When Will The End-Times Be And How Will We Know?

Of course Hal Lindsey has been plugging the idea that the end is near for over thirty years. He hasn't been proven right yet. In fact his readings took a severe blow when the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR collapsed.Do you have any real evidence that anybody in the UN favours a move of the whole headquarters to Babylon ? Given the current situation it would be completely insane. In fact it would obviously be wrong at any time after the first Gulf War. And hardly sensible even if Iraq was pacified.

Hangdog13 mentioned Hal Lindsey. The guy I was replying to. In the post I replied to. He mentioned the idea of the UN moving to Babylon, too.Are you Hangdog13 ? Is your "tip" in the post I replied to (number 16 in this thread) ? If not then I suggest you learn to check the section at the bottom of each post which explicitly shows which message - if any - a post is a reply to. Much better than jumping to the conclusion that a post which quite obviously has nothing to do with one of your messages is, nevertheless, a reply to something you wrote.And perhaps you'd like to tell me how you came ot the conclusion that pointing out flaws in Hal Lindsey's claims from the '70s is a) "making fun" of him and b) indicates an "issue" with Jesus.

Well I never said that there was anything wrong with an OBJECTIVE analysis of how scripture relates to modern events.But let's face it there is very little of that around.Of the main sources:
Daniel is about events in the 2nd Century BC.The Olivet Discourse is almost certainly about events in the 1st Century AD (just maybe 2nd Century AD)And Revelation is just so obscure and symbolic that the only things that seem to be used to try to "prove" that the end is near are daft ideas about the "Mark of the Beast" being UPC barcodes of RFID chips Neither of which match the description in Revelation. If you're going to do an objective comparison of scripture with modern events you need to actually know what the scripture says - but some people just don't bother.

They have to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple for the regular sacrifices to restart.But they'd probably have to demolish the Dome of the Rock to do so with the obvious fallout. And I am far from certain that many Jews want to go back to a form of Judaiasm that has been dead for more than 1900 years.The other thing is that they have to perform a ritual with the ashes of a red heifer before they can rebuild the Temple - to "cleanse" the site. That sacrifice obviously has to occur without the Temple.

It's even worse than that. As discussed on the "Prophecy for Buzsaw" thread the Olivet Discourse deals with events leading up to the destruction of the Herodian additions to the Temple* in 70 ADAs the title of the thread suggests Buzsaw was there and saw the arguments - and left pleading "lack of time". It's probably worth reading if you are interested in the subject.Now so far as I know there was no satellite TV in the 1st - or 2nd - Century AD*It is barely possible that some other buildings are referred to - but the whole city was levelled after the Bar Kochbar revolt in the 2nd Century anyway

According to the interpretation of Daniel usually used by those who argue that the end is near, the AntiChrist will put an end to the daily sacrifices. That would be a little hard to do unless they restart. May we assume that you reject the idea that those refer to the AntiChrist ?The relevant verses are Daniel 8:11-13, Daniel 9:27, Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11

The kingdoms that "Daniel" wrote about - the Successors to Alexander's Empire DON'T exist today. I you're unfussy enough about the term "kingdom" to have it apply today then there have been "weak kingdoms" and strong "kingdoms" form pretty mcuh the entire time there have been "kingdoms".

Yes I have read the Book of Daniel. The "feet of iron mixed with clay" are the Hellenistic Kingdoms which dominated the Middle East before Rome - mainly the Seleucids ("King of the North") and the Ptolomies of Egypt ("King of the South"). And the writer of Daniel (those parts at least) knew because that was the time he was writing.

Well Buz I did tell the truth. And you omitted significant facts to misrepresent the truth. Just as you omit Matthew 24:1-2 so you can misrepresent Matthew 24:3I did show that the prophecies were all leading up to the destruction of the "magnificent buildings" - almost certainly the Herodian additions to the Temple. And you know full well that that invalidates your claims of "fulfilment".So lets quote Matthew 24:1-2 so we know what Matthew 24:3 REALLY means - what events are referred to by "these things"Matthew 24:1-2

quote:

---

1 Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him.
2 And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down."

---

Matthw 24:3 CONFIRMS what I said. The Olivet Discourse IS about events leading up to the destruction of the Heroidan additions to the Temple. Provided, that is, it is read in context.That's the truth you didn't want to tell.

That's just your strong ideological commitments speakingYou can't objectively that my interpretation is nonsense just because it means that the prophecy failed. That just represents a commitment to denying the possibilty that Biblical prophecies could fail.Nevertheless I have read Daniel - and in the context of that book the Hellenistic kingdoms indeed are the best match for the feet of iron and clay. Daniel 2:43 for instance is a reference to the failed attempts to ally those kingdoms by marriage.

I don't need to wish. I have investigated the matter and come to a conclusion.

From reading Daniel and the history of the relevant period - chiefly the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes who is a major figure in Daniel's "prophecies", but also the period leading up to it. Maccabees covers the relevant events in Israel. I have read other peoples views on the matter but I have also checked them out against Daniel and the history books.So what is the basis for your claim that I am wrong ?

Oh so I'm not objectively wrong, I just disagree with your interpretation. And you can't support your inteprretation other than assuming things that are not in evidence (that it MUST include "all" kingdoms up to the "return" of Christ) The Hellenic Kingdoms fit perfectly well and are clearly a focus of Daniel's concern as seen in other chapters.

So, where can we find Moses’ account? We have nothing verifiably written by Moses. We can’t even be certain that Moses was even based on a historical figure.And really, what’s the argument for accuracy? Is it all theology? Concordism - trying to read the Bible in a way that fits the facts? Or the usual YEC nonsense?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

You seem remarkably unwilling to discuss the videos you post,The Biblical story of the Flood is two versions of the story mashed together. Does he explain how to tell which of them is Moses’ and how he knows that one is more accurate than the other ? Or does he not mention that problem (which he certainly ought to know about)?