Parody of a Post-Brexit Scramble

In my last post on the Brexit, I had speculated that the Brexit might force pro-Roman Antichrist theory supporters to re-think their position soon.  Thinking of my own studies in decades past when I thought the AC was to be European, if the Brexit had happened at that time, to me it could have been a harbinger of a possible show stopper.  But with the view of the AC being Islamic, the Brexit is irrelevant.

A reader showed me the following story.  I don’t usually make posts like this one, but apparently the folks at Babylonbee.com have had the same thought about the Brexit’s possible impact on the prophecy community.  But done in Babylonbee’s fashion, it looks like at least a couple prophecy teachers might be scrambling.

How does Brexit fir it? (Inset of Babylonbee picture)

How does Brexit fit in? (Inset of picture from Babylonbee.com)

My apologies if I offend anyone, but the story is a parody and I thought some levity would be good for a change.



Categories: In The News, Islamic Antichrist

Tags: , ,

23 replies

  1. Jack Smith, the author of the 2011 book “Islam: the Cloak of Antichrist”, has recently written an article “The Revived Roman Empire Paradigm and the Impact of Brexit” which can be found at:

    http://www.jacksmithprophecy.org/2016/06/25/what-of-the-revived-roman-empire-paradigm-now/

    A quote from the article: “It is time to rethink our prophecy paradigms. The revived Roman paradigm with the EU as the fulfillment of the end-time empire that rises up must be discarded. The many brilliant scholars in eschatology need consider new options. The church must be prepared and the thinkers in our faith need think anew. The chaos about to spring forth in the world demands it. Islam will be the end-time empire in some way or fashion. The Islamic paradigm provides far more evidence of its candidacy today than ever before.”

    I recommend “Islam: the Cloak of Antichrist” for the information it contains, but not for its interpretations, which were developed prior to the publication of “Daniel Revisited”.

  2. Prismsplay,

    I, too, have read Jack Smith’s book, “Islam: the Cloak of the Antichrist” it is an exhaustive work and I don’t agree with his interpretations either, but his knowledge about Islamic eschatology is excellent. I would recommend any die-hard prophecy geek read it for that alone to get a primmer on how it fits well as a backgrounder for biblical prophecy. Useful information in that book.

    Blessings!

  3. In actual fact Brexit, and the possible exit of other countries from the EU, reinforces the revived Roman empire construct. We are looking for 10 kings who give their power to the Antichrist, not 28. The Antichrist will, like Nebuchadnezzar, not be under the law of the kingdom he rules over. So I suggest we watch for a deal that gives the UK membership without being under EU law.

  4. Phil,
    I don’t know if you realize this, but the post about Brexit was meant for those who would stubbornly hang on to the belief that the Antichrist will be from Europe. My work – this blog and Daniel Revisited – shows the AC to be from the Mideast, an Arab, and a Muslim.
    We are, here, in fact looking for the ten nations sprouting from the Islamic Realm, six of which exist and four do not yet exist.

  5. Mark.

    I’m well aware of your purpose. My purpose is to point out the fact that most European Antichrist, and all Mid East Beast proponents have built their eschatological constructs on the sands of old dogma that have no biblical support.

    You are looking for ten nations because old dogma insists that is what the ten horns represent. But the historical rise of Antiochus IV demonstrated the fact that this is a wrong expectation.

    https://danielsealbroken.wordpress.com/the-ten-horns/

  6. Phil,
    I read the link and it is indeed a historicist viewpoint. The three uprooted horns of the ten cannot be anything in the past (in fact all four beasts too), but only the end times, if you follow the exact text of Daniel 7:17 to its logical conclusion. A historicist or preterist viewpoint cannot interpret Daniel 7:17 correctly. And the first beast is a form of Babylon because of the similarity to the story in Daniel 4.
    Secondly, the site mentions how the Islamic AC theory is based on old viewpoints. Actually the Islamic AC is fairly new (yes it has appeared from time to time but not in a consistent way – not since 2000 AD). The Roman AC theory is based on writings going back 1800 years.
    The proof of this view will be the soon coming Iranian invasion of the Middle East, and Iraq’s government changed to a democracy.

  7. Mark.

    You misunderstand what I am saying. My views are neither historicist nor preterist. I see a near and far fulfilment of prophecy. The historical fulfilment I write about in that article gives us the information we need to recognise its future fulfilment.

    Daniel 7:17 tells us the vision is of kingdoms that shall arise. Not those that already exist. So Babylon is not amongst them. You can’t take the description of Nebuchadnezzar’s experience in Dan 4, and use it to contradict 7:17.

    https://danielsealbroken.wordpress.com/a-breakthrough-in-eschatology/

    Iraq’s government has already changed to a democracy. So what? Iran isn’t prophesied to invade the Middle East. It may try to, but Jeremiah 49:34-39 tells us what to look for concerning the Iranians.

  8. Phil,
    At least we agree that the Dan 2 kingdoms and Dan 7 kingdoms are not exactly the same thing.
    Daniel 7 and 8 are facets of the same events. Look at the bear and the goat. Look at the little horn in both visions. And end time Babylon and for that matter all the end time kingdoms are represented by beasts not because of some archaeology or ancient symbology, but because the nations behave militarily like the beast representing it.
    Read Daniel Revisited, it speaks directly to this topic. And if you have already we will just have to agree to disagree.

  9. Mark.

    This is what I meant when I said: “most European Antichrist, and all Mid East Beast proponents have built their eschatological constructs on the sands of old dogma that have no biblical support.”

    In chapter 8:26 the angel Gabriel links the Dan 7 vision with that of the ram and goat when he says: “And the vision of the evening and morning that was told is true.” Chapter 7 being the evening vision, and chapter eight, the morning vision. Why would God use two completely different beasts to depict the same empire, in visions that are linked together in the same book?

    Some Bible translators have allowed their preconceived ideas to influence their translation of what the angel said in chapter 8:26. They have changed the words “evening and morning” to a plural “evenings and mornings” in order to limit his explanation to dealing with only Dan 8:13-14. But if we look to Strong’s Concordance, we see the words ‘e·reḇ and bō·qer are used, which in every other occurrence are translated ‘evening and morning’.

    What the angel is explaining to Daniel from 8:16 onward is clearly the meaning of the whole vision that Daniel tells us in verse one; is the second given to him after that recorded in chapter seven.

    Dan 8:13-14 isn’t a separate and distinct vision. It’s part of the whole vision that makes up most of chapter 8.

    I agree with your view that these prophecies will find future fulfilment. But they aren’t confined to the end time. There was a near time fulfilment of Dan 8. And there is and end time fulfilment of Dan 7. Most of which we are living in today.

  10. Hi Phil,
    I believe you are misreading Daniel 8:26. Let’s back it up to 8:14. In Daniel 8:14 the Hebrew, word by word and used with proper tense, grammar, etc. without trying to make sense of it in English literally reads –
    “And he said to me evening morning 2,300 then shall be cleansed the sanctuary.”
    You are correct that the singular of evening and morning are used here in the original text. The word for evening, e-reb, for instance, is used 134 times in the OT and is always in the singular, so why here is it plural? Outside of Daniel the word is always used in regard to the evening time, or the single evening going by to the morning. But there, “evening” and “morning” is part of a statement answering how much time is to go by, in conjunction with the number 2,300. So in context, morning and evening is understood to be plural in the Hebrew or the angel’s answer doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t make sense and has bad grammar in the English. That is why it is plural.
    So when the angel refers to the vision again in Dan 8:26, he is referring to the vision of the plural evening and morning because it was earlier understood and called in the plural. Otherwise, what is the 2,300?
    You seem eager to get past this translation in order to push the “Why would God use two completely different beasts to depict the same empire, in visions that are linked together in the same book” agenda. Be careful. And again I say, why couldn’t God allow two figures tell us of the same thing? What rule says that can’t be done?
    In my opinion, Phil, you are mistranslating Daniel 8:14. I agree that the whole of Daniel 8 tells us one vision.
    Now, regarding your last paragraph, prophecy is fulfilled once and only once. Anything else that happens is a foreshadow or after shadow. If “the fulfilling event” is not to the detailed letter of the text of the prophecy, it is not a fulfillment. The two key words in fulfillment are “full” “fill”, i.e. the event must fully “fill” the text or it is not a fulfillment. This is why, for example, in DR Chapter 10 I show why I doffed Ahmadinejad as fulfillment of the second horn growing longer later, and donned the IRGC which is a perfect fulfillment of the second horn. You say “There was a near time fulfilment of Dan 8” – what event was that?
    Blessings

  11. Mark.

    Chapter 8 opens with Daniel telling us about a vision he had…

    “In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.”

    That vision finished with verse 8:14. We know this because 8:15 opens with words that give a time context that clearly separate what is said next from the vision.

    “And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.”

    Read in context. What follows is clearly an explanation of the whole vision that Daniel tells us he had in his verse one opening statement.

    Regarding God using two different beasts to depict the same empire. Of course there are no written rules forbidding this, as far as I am aware. But show me other instances of God doing that. I can tell you why he didn’t. Because he is not the author of confusion.

    I agree with you regarding foreshadows, if by that you mean the near-time partial fulfilment of a prophecy.

    The near-time fulfilment of Dan 8 is recorded in history with the fall of the Medo-Persian empire to the Grecian empire. But that isn’t a complete fulfilment, because we are told these things pertain to the end times.

    “And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.”

    History records the fact that the Medo-Persians were overthrown by Alexander the Great ‘many days’ after Daniel’s death. So we see a partial fulfilment there. Which means they are more events that will have their fulfilment in the last days.

  12. Phil,
    Daniel 8 is one vision. Daniel 7 is another vision. But there are parallels between the two. Yes, the ram and the bear represent two aspects of the same kingdom – end time Iran. Two visions. Two beasts are one kingdom.
    “God not being the author of confusion” is an overused and misapplied statement often – you quote 1 Corinthians 14:33, which in the NIV is “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.” However, this applies to the conduct of a church meeting. But remember in a past comment where I had said there are multiple prophecies all about the same man Jesus Christ – born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), from Nazareth (Is 11:1), born of a virgin (Is 7:14). All apply to Jesus Christ. Taking your reasoning to its extreme, they could not all apply to one person. But we see a similar situation here in John 7:40-43, where people with a similar mindset are arguing over Jesus because people are not understanding this very same thing – that two or more prophecies can apply to the same entity,
    “On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.” Others said, “He is the Christ.” Still others asked, “How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David’s family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” Thus the people were divided because of Jesus.”
    The division and confusion occurred because some people didn’t understand the prophecies rightly. Some though Jesus couldn’t be Messiah because He came from Nazareth and prophecy said He’s come from Bethlehem. So more than two prophecies apply to the same person – God authored them – the people were confused. But God is still not the author of confusion. Its because people aren’t rightly interpreting God’s word.
    There was no “near-time” or “near” fulfillment of Daniel 8 – they were all only foreshadows. And that means Daniel 8 has not been fulfilled at all – a fulfillment is a fulfillment. Could a man be nailed to a cross and say that was a partial fulfillment of Psalm 22? Not at all. Alexander the Great was no fulfillment. His empire was divided 25 ways – not 4. Just wait, be patient. You will see the Turkish leader charge east, and his new great realm will be divided precisely into 4 pieces because it will be a fulfillment. Check out Daniel 11:4 which does apply to Alexander – no number is mentioned of how his empire is broken out (but the answer was 25).
    We will have to agree to disagree if you continue in this.

  13. Mark.

    Give me another biblical example of God representing nations by two different beasts. Precedent is an important part of biblical interpretation, and I know of none to back your argument.

    The Ram represents Medo-Persia that had two kings represented by the horns. One of which (the Persian king) being the more powerful in their union, was represented by the taller horn.

    The Bear represents a modern union of nations, and uses a slightly similar method to demonstrate a superiority of one of the nations (“raised up on one side”). But no mention of horns because these nations are not kingdoms.

    “And look! Another beast, a second, like a bear. It raised itself up on one side, and it had three ribs in its mouth between the teeth. And they said this to it: Arise and devour much flesh!”

    “This was the Soviet Empire, raised up and stronger on its Russian side. On December 29, 1922, a conference of delegations from the Russian SFSR, the Transcaucasian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the Byelorussian SSR approved the Treaty of Creation of the USSR and the Declaration of the Creation of the USSR. These two documents were confirmed by the 1st Congress of Soviets of the USSR and signed by heads of delegations – Mikhail Kalinin, Mikhail Tskhakaya, Mikhail Frunze, Grigory Petrovsky and Aleksandr Chervyakov respectively on December 30, 1922. The Russian bear now had these three subordinate regions between its teeth. It subsequently devoured many other countries, and was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. During its rise the Russian royal family were executed.”

    Daniel 11:3-4 does speak of Alexander the Great. But why do you say no number is mentioned of how his kingdom is broken up, and tell us the number was 25? Verse 4 states clearly that the division was by 4.

    “And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven”…

  14. Phil,
    I find there are typically two types of people who read or write prophecy books – students and teachers (although teachers are students too) and teachers can teach truth or error. Students – those who are seeking answers – are the main audience of this site, reading, asking questions, and seeking truth. Teachers interact with one another but typically by contacting one another and agreeing to debate, as iron sharpens iron. You have commented on this site as if a student, but you are in fact a teacher.
    With that said, sorry, I believe your “breakthrough” in eschatology as you state on your site is a dead end. This may sound harsh, but your logic, I believe, has been proven flawed here a few times now. I believe you are allowing your own agenda to push an interpretation without really paying attention to the arguments. Please read through to the end for conclusions. Here are the arguments –
    1) You said in your first comment those who believe the Antichrist will be Muslim is based on old traditional theology, when it is in fact Hippolytus in AD 200 that started the Roman tradition eighteen centuries ago. Though the Muslim AC theory has been mentioned in the last 500 years off and on it wasn’t seriously considered until the last ten years. You said the Muslim AC theory has no biblical support. However, Daniel 2:40 and 9:26 bear out real and documented history that the AC is indeed Muslim. You are incorrect – you are not interpreting those verses incorrectly.
    2) You also said that the ten horns represent kings that include Antiochus IV. On your site though you also say the prominent horn of the goat was Alexander the Great. But this is incorrect because Daniel 8:17, 19 and 26 all say the vision is for the end times. Besides, Alexander, the Persian empire, etc are all foreshadows – they cannot be fulfillments by any means or to any degree. A fulfillment is an event completely meeting what Scripture says as I wrote you before in an earlier comment. So you are incorrect about the first horn of the goat being Alexander.
    3) You said in another comment that the lion with wings in Daniel 7 cannot be Babylon. I said it is, and mentioned that the book of Daniel uses Dan. 4 presenting the story of the king having the mind of a beast is the clue that the first beast is Babylon. The reason you used was emotional only. You said “You can’t take the description of Nebuchadnezzar’s experience in Dan 4, and use it to contradict 7:17.” What I said does not “contradict” Daniel 7:17, it only contradicts your interpretation of Daniel 7’s first beast. If you had read my book you would see all the reasons why the first beast is in fact Iraq.
    4) You said in the same comment as the last item above, that “Iran isn’t prophesied to invade the Middle East.” There are many who have read my book that would absolutely disagree with you as do I. You only have to open your eyes and look at Iran today to see what it is doing. Any proper theory must be borne out and proved. The invasion by Iran will be proof on top of the democratizing of Iraq proof that the Signpost interpretation is true.
    5) In another comment you bring up how “evening” and “morning” in the middle of Daniel 8 should be interpreted as singular not plural when the number 2,300 is right next to them; this forces you into a very bizarre interpretation of Daniel 8. You say no other place in the Bible has the same word (evening/morning) as a plural so why is it translated as such here? I showed you that no other verse using evening and morning has a number like Daniel 8:14. I never heard your response on this.
    6) In the next comment you went back to saying that the “near-time fulfillment of Dan 8 is recorded in history” but it cannot be. Why? Because Daniel 8 is end time only – it says so in three verses. So anything we saw happen in ancient history is only a foreshadow when it comes to Daniel 8.
    7) And now in your most recent comment you bring up so many points that are indicative of erroneous interpretations. You will see two kings in power together just as Daniel 8 says, when Iran invades the Middle east. You didn’t see that in ancient Persia – only one king ruled at a time. Daniel 8 is a dynamic vision where each horn represents one man – the 2 horns, the 1 horn, the 4 horns, the little horn. So we will see two Iranian leaders when Iran runs out. In fact ,we already see them.
    7a) Then you wrote the bear of Daniel 7 is Russia. I’m familiar with that interpretation and it again is erroneous. All nations and beasts are in the Middle East and involve the nations that tried to destroy Israel in history. Russia is irrelevant.
    7b) You mention my own mention of Daniel 11:3-4 – you say those verses mention four kingdoms coming up from Alexander’s empire. It does no such thing and shows sloppy interpretation. First, Daniel 8:8 says specifically four kingdoms grew up to the four winds. But Daniel 11:3-4 specifically says no such thing – that his empire was parceled out to the four winds when no mention of number of kingdoms is given. You are assigning the number of the four winds to the number of kingdoms. Daniel 8:8 didn’t need the help – why would Daniel 11:2-3?
    8) Finally, you said that the ram of Daniel 7 and the bear of Daniel 8 cannot represent the same empire – the only reason you gave was that it just isn’t done that way in the Bible. I then wrote you that many prophecies can refer to the same entity or kingdom or person, using prophecies of Jesus as an example. You brushed it aside at the start of your last comment and said where else in the Bible does this occur? The fact that multiple prophecies can apply to Jesus is justification enough that this way of expression in the Bible is true. You wrote, “Give me another biblical example of God representing nations by two different beasts. Precedent is an important part of biblical interpretation, and I know of none to back your argument.” Logically, you were not satisfied with prophecies of Jesus as justification. So here is my list of common devices and beasts where two or more are used to represent the same kingdoms or kings (and this list is not complete, it’s just a few) – a) the bear and the ram are Iran, b) the leopard and the goat are Turkey and its three federated kingdoms, c) the ten horns and ten toes are the ten kingdoms, d) the little horn and eleventh horn and man of fierce countenance and the beast of Revelation 13:1 are all the Antichrist, e) the iron legs and the fourth beast are both Islam, and f) the seven mountains (not hills, but mountains) of Rev 17are the same as the seven heads of the dragon in Rev 12. So, yes, the Bible represents the same entity by two ways or more quite often in prophecy.
    In conclusion, you have authored a book and it is out there among many that are out there by many prophecy teachers, and it puts forth what I believe to be an erroneous interpretation of Scripture. I do not believe most prophecy books. Your book like many others simply ignores exact language and does not pay attention to the exact language of every verse (Daniel 8:17 and 2:40 are examples). I believe they do this due to tradition.
    You have written here many times in the last few days and I have been dialoging with you in the hopes of you being led out of erroneous interpretation. I took some time to respond here this last time because I was seeking the Lord in prayer about your comments, who you are, and how to respond.
    I don’t keep this blog to simply argue. No, I wrote my book to warn the church of the imminence of the terrible event to come – the invasion by Iran. It will turn this world upside down and cause panic worldwide. When this event occurs, uncounted pastors and ministry leaders will need to know that this event we will witness is the next great event prior to the coming of Christ. This will allow them to settle down and continue to preach the Gospel.
    I have told many that if I am ultimately proven wrong I will put a big apology up on my site, and tell how I was wrong, and then take the site down. Are you willing to do the same? The purpose of this site is to warn my brothers and sisters, and that requires educating and getting people up to speed.
    I do not have the time to go endlessly round and round with someone like you who has an agenda. After several rounds you are pushing your teaching on me, and not allowing a logical and rational conversation to have any impact on your thinking. I have been able to show holes in your arguments at every step.
    Therefore, please do not bother commenting again unless you honestly want to learn what this site and book has to offer.
    I wish you well, brother. May we all be led to the truth of what He is doing in these last days.

  15. Mark.

    Using your examples of Jesus prophecies, you miss the fact that there were a number of earlier, or as you prefer to put it – foreshadows of Jesus. Joseph and Moses being just two. So your dismissal of the historic foreshadows I put to you, and insistence on a purely end time occurrence is wrong.

    Most, if not all of your rebuttals are based on your personal, and very individual opinion of what you believe will happen in future. In fact your beliefs amount to you making a personal prophecy. And, as I pointed out. A prophecy that, in the case of Iran, argues against Jeremiah 49:34-39.

    You insist that Iraq’s move to democracy equals ‘being given the heart of a man’. According to who? You, that’s who! Where do you get your biblical authority for that interpretation? There is none! God always intended Israel to have himself as their king. Not to become a democracy. Does that mean He intended them to be a heartless nation?

    My reason for debating you is twofold. 1. To test my theories. 2. To test yours. But typical of self styled prophets, you are offended by anyone who challenges you. From your very first reply, you have shown irritation to my challenge. You implied that only those who agreed with your views were welcome, and have twice ended your replies with the phrase “agree to disagree”. Which is just a polite way of saying – don’t challenge me. That is pride in action!

  16. Phil,
    Did you read my last comment. It was long and heartfelt. I was simply laying out your arguments and how they have holes. Did you answer for all the holes in your arguments? I don’t think you did.
    I do appreciate your commenting. You have helped me keep in the forefront of my mind, arguments that I hadn’t covered in a while.
    You express many of your positions as a feeling, and making statements without logical support. My interpretation of Daniel 8 on the other hand, where Iran invades the Middle East is based on a set of logical arguments from the text of the Bible and the only thing that is contradicted is what you think Jeremiah 49:34-39 means. (I have had teachers tell me that the Islamic Antichrist is an “unbiblical” idea but what they are really saying is it contradicts their own interpretation.) I confess I do not know exactly what Jeremiah 49:34-39 means but I believe I know what Daniel 8 means.
    Your jumping from talking about Iraq’s change of heart to Israel’s king is a non sequitur – the two statements are irrelevant to each other.
    And no, my book and position is not based on what I think will happen in the future. Rather, what I think will happen in the future is based on the Bible – and my book is written to show why I believe the Bible is telling us the great Iranian invasion is next. Thank you for acknowledging that this is a unique interpretation on my part. It is my belief no one else has come to this. And for some reason – God only knows – either I am crazy or God has indeed chosen me – a nobody – to proclaim this message. The reason I do not think I am crazy is because the message is built brick by brick on solid exegesis and documented history.
    I find most people accuse others of things that are false, because that is the conclusion they have come to based on their own mindset. I have not been irritated. I am simply trying to show you professional courtesy, by saying we must agree to disagree. You wrote a book. I wrote a book. You disagree with my book. You seem to be irritated that I would disagree with you. You seem to be think I am saying don’t challenge me. Well Phil, with my last comment I did meet your challenge and you failed to respond.
    Yes, I believe Iraq being democratized fulfilled the lion with wings. Iran’s invasion will fulfill the bear and the ram regardless of Jeremiah 49.
    There is no pride here but an urge to reach out and warn the church.

  17. Phil Mayo,

    Sir, if you have come here to try to persuade the creator of this site that his book’s message is wrong at this point in time is well, foolish. Nothing has been proven one way or the other that what he states particularly regarding Iran is false. I realize there is more that you take issue with, but your not being fair to this author and for that you are clearly in the wrong. PERIOD.

    Now, I strongly suggest you learn how to apply the meaning of being gracious and humble to another christian brother with whom you have differences and learn how to listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit and not treat God’s family in a disrespectful manner. Yes, it is high time you look in the spiritual fruit mirror and take a very hard look at what you see, dear one.

    I am in no mood to debate nor do I have the time. I do believe you get the point.

    Blessings!

  18. Mark.

    It is to save time that I don’t reply to each and every individual point you make. And even when I do challenge a point, you seem unable to see the obvious connections between some examples I give. You said my Iraq/Israel example is a “non sequitur”. They couldn’t be any more relevant to each other in this debate. Both have democratic rule. But God always intended Israel to have him as their king. So from where do you get this idea that democracy equals being given a heart? Scripture totally disagrees with you!

    Staying with that part of the Dan 7 vision. Why do you insist that this is Babylon, or modern day Iraq? Verse 17 says “These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.” The phrase to take note of there is “shall arise”. It means that beast can’t be Babylon. It is a future kingdom. Daniel received this vision during the reign of the last king of Babylon, so their was no arising to be done. And notice it speaks of KINGS not democracies!

    The only reason you connect this vision to Iraq is because you accept the erroneous Babylon interpretation. And this is what I mean when I say you have built your theory on the sands of old dogma.

    So just that example proves your claim to have “built brick by brick on solid exegesis and documented history” is totally wrong. You even reject “documented history” when I pointed you to the fact that Alexander the Great fulfilled the Dan 11:4 prophecy.

    You said “You express many of your positions as a feeling, and making statements without logical support. My interpretation of Daniel 8 on the other hand, where Iran invades the Middle East is based on a set of logical arguments from the text of the Bible and the only thing that is contradicted is what you think Jeremiah 49:34-39 means.”

    I haven’t expressed any position as a “feeling”. I have given you the correct grammatical reading of relevant scriptures, including Jeremiah 49:34-39, which contradicts your Iranian invasion ideas. Not by any applied interpretation on my part. Simply by the plain meaning of the text. And when the meaning of scripture is obvious, we should look for no other meaning!

  19. Julie.

    Prophecy isn’t something anyone should teach unchallenged. The Berean approach is encouraged by God. And that’s the approach I reserve His granted right to take. I also welcome challenges to my teaching. In fact, it’s my # 1 reason for rocking Mark’s boat.

    Mark’s expression of irritation at being challenged isn’t unique. Joel Richardson barred me from his site for asking questions he couldn’t answer. And on the Roman empire side of the debate – Chris Shang invented an entirely new offense to justify banning me, after being unable to unpick a single thread of my thesis.

  20. Phil,
    You need to read my book – it puts all the arguments together.
    Your statement – “It is to save time that I don’t reply to each and every individual point you make.” That’s what a debate between two brothers entails. There is no easy, short way. Without you going through them point by point, any further arguing is pointless – I posited rationales for my positions and you ignore. And no, I don’t have time right now. So I believe we are done.
    And yes, the lion of Daniel 7 and Israel are non sequiturs – neither has anything to do with the other. And no, Scripture does not disagree with us – we can only misinterpret or interpret correctly, Scripture. Every time you say that, what you properly mean is “I disagree with your interpretation.” Anyone who says that is subconsciously raising his interpretation to the status of Scripture in his mind, doing so.
    Speaking of mind, the word behind ‘mind’ in Daniel 7:4 is ‘lebab’ (#3825); its the same word as used in Dan 2:30 when dreams went through the king’s ‘mind.’ In Daniel 7, the beasts represent kings (7:17) and kingdoms (7:23), the heads are political authority, and the mind is what these governments think, i.e. type of government. And I posit why can’t the lion be an end-time version of Babylon – you’re only making a statement saying no with nothing of substance to back it up. At least I show the beasts are kings and kingdoms, in the future. Daniel is one book and we are shown a clue that the lion with the mind change is Babylon (or endtime version). And the beast, the lion, is to act and think like a man – an unnatural picture, just like Iraq as a democracy.
    Jeremiah’s Elam likely has nothing to do with Daniel 8. Why? Elam is not the same as Media and Persia, the topic of Daniel 8. True, they are all part of modern Iran, but Daniel 8 is about one thing and Jeremiah 49 another.
    Believe it or not, my modus operandi, the way I interpret Scripture is the simplest most straightforward way (just ask my readers). But you almost must be as thorough as possible. You are not thorough – your comments show this. For example, I interpret Daniel 7:17 and 7:23 saying together the beasts are kings and kingdoms – I think you missed that point.
    I’ve given you many things to consider over these posts, including answers to your arguments. I recommend you read my book.

  21. Phil,

    You seem to come here to be a troublemaker and not here for sincere dialog to learn how to agree to disagree…gracefully. That is your attitudinal problem and a terribly poor christian witness. Do you really think it is your job to brow beat another blogger into submission? No matter how much or how little you think you know. I’m sorry, Joel was in the right to ban you from his web site and I would not blame Mark in the least if he did the same to you. Sir, it is painfully obvious you have a long way to go in your spiritual walk with the LORD and reflecting the character of the Son of God. Tragic.

    Blessings!

  22. Mark.

    Points I have made remain there for all to see in the comments I have placed in this thread. Continuously arguing over the same point is fruitless. That is why I don’t reply for a second time if you reject what I said already. If you introduce a new concept. I will comment…

    For instance. You now say “the heads are political authority, and the mind is what these governments think, i.e. type of government.”

    Give me an example of heads being metaphors for political authority. I can give you an example of them being metaphors for the governments of kings: Rev 17:9-10 (“And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space”) I see absolutely no inference toward democracies there.

    The point I make regards the principle of using scripture to interpret scripture. It’s broadly acknowledged amongst Bible scholars as being the only way by which we can justly say ‘thus sayeth the Lord’. Introducing any other interpretation without scriptural support is called eisegete.

    Julie.

    You have made your choice between a Berean approach and blind leading the blind. I have made mine. If that irritates you, the attitudinal problem is yours. I reserve my God given right to question this Bible teacher, and equally accept his right to disagree with me.

  23. Phil,
    “Continuously arguing over the same point is fruitless.” Ironically, that’s what I’ve been saying. I pray that you find answers.
    Farewell.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: