Disclaimer: The author intends these articles to assist the reader in understanding the End Times prophecies of the Holy Bible. There is no intention to provoke hatred towards any group, tribe, or nation. Even the family of the Antichrist deserves to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ! The book of Revelation states that there will be members of every tribe, nation, kingdom, and tongue, in Heaven! It is the hope of the author to provoke Christians to witness of the love and forgiveness of God toward all who will listen! It is his hope that we will share in the joy of seeing even family members of the Antichrist himself, in Heaven with Jesus!
I briefly touched on Dr. Reagan’s statements about Isaiah 14, in my last article, but I want to go over some of it again, if I may. I want to focus on the section about Joe VanKoevering’s book, simply because he and I have used some of the same arguments.
I did not borrow my arguments from VanKoevering, but came up with them through my own studies of the Scriptures. It seems obvious to me that, if different people come up with the same interpretations, independently of each other, that they just might be on to something!
Dr. Reagan dismissed many of those arguments without examining their validity, I don’t know if this is because VanKoevering was not in-depth in his analysis, or if Dr. Reagan simply skimmed over them without taking them seriously.
He started with the following;
“The King of Babylon idea comes from Isaiah 14:4ff where a taunt against the King of Babylon is presented. As the King of Babylon is described in detail, he clearly morphs into a description of Satan. VanKoevering claims it is also a description of the Antichrist.”
It grieves me that Dr. Reagan would make a statement like this, and then not back it up with an analysis of the passage in question. Such an analysis would show that this passage clearly is a description of the Antichrist, right down to its comparison with the Son of God.
The first part of the passage sets the context, and it is clearly an End Times context. This eliminates any sort of ancient fulfilment of these prophecies;
1 For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. 2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors. 3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve, 4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! Isaiah 14:1-4
Notice that the time is specified in verse 3 as “in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve”. You see, that day has not happened throughout history, and will not occur until the Tribulation is over. It can even be seen in the first verse, for the time the Lord will have mercy on Jacob will not be fulfilled until the end of the Tribulation, when Jesus returns.
The taunt against the king of Babylon is a future taunt against the prominent world leader of the Tribulation period… the Antichrist! Why did Dr. Reagan miss this context?
I would argue with the KJV paraphrase of “heylel”, as “Lucifer”, but I must say that this is actually closer to the truth than the modern translator’s (such as the NIV) use of “Morning Star”, which actually confuses Jesus Christ with the Antichrist! In fact most of the ancient translators used Lucifer in this case, so the KJV is in good company, but it is clear that they did not know who it referred to. They only knew that this is an extraordinarily evil person, and assumed that it must be Lucifer, the chief fallen angel.
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; Isaiah 14:12-16
Wikipedia has this to say about the translation of heylel as Lucifer;
Lucifer (/ˈluːsɪfər/ or /ˈljuːsɪfər/) is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל in Isaiah 14:12.[1] This word, transliterated hêlêl[1] or heylel,[2] occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible[1] and according to the KJV-influenced Strong’s Concordance means “shining one, morning star, Lucifer”.[2] The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate,[3] which translates הֵילֵל as lucifer,[Isa 14:12][4][5] meaning “the morning star, the planet Venus”, or, as an adjective, “light-bringing”.[6] The Septuagint renders הֵילֵל in Greek as ἑωσφόρος[7][8][9][10][11] (heōsphoros),[12][13][14] a name, literally “bringer of dawn”, for the morning star.[15]
The person spoken of here is not Lucifer per se, but a man who is indwelt by Lucifer, or Satan; the Antichrist, Lucifer’s closest human associate. Notice that verse 16 states that this person is a man. Don’t spiritualize it to say that “it says a man, but really means an angel”. If it says “man” it really means a descendant of Adam.
This man is the culmination of all the kings of the age of the gentiles. This man is mankind’s answer to Jesus Christ, and yes, his reign will shake the earth like no other ruler in earth’s history!
Verses 21-22 indicate that he has sons and nephews, which the Lord will also destroy with him. Lucifer has no nephews, and while it could be said that the Antichrist is the son of Satan, he is an adopted son, and not genetically related. Satan has many adopted sons, but no natural descendants. The Antichrist will have sons.
So much for the idea that the Antichrist is gay.
By the way, the angels who do have physical descendants have been locked up, and are no longer free to roam the earth (Jude 1:6)
This person will actually go to Hell for a short period of time;
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? Isaiah 14:15-17
Who are those that see him in this condition, but his contemporaries, those who he has sent there before him? The saints he has executed will also behold him, from the comfort of Heaven. These are those who remark at his fate. His stay in Hell is shortened, however…
Notice though, that this man is an anti-christ in the sense that he is like the literal definition of the term; he is like the messiah in many ways, and tries to replace Him. The prefix “anti” in the Greek not only has the connotation of being “against”, but also “in the place of”. In fact the Isaiah account compares him to Christ in a very direct way;
18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. 19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. 20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. Isaiah 14:18-20
When it says the kings lie “in their own house”, it is referring to their body lying in a tomb. The king of Babylon, of Isaiah 14, is “cast out of his grave”, or resurrected like “an abominable branch”. This statement does not apply to Lucifer, nor to any other angel, nor even to any other prophetic figure, but only to the Antichrist!
The Branch is one of the terms for the messiah, Jesus, throughout the Old Testament, and yes, He was raised from the dead. This person is resurrected like an “abominable branch”, like an “evil Messiah”.
Many have speculated that the resurrection of the Beast of Revelation 13:3, is a trick, but these passages indicate that it is genuine; God allows Satan the power to raise this one man, as a trap for those who have rejected the resurrection of the Son of God.
As he is raised from the dead, he will demand worship, and the world will fall to its knees! This event will be at the end of the age, and then there will be two persons who have been verifiably raised from the dead; Jesus Christ, and the Antichrist!
Again I have to ask, “Why didn’t the bible translators, or Dr. Reagan see this?” The only answer I can see is that they are viewing the passage through their pre-conceived notions, and not simply reading, or understanding, what is there. Traditions can be very powerful, and can blind us to much truth. We need to pray that the Lord will help us remove our traditional blinders, and allow us to see what He has placed there!
Dr. Reagan also has this to add;
“A similar taunt is presented in Ezekiel 28 against the Prince of Tyre. And like the passage in Isaiah 14, the taunt morphs into a description of Satan that could be applied to the Antichrist. Does that mean the Antichrist must also be the King of Tyre? I think not.”
I had never considered that the Ezekiel 28 passage might concern the Antichrist before, but it actually appears that it could be! It is unwise for Dr. Reagan to dismiss this idea out of hand.
It actually appears that Ezekiel 28 consists of two sections that are divided in the middle. The subject changes with the phrase “Moreover, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying…” Earlier in the passage, however, it describes this person who declares himself to be God, and then dies as a man at the hands of his enemies, in a way which could refer to the death of the Antichrist. Again, that part of the passage cannot refer to Satan, although the subsequent section just might.
Don’t forget that emperors can call themselves “king” of any part of their empire.
He may be correct that the first section of Ezekiel 28 does not refer to the Antichrist, and perhaps only refers to an ancient king of Tyre, but this passage does not have any events that could ONLY refer to the Antichrist, as the Isaiah 14 passage actually does!
Dr. Reagan disagrees with Joe VanKoevering, that Prince Hassan of Jordan is the best candidate for the Antichrist, as do I, but his methodology in refuting VanKoevering’s arguments is lacking substance.
“The next qualification of the Antichrist that Hassan is supposed to fulfill is that he carries the title of Prince. This is really irrelevant. When Daniel 9:26 says the Antichrist will be a “prince,” all it is saying is that he will be a political leader. The Bible uses two terms for political leaders — prince and king. The biblical authors could not refer to presidents or prime ministers because those forms of ruling power had not yet developed. Thus, when we are told in Psalm 118:9 “it is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes,” we are being warned against putting our trust in politicians. The warning is not limited to those politicians who literally have the title of prince.”
I don’t know why he would say “The Bible uses two terms for political leaders — prince and king.” because this simply is not true. Maybe it is true in the translation he is using, but I would advise him to read the KJV. I did a search for “governor” in the AV, and had 79 matches. Now, not all of these matches refers to a political governor, but some of them definitely do;
And Joseph was the governor over the land, and he it was that sold to all the people of the land: and Joseph’s brethren came, and bowed down themselves before him with their faces to the earth. Genesis 42:6
And told him, saying, Joseph is yet alive, and he is governor over all the land of Egypt. And Jacob’s heart fainted, for he believed them not.Genesis 45:26
Notice that Genesis, the oldest book in the bible had a hebrew word for “governor” from way back during the time of Moses.
Beside that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffick of the spice merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the governors of the country. I Kings 10:15
And next unto them repaired Melatiah the Gibeonite, and Jadon the Meronothite, the men of Gibeon, and of Mizpah, unto the throne of the governor on this side the river. Nehemiah 3:7
Now, my Hebrew is just basic, but I don’t see “Melech” (king) in this passage. Notice also that his governor has a throne!
Dr. Reagan’s characterization of Hebrew as not having any word for a political leader other than a prince or a king, is an over-simplification.
For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed. Isaiah 9:16
While princes are often politicians, the “prince” Daniel refers to in 9:26 could actually be the son of a king. While I would agree with Dr. Reagan that prince Hassan is not likely the prince in question, this possibility should not be dismissed lightly. Very clearly the ancient Hebrews had words for political offices other than kings and princes, so the use of the term “prince” could very well mean just that!
I am sorry that I didn’t get to the other two books in Dr. Reagan’s article. I shall attempt to get to them another day.
Dan Knezacek
housetops 
Dan, for me, this is about as confusing as it gets. Are you trying to argue based on Isaiah 14:16 that the entire chapter is referring to the AC rather than Satan?
Hi Charlie,
I am sorry if I confused you. I don’t believe I went past about verse 23. There appears to be a change in subject at verse 24, and I can’t say for certain that the reference to “the Assyrian” is the same person. It could be, but I can’t say for sure.
As for the section from verse 1 to 23, yes this is not Satan, nor Lucifer. Satan’s incarceration in the bottomless pit is not a burial. This person is definitely raised from the dead “like an abominal BRANCH”, which identifies him as the Antichrist.
The context is the early years of the Millennial reign, and it is looking back on the most notable king in human history.
All I am doing is reading the passage in its plain-sense, literal meaning.
I guess you haven’t read the whole article? I thought it was self-explanatory.
As for your remarks the other day, the “Day of the Lord” is not the same as “the Day of God” found in II Peter 3:12 “Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?”
This is a reference to the eternal state, where the present Universe will be destroyed and replaced by the new Heavens and a new earth. There will not be any flesh-and-blood humanity allowed on the eternal earth, but only those in glorified bodies. Revelation 21-22 are about the eternal state, the Day of God.
The New Jerusalem will come down from heaven and settle on the new earth. God the Father will also come down and dwell with man. This is different than the Millennial reign where the Father stays in Heaven while the Son rules alone on the earth. Sin will still dwell on earth during the millennial reign, and this is why the Father stays away. Sin may be hidden, but it will still be here. As Jesus rules with a rod of iron, there will not be a lot of open rebellion, but people will still be unregenerate in their hearts.
The “day of the Lord” is the Lord Jesus’ day. It is his time to rule the earth by himself. It is a thousand-year-long day, that begins with the Tribulation, and ends with the destruction of this earth. This day is characterized by garden-of-Eden conditions, and the survivors of the Tribulation will repopulate the earth in their natural bodies. At that time the majority of children, born during the millennial reign, will NOT be saved. At the end of this time the people of earth will rebel against the perfect government of Jesus Christ, and His saints.
This is the second Gog and Magog war, which you seem to have confused with the first one. The big difference is that God Himself gathers the nations at Armageddon, but the final rebellion will not be by His direction;
Behold, they shall surely gather together, but not by me: whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake. Isaiah 54:15
Compare this with Ezekiel 38:4.
Just as the Old Testament does not say specifically that the Messiah will come two times, but it is there, so will there be two Gog and Magog wars, even though some cannot see it. The second is not really a war, because the Lord will not allow it to go that far.
Dan
Note: Charlie emailed me a response, but I am not interested in a private email exchange. Accordingly I am posting it below;
Brother Dan,
I want to take our dialogue out of public view, so to speak. I just recently noticed your email address on your blog and thought I’d take advantage of it here. Believe me, my comments on your blog are not intended to try and embarrass you or otherwise rain on your parade. I genuinely desire an “iron sharpening iron” exchange of opinions but I sense that you’re taking my comments personally and thought that maybe if it was just one on one, you might be more comfortable. And obviously, it’s up to you as to whether or not you choose to even respond to this message.
Anyway, just to be clear, I printed out David Reagan’s article as well as your two Muslim antichrist articles, read them all carefully, highlighting and marking them up before posting my last question. Still, I was genuinely confused by the time I finished reading everything that you wrote, and believe me, the passages that you dealt with are NOT new to me in any way, shape, or form. And just keeping it real, your response, which I do appreciate, just continues to confuse.
Brother Dan, what I’m looking for in an author and commentator is not so much what they believe to be true, but rather a confidence and trust that they have the necessary skills and knowledge to speak with authority on the subjects that they address as well as the talent to put their conclusions and convictions into coherent and well documented written form. THEN, and ONLY then, I’ll seriously consider what they have to say. I notice that to date, your book has no reviews on Amazon. Just for your information, here’s a link to a review that I wrote for a book edited by my friend and author Terry James: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0984630074/ref=pdp_new_dp_review My reviewer title is “Arkansas Traveler”. I’ve considered getting a copy of your book with the intention of writing a review of it, if for no other reason than we do agree on some pretty significant elements of Bible prophecy, but I call things as I see them so it would probably be a mixed review.
Anyway, enough with the preliminaries and back to the subject at hand. At this point, I’m only going to address the first two lines in your response to me if for no other reason than I don’t know if you will even respond to this. Here they are:
I am sorry if I confused you. I don’t believe I went past about verse 23. There appears to be a change in subject at verse 24, and I can’t say for certain that the reference to “the Assyrian” is the same person. It could be, but I can’t say for sure.
As for the section from verse 1 to 23, yes this is not Satan, nor Lucifer. Satan’s incarceration in the bottomless pit is not a burial. This person is definitely raised from the dead “like an abominal BRANCH”, which identifies him as the Antichrist.
Notice the text in bold. From my perspective, you’re simply making a series of assertions with essentially no effort to provide a Biblical basis for them other than vague references to statements in Isaiah 14. Let’s consider your “yes this is not Satan, nor Lucifer” statement. You do know that Isaiah 14:12 is the only reference to “Lucifer” in the entire Bible, don’t you? Are you equating Satan and Lucifer in your statement? If they’re two separate entities, then define them? This is a prime example of the confusion that I get from your articles and comments and the sense that you are mostly just flying by the seat of your pants, which an old pilot like you should understand and appreciate. BTW, I earned a Private Pilot ticket in 1987, but as the old pilot’s saying goes, if God had wanted men to fly, he would have made them rich, and I’m most certainly not. Anyway, from trying to read between the lines in your commentary, I get the sense that you’re pretty much a KJV is all I need to understand Scripture kind of guy, when nothing could be further than the truth. That’s not to say that one cannot gain a deep understanding and appreciation of the Bible from a trusty King James, but the real nuggets are often hidden deep within the Hebrew text of the OT, and if you’re not somewhat equipped to ferret them out, then you’re stuck at a relatively superficial level and you can’t see what’s hidden in plain sight for those who have learned how to “see”.
Having said all of this, I’m not sure that there’s really any point in you and I continuing to try and have a dialogue. Here is how I see things. Everything in the large font with bold text above from my perspective is purely baseless speculation, and totally inaccurate baseless speculation at that. If you cannot or are unwilling to try and make your case any more convincing than that, then from my perspective, we’re both wasting our time here because I have a feeling that even with the relative privacy of email, you would never admit that I was right on a subject and you were wrong. I just don’t see that capacity in the personality that comes through your blog and promotions of your book. Maybe I’m wrong, and would love nothing better than to be proved wrong on this point. As I said earlier, I would appreciate nothing better than to develop an iron sharpening iron relationship with you out of the public view of the internet. But that’s in the Lord’s hands.
I would most certainly appreciate a candid response from you and will close with one more question. I wrote an article a few years back with the title, Daniel in the Expositor’s Den, Rethinking the Seventy Weeks Prophecy of Daniel Chapter 9″.
I wonder if I ever tried to share it with you or if perhaps at some point actually emailed you a copy. I’m in the midst of a rewrite of it after a few more years of contemplation and study of the subject. If you haven’t seen it, I would genuinely appreciate your frank and open comments on it. If nothing else, you might appreciate that it completely debunks the “Roman Antichrist” theory of the seventy weeks prophecy. But that’s another issue and on that note I’ll close.
Many blessings!!!!!
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
Like you, I would have to point out that you didn’t really say anything in your email. Also, note that I am not interested in a private dialogue. That is why I am posting this publicly.
As for the statement “This person is definitely raised from the dead “like an abominal BRANCH”, which identifies him as the Antichrist.” I have to say that this is self explanatory. Is there anyone else in the bible’s prophecies who is raised from the dead like an “abominal branch”? There is none. Satan himself is not raised from the dead. Is never referred to as a “man”, and does not have nephews, nor physical sons.
Attributing this person to be Satan, and/or Lucifer, is also an interpretation, and baseless at that.
The use of the term “branch” here identifies this person as a false messiah. How many false messiah’s have been raised from the dead? None, of course.
How many false messiah’s are prophesied to be raised from the dead? There is only one, who is also called the Beast of 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. ”
The world wonders after the Beast because he is raised from the dead, in the sight of the whole world!
While there are other persons who will be raised from the dead, such as the two witnesses in Jerusalem, or all of humanity at judgment day, there is no one else in Scripture who is compared to the Branch in this way. None.
So who do you think this refers to? Why?
I am well aware that the tern “Lucifer” only appears in Isaiah 14. This is precisely why I did not state that Lucifer is Satan. The fact that the Freemasons are Luciferian makes me very suspicious of this person, however, but there is no cut and dried statement in Scripture that Lucifer is Satan.
Just as God can be referred to as YHVH (Yehovah), Boha, or Theos, Dieu, or Allah, Satan has names in other languages as well. Could one of those names be Lucifer?
There is no statement in Scripture that says that Lucifer is God, either, but there are abundant statements that the name of the Branch is Yehoshua, Iasous, or Jesus.
If you are using a new version, like the NIV, the NKJV, or the NASB, then we have nothing to talk about. The AV is certainly head and shoulders above those perversions.
If you are using the Leningrad Codex, then we have nothing to talk about either. It is a perversion that has been doctored by Nazis. The Critical Text is a text that has compiled all the errors that have ever crept into the bible over the millennia.
No, the AV is as good as it gets, and all essential doctrine is there. There are 12 instances of paraphrase, such as the passage we are discussing, and I would argue that paraphrase is ALWAYS wrong when dealing with a bible translation. ALWAYS, even in the AV.
It would have been possible for the AV translators to translate “heylel” as “light bearer”, and it would have been preferable, but my Czech Kralicka also uses Lucifer, as does Luther. At the least I can say that they were in good company.
If you think you are going to convert me to your cause you had better provide a case. To date you have not, but have only made assertions that I am wrong.
I find it strange that you are confused by my response. Others have thought it was informative. It can only be confusing because it contradicts your previously held opinions.
I am not interested in dialogue. If you can prove me wrong then prove it.
Brother Dan, I hear you loud and clear. I was in a round about way trying to offer an olive branch, but your response is your business and I respect that. No more email, I can assure you. But I appreciate the challenge and I will most likely accept. Bible study for whatever reason is a good thing and brother, we haven’t even scratched the surface here. Out of curiosity, are you familiar with Dr. Michael Heiser and his research on what he terms “the divine council” in Scripture? If not, I would highly recommend that you look into it. He is a scholarly expert on the subject of “Lucifer” and things connected with it. VERY interesting and informative stuff!!!
Charlie
Sorry, Charlie,
I am not embarrassed, but am deeply suspicious with those who try to baffle with BS. Just because a word may have multiple meanings, does not mean that a rare, obscure meaning is what was meant in the beginning. Whenever people go to these supposed meanings I get nervous. History is full of people who go off on a tangent because of some obscure meaning they found in some dusty old book
No Scripture is of any private interpretation.
I believe this with all my heart, and that is why I insist on keeping this public. Furthermore, I believe that the truth is available in all the old translations. The same can’t be said today, however, because the Word of God is under attack.
What I have said about Isaiah 14, is that the truth is there in the text, even in the KJV. Again, when someone tells me to use their uninspired Lexicon, instead of the inspired Word of God I get nervous and suspicious.
Dan
Charlie,
Your criticism about not having a book review on Amazon is unfair. I have had two people who read The Spirit of Prophecy try to put a review on Amazon, and they were blocked, because they did not buy the book from Amazon.
You can see one of them on http://www.thespiritofprophecy.ca/Testimonials.html Note also that it is a mixed review.
Bill Salus, author of “Isralestine”, read chapter 7 and said in a private email; “Well researched, and well written, but I disagree with your conclusions”. I did not post that one simply because he did not read the whole book.
Essentially what you are saying is that you will not read a book unless a lot of people like it. Frankly, I have said some things that a lot of people in the western world will not like. This, however, does not mean I am wrong. It means that I am following the Word of God.
People don’t like the Word of God. The more we take it seriously, the fewer friends we have.
I will leave the last word to the Lord;
Luke 6:26
Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
Dan
Dan, slow down. If you’re going to answer me online, then why don’t you post what I wrote for the benefit of your readers also, so that they can see both sides here. With regard to the comments regarding the lack of reviews of Dan’s book on Amazon, this is exactly what I wrote to him privately that he is responding to publicly:
“Brother Dan, what I’m looking for in an author and commentator is not so much what they believe to be true, but rather a confidence and trust that they have the necessary skills and knowledge to speak with authority on the subjects that they address as well as the talent to put their conclusions and convictions into coherent and well documented written form. THEN, and ONLY then, I’ll seriously consider what they have to say. I notice that to date, your book has no reviews on Amazon. Just for your information, here’s a link to a review that I wrote for a book edited by my friend and author Terry James: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0984630074/ref=pdp_new_dp_review My reviewer title is “Arkansas Traveler”. I’ve considered getting a copy of your book with the intention of writing a review of it, if for no other reason than we do agree on some pretty significant elements of Bible prophecy, but I call things as I see them so it would probably be a mixed review.”
I don’t consider that offensive because it was certainly not intended to be. Actually, I was kind of fishing here to see if he would ask me to write a review because had he asked, I most likely would have agreed to just to have someone’s opinion on the record, for his benefit. It certainly would not have benefited me to go to the time and trouble of doing it. But as the old saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished……..
Charlie,
I would recommend you take the time to listen to Tom McMahon’s interview with G. Richard Fisher both part 1 and part 2.
http://www.thebereancall.org/content/t-mcmahon-g-richard-fisher-part-1-0
http://www.thebereancall.org/content/t-mcmahon-g-richard-fisher-part-2-0
In the second one they tackle the erroneous idea that one has to understand the Hebrew in order to understand the bible. Nor does God want us to worship Him only in Hebrew. I have recently spent a half year in a Messianic congregation, and I had to walk away for many reasons, among them is the insistence that we go back to the Hebrew.
The fact is that Jesus quoted from a Greek translation, with authority. Whether it was the LXX or some other translation is irrelevant. A translation has authority as much it is a literal translation of the original.
The other fact you should consider is that the Pharisees and Scribes of Jesus’ day were experts in the original languages, and yet still could not see the Messiah within the pages of their bibles. Having a complete knowledge of Hebrew will NOT necessarily lead you to the truth.
Dan
Brother Dan, and please understand that when I refer to you as a brother in Christ, I’m being completely honest, you seem to overreact to almost everything that I say. I’m not trying to assert that a believer must have an ability to read Hebrew and/or Greek to be able to understand Scripture! You and your trusty AV can give you a deep and abiding faith along with a great depth of understanding of the Bible and what it teaches. But I am saying, that for me at least, when I started using Interlinear Scripture Analyzer (ISA), it completely revolutionized my ability to tease out the meaning of complicated passages, particularly in the area of Bible prophecy. If that doesn’t interest you, then that’s your choice and more power to you. Do I think that you’re missing out? You bet! But does it affect me one way or another? Not a bit. I only suggested this to you because I thought that it would benefit you, as it most certainly has for me. I have a dear friend with whom I meet with weekly and we talk Bible prophecy mostly. I introduced him to the free ISA software a year or so ago. Now, like me, he uses it constantly. But brother, if you’re not interested, then go your own way with my best wishes!!!
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
I come from a long line of over-reactors, and have passed it on to my children!
I will check-out this Interlinear Scripture Analyzer, but you have to realize that I am pretty busy. I have a full time job, and am preparing to start a business. This does not mean that I am not interested, but time is a precious commodity.
I have come across people, for many years, who tell me that “this word can mean…” and then they go off on some wild tangent! What I have found is it can take you down all kinds of rabbit trails that lead nowhere.
I have also found that a whole bunch of “Christians” have a hard time with what the bible says in plain language. Going to obscure readings seems to be a way of avoiding the plain truth. As if God would hide things where only a select few can find it.
I don’t believe God is like that. He doesn’t hide doctrine where only the elite few can find it. He never did! If He hides things, it is always in plain sight.
This is why the bible says “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” I Corinthians 2:14
It doesn’t mean that they can’t read the words, but that they won’t receive, or accept them.
This is the mindset I followed when I wrote my book. The truth is there for all to see, but usually we miss it because our preconceived ideas hinder our acceptance of the truth. There is no excuse! It is we ourselves who hinder the truth by refusing to believe it, though it is in black and white, and right in front of us!
I’m not talking about unbelievers here, but professing Christians. Some of the people I have found most hostile are professing believers, close family members, who refuse to read my book, and insist on judging me anyway.
So it seems the same with you. You won’t read my book, but you think you have something that I should listen to. If you want I can send you a .pdf copy of my book, but why should I listen to you when you won’t take the time to read something that I put a couple years of my life into?
And that’s just it. My blog is a “lite” version of my book. I don’t put the same effort into it, because I have already done that. The same information is there but it is not as in-depth, because the labourer is worth his wages.
Brother Dan, I would be thrilled to receive a PDF copy of your book. Then, maybe I’d decide to invest in a printed copy to make if much more convenient to read. Your point is very well made that if I won’t bother to read what you’ve written, why would you bother to read anything written by me. And just for the record, I wouldn’t waste my time promoting the ISA program to you if I didn’t believe that you could receive a great blessing by learning to use it. It has CERTAINLY been a blessing to me. And nothing ventured, nothing gained. If it’s too complicated, just delete it.
Blessings!
Charlie