I have taken note of the recent news of the dispute between Turkey and Israel. Turkey, and formerly Egypt, have been the closest thing Israel has to a friend in the Muslim world. Israel's relationship both with Turkey and Egypt have brought the littlest ammount of stability to the region. With Israel's Sinai Treaty with Egypt starting to look nul and void the current situation with Turkey means Israel is looking more and more isolated and vunerable.
There is also added pressure on Israel this month as the UN meet to discuss the partition of the land of Israel into two states. The reason these things interest me is that the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, clearly prophecies about the future of Israel and uses the nation as a focal point in the 'signs of the end of the age'. Firstly, the partition of the land by the plurality of nations, and their judgement, is prophecied in Joel 3:2.
Secondly a revived Roman Empire is prophecied in Daniel 2:33. Turkey was a major part of the world of the former Roman Empire and strategically would be an important country within a united European Community.
Thirdly, and most intrestingly, is that Turkey has been identified amongst the nations that conspire and attack Israel in Ezekiel 38-39. Some Bible expositors have identified Meshech and Turbal as two prominant cities within the ancient Anatolia, which takes up the Eastern two thirds of modern day Turkey. The former Ottoman Empire was established from tribes from the Anatolian region. Meshech and Tubal are amongst a confederacy of nations. Other nations involved in this attack on Israel are Persia (Iran), Libya, Gog and Magog (identified as Syria and Russia respectivly). Until recently the only nation that was on friendly terms with Israel was Turkey but now that relationship has gone sour.
I can only guess how the situation will play out in real time, but what I can observe is that three key points that prelude the 70th week of Daniel are looking to be a reality.
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
Sunday, 22 May 2011
The End of the World
It's been a mad couple of months for me and I have fallen behind on college work so my blog has been on the back burner. I have been waiting for a subject to come up that would really move me to write and no one can deny that the farce that was the prophecy of Camping has produced many news articles and facebook comments.
I find the whole reaction to the prediction very interesting and akin to the mindset towards the biggest prediction in popular culture, 2012.
I think deep down everyone knows the world will one day expire either through means of natural disaster or the human race wiping each other out. There has been an apocalyptic mindset with many generation who have gone through terrible times. The was much talk of the end of the world during the two world wars. Today we have witnessed an increase in natural disasters over the bast two decades.
Throughout the history of making many people have been obsessed with the question 'when'. Jesus said that no man knows the day or the hour when Jesus will return (Mark 13:32) What God does give is signs. Jesus' disciples asked what these signs would be for when the end is to come. Jesus said there will be an increase in wars and natural disasters. But the biggest indication of the end is 'the abomination of desolation'. This is when someone who is not the High Priest of Israel enters the Holy of Holies. Well, for around 2000 years this has been impossible because for this to happen Israel needs to be in the land and more specifically Jerusalem. Secondly it iss impossible today because there is no Temple in Jerusalem.
There are many misconceptions about what the Bible says and, sometimes as a seperate subject, what Christians believe. This man, Camping, does not represent Christianity or has a monopoly on the Christian doctrine of the rapture. What he represents is mankinds obsession of when the world will end.
As I mentioned before it has been interesting to see Christians and non christians reactions on facebook. What would happen if we did know the day and hour. Some interestingly enough posted around the speculated time indicating they were clock watching. Others carried about their lives obliviously. Jesus said that people will be so involved in their lives that when He returns He will come like a thief in the night. We must always be ready and not overly consumed by our daily lives. Likewise we must not sit around making silly predictions letting the lost world pass by.
If you are not a Christian reading this blog I challenge you. You can see that our planet has an expirition date. You can see how evil mankind is in destroying each other. You do not know the day or the hour it will happen and you will not have a last minute opportunity. the book of revelation says that even when the rapture happens and God is judging the world, many will harden their hearts.The opportunity to turn to God is now!
I find the whole reaction to the prediction very interesting and akin to the mindset towards the biggest prediction in popular culture, 2012.
I think deep down everyone knows the world will one day expire either through means of natural disaster or the human race wiping each other out. There has been an apocalyptic mindset with many generation who have gone through terrible times. The was much talk of the end of the world during the two world wars. Today we have witnessed an increase in natural disasters over the bast two decades.
Throughout the history of making many people have been obsessed with the question 'when'. Jesus said that no man knows the day or the hour when Jesus will return (Mark 13:32) What God does give is signs. Jesus' disciples asked what these signs would be for when the end is to come. Jesus said there will be an increase in wars and natural disasters. But the biggest indication of the end is 'the abomination of desolation'. This is when someone who is not the High Priest of Israel enters the Holy of Holies. Well, for around 2000 years this has been impossible because for this to happen Israel needs to be in the land and more specifically Jerusalem. Secondly it iss impossible today because there is no Temple in Jerusalem.
There are many misconceptions about what the Bible says and, sometimes as a seperate subject, what Christians believe. This man, Camping, does not represent Christianity or has a monopoly on the Christian doctrine of the rapture. What he represents is mankinds obsession of when the world will end.
As I mentioned before it has been interesting to see Christians and non christians reactions on facebook. What would happen if we did know the day and hour. Some interestingly enough posted around the speculated time indicating they were clock watching. Others carried about their lives obliviously. Jesus said that people will be so involved in their lives that when He returns He will come like a thief in the night. We must always be ready and not overly consumed by our daily lives. Likewise we must not sit around making silly predictions letting the lost world pass by.
If you are not a Christian reading this blog I challenge you. You can see that our planet has an expirition date. You can see how evil mankind is in destroying each other. You do not know the day or the hour it will happen and you will not have a last minute opportunity. the book of revelation says that even when the rapture happens and God is judging the world, many will harden their hearts.The opportunity to turn to God is now!
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Some thoughts for Purim
I wish my Jewish friends a happy Purim. It is both a wonderful feast and a wonderful story. Over a year ago I brought a message from Esther about the mystery of godliness and the mystery of iniquity. Mordacai resembled the Messiah as he suffered and then was glorified. Haman (Boo, hiss) and the vieling of his face is a shadow of the judgement Satan will recieve. First Haman covered his own face out of humiliation and then his face was covered again when the King ordered his execusion. Satan's judgement is similar. He will first be bound for a thousand years to be humiliated. After his release he will attack Israel again but then will be defeated and sent into the lake of fire.
However, my thoughts for Purim this year is for the historical account of Esther. The book tells the story of Israel's persecussion and it's salvation. In recent history we have seen Israel go through many sorrows. Satan still persues the Woman of Revelation 12. And it is safe to say that God will again deliver the nation and bring salvation to Israel. I believe Israel still has it's worst day ahead of her (the time of Jacob's trouble), yet I also believe that they will call upon Yeshua HaMashiach 'Baruch haba bashem adonai', then Israel will be saved.
However, my thoughts for Purim this year is for the historical account of Esther. The book tells the story of Israel's persecussion and it's salvation. In recent history we have seen Israel go through many sorrows. Satan still persues the Woman of Revelation 12. And it is safe to say that God will again deliver the nation and bring salvation to Israel. I believe Israel still has it's worst day ahead of her (the time of Jacob's trouble), yet I also believe that they will call upon Yeshua HaMashiach 'Baruch haba bashem adonai', then Israel will be saved.
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
A Prophet Like Moses: Jesus or Paul?
Deuteronomy 18:15 "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him." (NASB)
Daniel I. Block in his article on Deuteronomy in 'The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible' suggests that Paul and not Jesus is to be considered as the 'new' or 'second' Moses. Block's defence of this view are as follows:-
1. That Jesus denied that He was the prophet (John 1:21)pg 166
2. Paul provided a profound theological work interpretting the law. Ibid.
3. Jesus is to be thought of as Yahweh incarnate and Paul resembles Moses in leading the community of faith.pg 170
The most obviously fault with Block's first point is that this was not Jesus' rejection of being The Prophet. It was John who rejected the fact that he was The Prophet in John 1:21. I am suprised at this elemenatry mistake by Block.
Block's strongest point is that Paul did extensively provide Christians with a theological work that interpretting Torah. Paul touched on much of the heart of the law, heading the fight against those who would force gentiles to circumcise. Paul used the words of Moses that it is the circumcision of the heart that is important (Romans 2:28-29; cf. Deuteronomy 10:16) However, Jesus also expounded Torah reminicient of Moses. The sermon on the Mount is certainly an allusion of Jesus as the Prophet like Moses. Matthew in particular portrays Jesus as the 'new' Moses throughout his gospel account from the nativity narratives to the five discourses mirroring Moses addresses to Israel in the book of Deuteronomy. Jesus also summarises the law with Moses words in Matthew 22:37 that we should love God with all our heart, mind and soul.
Block's third point is almost as weak as his first. Historically and Biblically Paul was never the leader of the Church. Paul wrote Christ was the head (Ephesians 5:23. Peter wrote that Christ was the Rock (1 Peter 2:4-8). There were many apostles during the first century church and Paul viewed himself as least.
In context Deuteronomy 18:15 is within a portion of scripture that distiguishes between false prophets and true prophets. The true prophets will be like Moses in their proclamation of the Word of God. Verse 15 presents the prophet as a singular figure. Midrashically the Rabbi's identified this figure as the Messiah in The Talmud. Throughout history Israel had many prophets, some false and some true. The most significant after Moses was Elijah. Elijah was like Moses except he didn't see God face to face in the sense Moses did(Deuteronomy 34:10) Likewise Paul never saw God face to face. Paul looked forward to seeing God face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12) but he never spoke face to face with God like Moses did. Jesus is the Prophet like Moses as He has seen the Father. Moses writes in that we should listen to this prophet and God Himself declares in the presence of Moses and Elijah that we must listen to the Words of Jesus.
I would just like to note that Block's article on Deuteronomy is an excellent piece of work and I thoroughly recommend The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible as a wonderful tool for research. I, however, disagree with Block's view on Paul being the 'second' Moses.
Daniel I. Block in his article on Deuteronomy in 'The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible' suggests that Paul and not Jesus is to be considered as the 'new' or 'second' Moses. Block's defence of this view are as follows:-
1. That Jesus denied that He was the prophet (John 1:21)pg 166
2. Paul provided a profound theological work interpretting the law. Ibid.
3. Jesus is to be thought of as Yahweh incarnate and Paul resembles Moses in leading the community of faith.pg 170
The most obviously fault with Block's first point is that this was not Jesus' rejection of being The Prophet. It was John who rejected the fact that he was The Prophet in John 1:21. I am suprised at this elemenatry mistake by Block.
Block's strongest point is that Paul did extensively provide Christians with a theological work that interpretting Torah. Paul touched on much of the heart of the law, heading the fight against those who would force gentiles to circumcise. Paul used the words of Moses that it is the circumcision of the heart that is important (Romans 2:28-29; cf. Deuteronomy 10:16) However, Jesus also expounded Torah reminicient of Moses. The sermon on the Mount is certainly an allusion of Jesus as the Prophet like Moses. Matthew in particular portrays Jesus as the 'new' Moses throughout his gospel account from the nativity narratives to the five discourses mirroring Moses addresses to Israel in the book of Deuteronomy. Jesus also summarises the law with Moses words in Matthew 22:37 that we should love God with all our heart, mind and soul.
Block's third point is almost as weak as his first. Historically and Biblically Paul was never the leader of the Church. Paul wrote Christ was the head (Ephesians 5:23. Peter wrote that Christ was the Rock (1 Peter 2:4-8). There were many apostles during the first century church and Paul viewed himself as least.
In context Deuteronomy 18:15 is within a portion of scripture that distiguishes between false prophets and true prophets. The true prophets will be like Moses in their proclamation of the Word of God. Verse 15 presents the prophet as a singular figure. Midrashically the Rabbi's identified this figure as the Messiah in The Talmud. Throughout history Israel had many prophets, some false and some true. The most significant after Moses was Elijah. Elijah was like Moses except he didn't see God face to face in the sense Moses did(Deuteronomy 34:10) Likewise Paul never saw God face to face. Paul looked forward to seeing God face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12) but he never spoke face to face with God like Moses did. Jesus is the Prophet like Moses as He has seen the Father. Moses writes in that we should listen to this prophet and God Himself declares in the presence of Moses and Elijah that we must listen to the Words of Jesus.
I would just like to note that Block's article on Deuteronomy is an excellent piece of work and I thoroughly recommend The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible as a wonderful tool for research. I, however, disagree with Block's view on Paul being the 'second' Moses.
Thursday, 27 January 2011
King James Only?
It is a wonderful thing that this year we will be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible. A beautiful translation, full of depth, and with a proud tradition. It is a crying shame that this event will be spoilt by those claiming the King James Version is the only correct English Bible. This blog is not an attack on the KJV nor do I have a problem with those who prefer it as the best translation. The problem is with those who say it's the only correct translation.
Most of the arguments given for their belief is based on tradition and conjecture, not textual criticism (an understanding of the original languages and the various manuscripts). For example, the KJV has been the best selling Bible for over 400 years. This may be so, yet it does not prove anything. Only textual criticism can prove which is the best translation. KJV only advocates will say that other translation have left critical verses out of the Bible such as 1 John 5:7 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one'. Therefore, so says KJV only-ists, other versions deny the Trinity. Well, if the doctrine of the Trinity rested upon 1 John 5:7 we'd be in trouble. The doctrine is spread throughout the scriptures and can be found in other versions. I could apply the same critical method upon the KJV. Isaiah 45:7 'I form the light and the darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things'. Did God create evil? Well, no he didn't, Isaiah 45:7 is better understood with the NIV ' I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.' I'm not saying that the KJV promotes that God creates evil, the meaning of that word 'evil' has changed. What I am doing is using an example of the flawed method's of KJV only-ists.
When the topic does get onto textual criticism, half truths and conjectures do not disappear from their arguments. The KJV is translated from a source known as the Textus Receptus ( Latin: recieved text) This is not an original source, it is a compilation of various manuscripts. Most of these manuscripts are based upon those of Byzantine tradition. KJV only will say that these manuscripts are better than the Alexandrian texts used by other translations. What they don't tell you is that the Byzantine manuscripts are based on Alexandrian and Western texts. The use the same source. The problem that KJV only-ists have with the Alexandrian texts is conjecture. Kent Hovind suggests that the Alexandrian texts were corrupted by gnostics such as Origen and were used less because they weren't any good, therefore, they lasted longer. Well this is pure conjecture which is flawed in it's logic. If a group of heretics were going to use their heretical Bible they would use it often enough. But this isn't the case. It is well known that acient artefacts such as manuscripts are kept better in climates such as Egypt. This is the probabal cause of their longevity. There is also evidence that Origen used multiple translations called the Hexapla in order to be open about getting back to the original text, rather than him corrupting and producing a single text.
Again I want to say that I'm not against the KJV or those who prefer it. But I believe those who are KJV only are heretical in that they add to the doctrine of scripture. The go beyond the orthodox view of inspiration and inerrancy. Their view is gnostic in character as they view the KJV as a 'recieved text'. Paul thought hard against those Christians claiming to have special revelation. We see this attitude in modern cults such as Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witness's. Unfortuanlty the same character is in the view of KJV only.
Most of the arguments given for their belief is based on tradition and conjecture, not textual criticism (an understanding of the original languages and the various manuscripts). For example, the KJV has been the best selling Bible for over 400 years. This may be so, yet it does not prove anything. Only textual criticism can prove which is the best translation. KJV only advocates will say that other translation have left critical verses out of the Bible such as 1 John 5:7 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one'. Therefore, so says KJV only-ists, other versions deny the Trinity. Well, if the doctrine of the Trinity rested upon 1 John 5:7 we'd be in trouble. The doctrine is spread throughout the scriptures and can be found in other versions. I could apply the same critical method upon the KJV. Isaiah 45:7 'I form the light and the darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things'. Did God create evil? Well, no he didn't, Isaiah 45:7 is better understood with the NIV ' I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.' I'm not saying that the KJV promotes that God creates evil, the meaning of that word 'evil' has changed. What I am doing is using an example of the flawed method's of KJV only-ists.
When the topic does get onto textual criticism, half truths and conjectures do not disappear from their arguments. The KJV is translated from a source known as the Textus Receptus ( Latin: recieved text) This is not an original source, it is a compilation of various manuscripts. Most of these manuscripts are based upon those of Byzantine tradition. KJV only will say that these manuscripts are better than the Alexandrian texts used by other translations. What they don't tell you is that the Byzantine manuscripts are based on Alexandrian and Western texts. The use the same source. The problem that KJV only-ists have with the Alexandrian texts is conjecture. Kent Hovind suggests that the Alexandrian texts were corrupted by gnostics such as Origen and were used less because they weren't any good, therefore, they lasted longer. Well this is pure conjecture which is flawed in it's logic. If a group of heretics were going to use their heretical Bible they would use it often enough. But this isn't the case. It is well known that acient artefacts such as manuscripts are kept better in climates such as Egypt. This is the probabal cause of their longevity. There is also evidence that Origen used multiple translations called the Hexapla in order to be open about getting back to the original text, rather than him corrupting and producing a single text.
Again I want to say that I'm not against the KJV or those who prefer it. But I believe those who are KJV only are heretical in that they add to the doctrine of scripture. The go beyond the orthodox view of inspiration and inerrancy. Their view is gnostic in character as they view the KJV as a 'recieved text'. Paul thought hard against those Christians claiming to have special revelation. We see this attitude in modern cults such as Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witness's. Unfortuanlty the same character is in the view of KJV only.
Sunday, 23 January 2011
What the Halal is this?
Over the past few months I have been aware of fellows Christians and fellow Brits unrest at some produce in supermarkets being unmarked Halal meat. I have read articles and petitions demanding that we know if we know whether or not we are eating Halal meat.
This issue is the closest thing we have in the UK to the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols. The animals used are clean animals according to Islamic law and are killed ritualistic upon the saying 'In the name of Allah'. Paul deals with a similar issue with the Corinthian church dealing with a varied group who on one side knew that idols are nothing and that eating the meat would do them no harm. And on the other side he had Christians who were very much against eating meat sacrificed to idols. I too find myself in this position today with my fellow conservative Christians demanding that we know if the meat we are eating is Halal.
There are a few principles that Paul lays out.
1) Eat according to your conscience (1 Cor 10:25)
2) Don't eat with someone with a weak conscience (1 Cor 8:10-12)
3) Eat anything in the market place and don't ask where the meat came from (1 Cor 10:25)
It is this last point that really asks me to question the demands of my fellow conservative Christians. If we don't know whether the meat is Halal our conscience is clean. Having said that, if I knew a piece of meat was Halal I would not eat it for my conscience sake. However, if I found out I ate some accidently it would not bother me. Nor do i have problems with other christians eating Halal meat. I just urge people to take the advice of the Apostle Paul and eat anything in the market and do not ask where is came from. And also in the wise words of my mother 'shut up, eat your dinner and stop asking questions'.
This issue is the closest thing we have in the UK to the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols. The animals used are clean animals according to Islamic law and are killed ritualistic upon the saying 'In the name of Allah'. Paul deals with a similar issue with the Corinthian church dealing with a varied group who on one side knew that idols are nothing and that eating the meat would do them no harm. And on the other side he had Christians who were very much against eating meat sacrificed to idols. I too find myself in this position today with my fellow conservative Christians demanding that we know if the meat we are eating is Halal.
There are a few principles that Paul lays out.
1) Eat according to your conscience (1 Cor 10:25)
2) Don't eat with someone with a weak conscience (1 Cor 8:10-12)
3) Eat anything in the market place and don't ask where the meat came from (1 Cor 10:25)
It is this last point that really asks me to question the demands of my fellow conservative Christians. If we don't know whether the meat is Halal our conscience is clean. Having said that, if I knew a piece of meat was Halal I would not eat it for my conscience sake. However, if I found out I ate some accidently it would not bother me. Nor do i have problems with other christians eating Halal meat. I just urge people to take the advice of the Apostle Paul and eat anything in the market and do not ask where is came from. And also in the wise words of my mother 'shut up, eat your dinner and stop asking questions'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)