in Isaiah 14:14 in NEITHER "baraq" nor "bama."  Rather the Hebrew word used there is "bamah."

3)  Yes, the two words differ by only one letter.  But, that makes them two different words with different meanings.  E.G.  In the English language there is a major difference between the words Cat and Cato.  They only differ by one letter.  But they are not the same.

4)  The English words heaven and heavens have been translated from multiple Hebrew words.  None of those words are either the Hebrew words "baraq" or "bama." 

5)  I doubt that HCH claims and substantial knowledge of Biblical Hebrew.  But, I will suggest that he should have investigated  more deeply the source of the passage that he cited/referenced.

6) That passage, as HCH referenced it, is both confusing and factually lacking.

 

The Hebrew word for “lightning” is “baraq.” And Heaven in his view of Hebrew is “bama” as found in Isaiah 14:14 the term refers to “the heights of the clouds” (KJV) or “the back of a cloud” (a Jewish translation called Tanakh) or “the tops of the clouds” (NRSV).

[hch]

10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

HCH said, or quoted another person as saying, below:

I am totally confused by his statement:

1)  Yes, one Hebrew word for lightening is "baraq."  But, according to Youngs that word is never translated in the book of Isaiah as lightening.

2)  The Hebrew word translated as "heights" in Isaiah 14:14 in NEITHER "baraq" nor "bama."  Rather the Hebrew word used there is "bamah."

3)  Yes, the two words differ by only one letter.  But, that makes them two different words with different meanings.  E.G.  In the English language there is a major difference between the words Cat and Cato.  They only differ by one letter.  But they are not the same.

4)  The English words heaven and heavens have been translated from multiple Hebrew words.  None of those words are either the Hebrew words "baraq" or "bama." 

5)  I doubt that HCH claims and substantial knowledge of Biblical Hebrew.  But, I will suggest that he should have investigated  more deeply the source of the passage that he cited/referenced.

6) That passage, as HCH referenced it, is both confusing and factually lacking.

Gregory, Thanks for fact checking . You confirmed a point that I made in this discussion quite nicely. That when sound Bible study is rejected the more sensational and often less dependable "Bible study" gets more attention from some folks. 

And an interesting point that may be missed though it is present in this thread: It has been my observation that when I speak something that is obviously correct, there are few folks who see it and stand up to say that it is true. But when I misspeak or point to something that is questionable, there are many more who pick up on that.

But I welcome both classes, because I am not infallible. I study to show myself approved of God a workman who needs not to be reproached and I welcome any and all feedback to keep me on the straight and narrow. 

It is very interesting that many (if not all SDA Bible scholars) use the vision in Daniel 7:1-14 to explain the interpretation rather than using the interpretation of Daniel 7:15-28 to explain the vision.  That would be something that I would welcome some fact checking on and feedback: Because the interpretation states that the vision is about 4 kings from the earth, but I am not aware of any SDA's who follow the interpretation to its right conclusion using Revelation 13 to explain the symbolism-- lion, bear, leopard, sea, and earth so that they can understand the symbolism and apply it to the vision in Daniel 7.

With tongue in cheek, my son calls some types of Bible study "Selected messages" picking and choosing truths and/or errors that are defended or rejected. But in all seriousness, God calls us to reason together, and to come in unity so that we can work together to get the work done while there is time to work together. 

So when heaven defines the beasts in Daniel 7 as coming from the earth, and as being individual kings (7:17), and then for the translators to reject that light from heaven and to translate a word (7:23-24) that is translated as reign in Ezekiel (and never kingdom) as kingdom in spite of Heaven's statement and for the translators to change Heaven's interpretation to align with their understanding of the vision and for subsequent generations to miss the error until it is so entrenched in Bible study that it obscures truth, I am amazed. Where are the fact checkers?

[Gregory Matthews]

HCH said below:

What HCH said below is a misunderstanding of the work of a translator.

A translator is supposed to consider the verbal meaning of the word, phrase, sentence, as that meaning exists in the language being translated.  Then the translator is supposed to take that meaning and chose a word from the language to which the  work is being translated that best represents the meaning of the word in the original language.

This is not an exact science.  In any language words typically have multiple meanings.  The word chosen from the language to which the  work is being translated will probably not have the same exact meanings that the word had in the original language.  The result is that any translated work is likely to be imperfect.

 

 

So when heaven defines the beasts in Daniel 7 as coming from the earth, and as being individual kings (7:17), and then for the translators to reject that light from heaven and to translate a word (7:23-24) that is translated as reign in Ezekiel (and never kingdom) as kingdom in spite of Heaven's statement and for the translators to change Heaven's interpretation to align with their understanding of the vision and for subsequent generations to miss the error until it is so entrenched in Bible study that it obscures truth, I am amazed. Where are the fact checkers?

[Gregory Matthews]

I will comment on what HCH said below:

My time is limited.  As a matter of fact I have probably NOT read the majority of posts that are made in this  forum.

Of those that I read, I have to be selective as to what I comment on.  For some I am simply not interested in spending the time to comment.  For some I believe that others are saying everything that I might say and perhaps better than I would say it.  Sometimes I simply believe that few people here in CA are going to read it.  IOW,I think that it  is likely to be ignored.

For me to respond to a comment, there has to be something positive that will lead me to make a response.  Sometimes I respond simply because I want others to know that I agree with, at least in part, what someone else has posted.  On some subjects I have enough interest level that I am likely to post.  I often post when I want to say something to those reading a post that  someone else has made.  This was  a major reason for my post related to the Hebrew words in the passage you cited. 

My point:  Do not assume that either my responding to a post, or not responding indicates in itself either agreement or non agreement with the post.  I may post in both cases.

 

Gregory, Thanks for fact checking . You confirmed a point that I made in this discussion quite nicely. That when sound Bible study is rejected the more sensational and often less dependable "Bible study" gets more attention from some folks. 

[hch]

By the way Gregory, I fact checked you as well.

 

11 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

HCH said, or quoted another person as saying, below:

I am totally confused by his statement:

1)  Yes, one Hebrew word for lightening is "baraq."  But, according to Youngs that word is never translated in the book of Isaiah as lightening. [And that is in total agreement with what I wrote when read correctly. Because I never said bâraq  was in Isaiah. "The Hebrew word for “lightning” is “baraq.” Note that my sentence ended with a period. H1299  bâraq  baw-rak'  A primitive root; to lighten (lightning): - cast forth. Total KJV occurrences: 1  which is in Psalm_144:6  "Cast forth H1299 lightning,H1300 and scatter them: shoot out thine arrows, and destroy them." And an interesting piece of the puzzle: H1300 bârâq  baw-rawk'  From H1299; lightning; by analogy a gleam; concretely a flashing sword: - bright, glitter (-ing, sword), lightning. Total KJV occurrences: 21 None of them are in Isaiah but bâraq is lightning whether H1299 or H1300]

2)  The Hebrew word translated as "heights" in Isaiah 14:14 in NEITHER "baraq" nor "bama."  Rather the Hebrew word used there is "bamah." [inclusion of “baraq” in this comment is most likely from a misreading of what I wrote. And I made it clear in what I stated that "there is that fellow who said...in his view of Hebrew is “bama” as found in Isaiah 14:14" This was not any endorsement of his view BUT a statement that someone held that view. I agree with Gregory that the word Bama is not Bamah. Had the individual stated that in his view he thought that bamah linked to obama, I would have reported it as such.]

...

4)  The English words heaven and heavens have been translated from multiple Hebrew words.  None of those words are either the Hebrew words "baraq" or "bama." [I agree with Gregory on this point, but there are people who are confused by the man's point of view]

5)  I doubt that HCH claims and substantial knowledge of Biblical Hebrew.  But, I will suggest that he should have investigated  more deeply the source of the passage that he cited/referenced. [Perhaps this is a typo? I doubt that Gregory realized that he misread what I was saying.]

6) That passage, as HCH referenced it, is both confusing and factually lacking. [ "But the point that I was making that you {the individual to whom I was responding at the time} skirted around was that the name Barack Obama does not have to be in the Bible to prove that a prophecy is about him because God usually uses symbolism in the Bible to reveal truth to His people. The example of the USA being in Bible prophecy proves that the USA is there even if it is not named specifically." Thus I was saying that Barak Obama does not have to be specifically named in the Bible like Cyrus was named though some folks would go to extremes to prove that his name is there like the man that used the example of lightning from heaven or the preacher that found the USA in JerUSAlem. ]

 

Communication is an art, but love covers a multitude of sins.

[CoAspen]

HCH, I do find you're 'wiggling' quite amusing. Your way 'catch 22' statements certainly leave you a way out because they are so convoluted that most of us simply do not want to 'straighten' them out.  

USA from JerUSAlem, that is a real good one. Like I said  '4 corners of the earth', world is flat.

[hch]

34 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

HCH said below:

What HCH said below is a misunderstanding of the work of a translator.

Gregory Let's do a fact check

1 hour ago, hch said:

So when heaven defines the beasts in Daniel 7 as coming from the earth, and as being individual kings (7:17), and then for the translators to reject that light from heaven and to translate a word (7:23-24) that is translated as reign in Ezekiel (and never kingdom) as kingdom in spite of Heaven's statement and for the translators to change Heaven's interpretation to align with their understanding of the vision and for subsequent generations to miss the error until it is so entrenched in Bible study that it obscures truth, I am amazed. Where are the fact checkers?

Daniel 7:17  "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings <04430>, which shall arise out of the earth <0772>."

Daniel 7:23  Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom <04437>  [upon added word by translators--to be in harmony with 7:17 they could have added FROM] earth <0772>, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms <04437>, and shall devour the whole earth <0772>, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

Daniel 7:24  And the ten horns out of this kingdom <04437> are ten kings <04430> that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings <04430>.

Heavens interpretation in 7:17 said that the beasts are kings, but when the translators got to <04437> as it relates to the kings the translators turned them back into kingdoms. Did the translators always translate <04437> as kingdoms in Daniel?

Daniel 5:20  But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly <04430> throne, and they took his glory from him: 

Daniel 6:3  Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king <04430> thought to set him over the whole realm <04437>.

Daniel 6:28  So this Daniel prospered in the reign <04437> of Darius, and in the reign <04437> of Cyrus the Persian.

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

This is not an exact science.  In any language words typically have multiple meanings.  The word chosen from the language to which the  work is being translated will probably not have the same exact meanings that the word had in the original language.  The result is that any translated work is likely to be imperfect.

I agree with Gregory. The translators were imperfect. Heaven said the beasts were 4 kings and the translators could have referred to the reigns <04437> of these kings in Daniel 7:23  "Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth REIGN <04437>  [FROM] earth <0772>, which shall be diverse from all REIGNS <04437>, and shall devour the whole earth <0772>, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces."

But God had commanded that the book of Daniel be sealed until the time of the end and the translators' misunderstanding of the interpretation accomplished God's will. But now that Daniel is open and unsealed, we must not let the book remain closed from our sight. 

[hch]

7 hours ago, CoAspen said:

HCH, I do find you're 'wiggling' quite amusing. Your way 'catch 22' statements certainly leave you a way out because they are so convoluted that most of us simply do not want to 'straighten' them out.  

USA from JerUSAlem, that is a real good one. Like I said  '4 corners of the earth', world is flat.

There are some things that are difficult to understand... I'm praying for you

[hch]

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Iran and The US have been at war, in varying degrees, via proxy wars, as well as in direct confrontations between them for many years. This is nothing new, nor is it any significant event as noted in Bible prophecy.

Armageddon will be something new. Though it may start as proxy war as did the great controversy, it will be significant as Bible prophecy has indicated. 

[Gregory Matthews]

HCH said below:

At the beginning of my statement, I said:  "I am totally confused by his statement:."  By stating that I meant to say that I was totally confused by what you had posted.  What you had posted was not clear to me and I did not understand what you had said.  Not only did I not fully understand what you had said, I did not fully understand where you were stating your position and where you were citing a positon of someone else.  In addition, I did not understand whether or not you agreed with your reference to what another person had said.  In other words, as I said, I was totally confused. 

 

Quote

 

[Perhaps this is a typo? I doubt that Gregory realized that he misread what I was saying.]

[hch]

8 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

My time is limited.  As a matter of fact I have probably NOT read the majority of posts that are made in this  forum.

Many are in the same boat. (Or out of the boat if it is as it was in Noah's Day.) 

It is truly difficult to discern if something is of eternal benefit and worthy of contemplation or a time waster. Some find time for trivia, ball games, movies, and all sorts of entertainment. Others have jobs, family, civic responsibilities, and really important stuff. So to find time to get into a meaningful dialog with an unknown man that "is the only one teaching something that appears to be new and different" (and it flies in the face of what most folks have been taught to believe as biblical)...it is hard.

I have been accused of being the only one teaching this. Solo is not bad company. Elijah thought he was the only one, but there were thousands of unknowns. 

I have been accused of teaching unbiblical stuff. But I am in good company. They said the same thing about Jesus. 

The accuser of the brethren is casting his shadow over the word of God to run the clock out regarding truly essential things that we need to know to be ready for Jesus to come. But as Elijah was not alone and Jesus had the truth for His time and all eternity, I will endeavor to reach the unreached. But my time is limited as well. Enough has been written on this thread that anyone who takes the time to really read what I have posted, will be in no doubt:

Jesus is coming during President Obama's term.

Pope Benedict resigned because of the priests' fornication scandal (2nd Angel's M).

The king of the earth (Obama) has embraced that form of fornication as normal.

The Judgment Hour allotted to the living has ended (we all stand judged before God--1st Angel's M)

WE are in the final sealing time

And the 3rd Angel's Message is that President Obama is to lead the image beast in its final war against God's people.

The texts have been given, the warning has gone forth, and it is not my responsibility to determine how folks receive or react to the message. 

But with any final call, if the hearers are too busy to hear or if they hear and respond; there comes a point of no return. I pray that God's people are not too busy to hear the right call at the right time and that they respond in the right way before the King says "let them alone and gather the poor and the lame to the wedding..."

[Gregory Matthews]

I have never accused you of being the only person teaching what you teach.

 

[hch]

14 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I have never accused you of being the only person teaching what you teach.

That is true. I do not believe that I mentioned you in that light. But if you read through this thread, there are many instances where others have stressed that I am the only person teaching what I teach -- again and again...

There is truly a famine on the internet; not a famine for bread, but for sound Bible study even though the Bible is available online in hundreds of versions and almost every language imaginable.

[hch]

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I think  others have said something like that; but I dont think you have. Although, when I think about it, that is something I would say. There are some who teach something similar, but not the same as hch. At any rate, I dont think its an "accusation" to worry too much about. We can only call it as w see it.

The Lord will take care of the score keeping, but rather than spending so much time on hch, how about checking the facts that were in the post from hch to Gregory that starts:

21 hours ago, hch said:

Gregory Let's do a fact check

 It is either truth or error. If it is not true-set the record straight from the Bible. If it is true, then explain why SDA's generally don't teach it. Or why some folks are working so diligently to debunk it.

[hch]

On 10/17/2016 at 2:08 AM, The Wanderer said:

ahhh, the whole world will be involved in 'end time events." Thats why its called 'end times."  (see Rev 3:10)

Quote

"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." (KJV)

Great insight.

Daniel grasped that there was a difference from the earth of which Heaven's interpretation was speaking and the whole earth:

On 10/16/2016 at 11:08 PM, hch said:

Daniel 7:23  "Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth REIGN <04437>  [FROM] earth <0772>, which shall be diverse from all REIGNS <04437>, and shall devour the whole earth <0772>, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces."

Now that it is clear that Daniel reported that the symbolic earth is different from the whole earth, why do we still not understand the meaning of the interpretation so that it can repeat and enlarge the meaning of the vision?

[CoAspen]

Quote

It is either truth or error. If it is not true-set the record straight from the Bible. If it is true, then explain why SDA's generally don't teach it. Or why some folks are working so diligently to debunk it.

The above statement is not actually a question. The poster has already decided what is truth. The poster has already decided that their 'truth' supercedes all others.......regardless of prior disclaimers or any one to follow.

[hch]

20 hours ago, CoAspen said:

The above statement is not actually a question. The poster has already decided what is truth. The poster has already decided that their 'truth' supercedes all others.......regardless of prior disclaimers or any one to follow.

CoAspen,

Doesn't the Bible say "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve"? We have to choose between what is truth and what is error. And we have to "Reason together" lest we make up our mind and become set in our ways when we may not have looked at all the facts.

You've posted on this topic... Perhaps now you would be a blessing by giving a Scripture or two to persuade me that what I have found to be true is faulty. I would gladly consider that counsel and change my views if that is appropriate. I gave some Bible verses from Daniel 7 (17, 23-24) allowing them to speak with very little commentary from myself. Perhaps you would begin at that post?

[hch]

The 7 heads on the papal-beast bring us up to the time of the final proclamation of the 3 Angels' Messages:

Revelation 13:3 "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast." 

1) It was wounded in 1798 when its authority over church and state was subjugated.
2) It was healed in 1929 when its authority over church and state was restored.
3) The Scripture is referring to the phase of the beast when it is healed post-1929 

History shows us that the papacy has had 6 named heads since 1929
1) Pius (a pope Pius [VI] got the wound & a pope Pius [XI] was healed)
2) John
3) Paul
4) John-Paul
5) Benedict (he reigned for a short space less than 7 years from Biblical chronology... 29 March 2006 - 28 February 2013 [from the death of Pope John-Paul II on 2 April 2005 - 28 March 2006 was John-Paul II's final year / Benedict's ascension year]) 
6) Francis
7) Satan

From the perspective of the men who ruled as solo popes:
1) Pius XI
2) Pius XII
3) John
4) Paul
5) John-Paul I
6) John-Paul II (the one that is and will be)
7) Benedict (began his rule during GW's term and ended during BO's term)

When the tally of post 1929 solo popes reached 7, the prophecy shifted from the papal beast to the earth beast.

The horns on the earth beast are:
1) George Walker Bush
2) Barack Obama

The 2nd beast only has 2 horns: not any more.

President Obama is the man identified in prophecy who will make war against the church of God until Christ Comes.

As ancient Babylon had 3 Kings: Belshazzar, Nabonidus, & Daniel when it fell; papal Babylon will have 3 popes--Satan, Francis, and Benedict.

Cyrus was a type of Christ. He dried up the Euphrates the night Babylon fell. ISIS is drying up the people from the Euphrates River basin and the priests' fornication scandal is drying up the flow of Christians into papal Babylon and its apostate daughters.

When Satan appears as a human being (John-Paul II) papal Babylon will have its three kings. Christ will come soon thereafter.

[hch]

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Yes. I agree and he also keeps asking us for "bible proof" yet feels quite free to quip back a one or two line quote from "sop," whenever I post here with scripture. Just read previous posts to verify. Jesus says in Mat 24 when we see all the wars and rumors of wars and false prophets "the end is not yet" so while we are told to wait with baited breath for some dog fight between US and Iran we will completely miss what our Lord is trying to say during these troublesome times we live in

The "dogfight" of which you refer will morph into Armageddon; hardly insignificant.

To criticize me for not giving Scriptures while ignoring page after page of Scriptures that I have posted is a testimony in itself of the truth of the situation. But I am encourage by events that the Lord has brought about just yesterday. After discussing some highlights from Daniel 11 over lunch, a group has formed (of SDA's and non SDA's) to prayerfully study the Bible and see if these things are true.

 

[hch]

This is an excerpt of Bible texts that I posted earlier that has gone unnoticed?

No one has replied to it:

Daniel 7:17  "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings <04430>, which shall arise out of the earth <0772>."

Daniel 7:23  "Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom <04437>  [upon added word by translators--to be in harmony with 7:17 they could have added FROM] earth <0772>, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms <04437>, and shall devour the whole earth <0772>, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces."

Daniel 7:24  "And the ten horns out of this kingdom <04437> are ten kings <04430> that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings <04430>."

Heavens interpretation in 7:17 said that the beasts are kings, but when the translators got to <04437> in verse 7:23-23 as it relates to the kings the translators turned them back into kingdoms. Did the translators always translate <04437> as kingdoms in Daniel?

Daniel 5:20  "But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly <04430> throne, and they took his glory from him:" 

Daniel 6:3  "Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king <04430> thought to set him over the whole realm <04437>."

Daniel 6:28  "So this Daniel prospered in the reign <04437> of Darius, and in the reign <04437> of Cyrus the Persian."

The evidence is that the translators translated Daniel 7 to align with their belief that the prophecy had already been fulfilled. Thus they sealed the endtime meaning from view until God ordained that it should be revealed.

[Martn]

On 10/17/2016 at 6:50 AM, hch said:

 there are many instances where others have stressed that I am the only person teaching what I teach -- again and again...

 

That's not an accurate representation of what we've said.

Many for decades have been saying terrible things about Mr. Obama. Nothing new.

Some details are distinctly yours, but it is your very peculiar method of prophetic interpretation which really stands alone. As others have noted, it is very convoluted and heavily relies on circular reasoning. In other words, it isn't reasonable.