Friday, July 20, 2012
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak said:
Israel will not tolerate continuing terrorist attacks from the Sinai
Peninsula.…Now that the [Egyptian] election is over and a victor has
been declared,…"We will not accept our citizens’ way of life being
harmed and we will not tolerate citizens getting hit from Sinai and
terror...."We have an obligation to our citizens in the Gaza periphery,
who are showing determination and strength...“[Israel] respects the
democratic process in Egypt [but we have] expectations that Cairo would
honor the 1979 peace treaty with Israel…"The IDF will continue to take
action against terrorists, We will not accept rocket fire on the South.”God says: “I will stir up Egyptian against Egyptian--brother will fight against brother, neighbor against neighbor, city against city, kingdom against kingdom. The Egyptians will lose heart, and I will bring their plans to nothing; they will consult the idols and the spirits of the dead, the mediums and the spiritists. Iwill hand the Egyptians over to the power of a cruel master and a fierce king will rule over them,” declares the Lord, the Yahweh Almighty. … “So Yahweh will make himself known to the Egyptians, and in that day they will acknowledge Yahweh.” (Isaiah 19:2-4, 21)
The Jerusalem Connection says: With the Muslim Brotherhood in charge in Egypt it does not bode well for the region – including Egypt and Israel, at least for the immediate future. Long term the view is more encouraging. Isaiah 19 concludes, "in that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria.The Assyrians will go to Egypt and the Egyptians to Assyria. The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. The Lord Almighty will bless them, saying, “Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.” So what can we conclude? It’s going to get a lot worse for the region, including Israel, before it get’s better. But when that which is “better” comes, it will be the best because Yahweh will be in charge.
Who lost Egipt?
BY BRET STEPHENS, WSJ—
Egypt is lost.
Don’t console yourself with the belief that the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in the country’s first free presidential election is merely symbolic, since the army still has the guns: The examples of revolutionary Iran and present-day Turkey show how easily the conscripts can be bought, the noncoms wooed and the officers purged.
Don’t console yourself with the idea that now the Islamists will have to prove themselves capable of governing the country. The Brotherhood is the most successful social organization in the Arab world. Its leaders are politically skillful, economically literate and strategically patient. Its beliefs resonate with poor, rich and middle class alike. And it can always use the army as a scapegoat should the economy fail to improve.
Don’t console yourself with the expectation that the Brotherhood will play by the democratic rules that brought it to power. “Democracy is like a streetcar,” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s Islamist prime minister, observed long ago. “When you come to your stop you get off.” Any party that rules street and square makes its own “democratic” rules.
Don’t console yourself, finally, with hope that Egypt will remain a responsible, status quo player on the international scene. By degrees, Egypt under the Brotherhood will seek to arm Hamas and remilitarize the Sinai. By degrees, it will seek to extract concessions from the U.S. as the price of its good behavior. By degrees, it will make radical alliances in the Middle East and beyond.
Who lost Egypt?
The Egyptians, obviously. This was their moment, opportunity, choice. They chose—albeit by a narrow margin—a party that offers Islamic stultification as the solution to every political and personal problem. By the time they come to regret their choice, they won’t be in a position to change it.
But there are other players in this debacle, too.
First, the Obama administration. “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable,” said Hillary Clinton as protesters began descending on Tahrir Square in January 2011. President Obama didn’t help matters by calling instantly for Mr. Mubarak’s removal—thereby demonstrating how foolish it can be to be an ally of the U.S.—after doing nothing in the previous two years to pressure Mr. Mubarak to relinquish power while he still had a chance.
As a result, the U.S. has no credibility with Egyptians, secular or religious, and just 19% of Egyptians approve of Mr. Obama’s leadership, according to Gallup. So much for the Cairo Speech.
Next, the Bush administration.
“Naturally, here in Egypt as in the U.S., there is freedom of speech, so it is possible for anyone to complain about any personal or social problem. If there is a problem, there are legal ways to deal with it, whether here or in the U.S.”
This bit of sycophancy was uttered in March 2006 by Frank Ricciardone, then U.S. ambassador in Cairo, just as the Mubarak government had imprisoned Ayman Nour, its only challenger in the 2005 election. How did an administration so committed to putting its freedom agenda at the heart of its foreign policy allow its ambassador to make these remarks? And what did it suggest to Egyptians about the sincerity of Mr. Bush’s freedom agenda? The questions are self-answering.
Third, the liberal abdicators.
That’s a catch-all term for anyone who believes the result of any free election is ipso facto legitimate and that the world’s responsibility toward Egyptians’ democracy is to preserve a studied neutrality about their political choices. But a democratic election that yields a totalitarian result isn’t “legitimate,” except in the most cramped sense of the word. In reality, it’s a double-barreled catastrophe: a stain on democracy’s good name and a recipe for turbocharged political extremism.
Yet the deeper liberal abdication is the abdication of the idea that freedom is more than simply an end in itself. If you believe that any use of freedom is a legitimate use of freedom—that Larry Flynt inhabits the same moral plane as, say, Vaclav Havel—then what you have mainly succeeded in doing is destroying the attractiveness of freedom to a large segment of the world. It’s the “empty concept of freedom,” says Amr Bargisi of the Cairo-based Egyptian Union for Liberal Youth, that has given Islamists the philosophical and political edge over Egypt’s struggling liberals.
“When Islamists argue for a society that, for example, is free of pornography, you can’t respond by saying that pornographers should have absolute liberty to do what they want,” Mr. Bargisi says. “You will have to offer some good reason for people to have absolute freedom of expression, even when it produces bad side effects.”
What is to be done?
In 1979, the U.S. lost Iran as an ally but formalized an alliance with Egypt. Perhaps we might get lucky should the Assad regime fall to Syrians better disposed to the U.S., not that we’re giving the Syrian people much cause to like us. But that could change if the U.S. is seen as the instrument and guardian of their liberation.
We could also spell out to the new Egyptian government our terms for maintaining financial support and diplomatic favor. The Egyptian economy is in enough distress that the new government could be pliant. But that window won’t be open for very long, and the effects of such pressure aren’t likely to be long-lived.
So prepare for an Egypt that likes us about as much as Nasser’s did and behaves accordingly. It’s going to be a long and ugly haul. And it’s just beginning.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Preparandose el escenario
Más de 40 cohetes cayeron en el Negev en las últimas 24 horas
Terroristas palestinos en Gaza dispararon
al menos 40 cohetes y proyectiles de mortero contra la región
occidental de Negev desde la tarde del martes. Cuatro israelíes
resultaron heridos aunque no de gravedad.
Tres cohetes cayeron en el área de Netivot, alrededor de las 8:30 pm.
Otro cohete explotó en el Consejo Regional Shaar Hanegev, mientras que
un quinto cohete cayó en el Consejo Regional de Eshkol. Todos los
cohetes cayeron en zonas abiertas.
El Comisionado de la Policía, estimó la noche del martes que la actual ronda de violencia entre Gaza e Israel continuará durante varios días: "Espero que (la violencia) no se expandirá, pero nos preparamos para la posibilidad de que pueda llegar a ciudades más distantes ", dijo.
Trece cohetes, lanzados desde Gaza, cayeron en las áreas abiertas dentro de Eshkol del Néguev Consejo Regional. Los cohetes fueron disparados en el lapso de unas dos horas.
A las 18:30 pm otro cohete explotó en un área abierta en el Hof Ashkelon Consejo Regional, y unos minutos más tarde se informó de que cinco cohetes Qassam se tiraron al Consejo Regional Shaar Hanegev. No se reportaron heridos.
Varios cohetes fueron disparados hacia el Negev Sdot Consejo Regional, mientras que cinco granadas de mortero se lanzaron a la Hanegev Sha'ar y SDOT consejos regionales del Néguev.
Alrededor de las 20:00 otros dos cohetes fueron disparados hacia el Negev occidental, y alrededor de una media hora más tarde, un Qassam aterrizó en un área abierta en el Consejo Regional Shaar Hanegev.
El Comando de Defensa instruyó a los residentes de la zona para quedarse muy cerca de los refugios y otras estructuras fortificadas.
Poco después de la salva inicial, aviones israelíes atacaron un objetivo en la Franja de Gaza. El ejército israelí dijo que su objetivo fue destruido. Fuentes palestinas hablan de un herido, que.fue evacuado a la ciudad de Gaza Al Shifa Hospital, dijeron. Este ataque aéreo fue uno de los tres que realizó Israel las últimas 24 horas.
"Militares" de Hamas, las Brigadas Izz al-Din al-Qassam, reivindicaron el lanzamiento de cohetes, diciendo que dispararon "10 cohetes Grad" desde el mediodía del martes en respuesta a los "sionistas de los crímenes". El grupo terrorista dijo que continuará el lanzamiento de cohetes, siempre y cuando los ataques del ejército israelí en Gaza persisten.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Why Iran’s Absent From Psalm 83 AND The Dual Prophecies of Iran
by Bill Salus
This article was taken from a portion of the biblical commentary of the same name in my book called Revelation Road.
As the Psalm 83 confederates image depicts, Syrians and Iraqis find association through Assyria, Hezbollah via Tyre in Lebanon, and Hamas hailing from Gaza connects with Philistia. However, there is no mention of Iranians by their three primary historical names, Elamites, Medes, or Persians. This is puzzling, considering Iran reportedly formed bona fide war-pacts in December, 2009, with Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
Because
Iran is presently providing weapons to Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas,
some suggest Iran may be included in Psalm 83 as part of the Assyrians.
The Assyrians seem to be among the stronger members in the psalm,
because they support the Jordanian army referred to as the children of
Lot (Moab and Ammon) in Psalm 83:8.
Assyria also has joined with them; they have helped the children of Lot [Jordanians]. Selah (Psalm 83:8)
The pitfall of connecting modern-day Iran with Assyria is that during the psalmist’s time, Assyria only comprised much of what is today northern Syria and part of Iraq.
In order for Iran to be mentioned in Psalm 83, the psalmist would need to have included, Elam, Media, or Persia in the confederate lineup. At the time the Psalm was written about 3,000 years ago, Elam existed in what is now west-central Iran, Media existed in eastern Iran and far beyond, and Persia occupied primarily the northerly parts of today’s Iran. Thus, it is reasonably safe to exclude Iranians, which are primarily of Persian descent, from the predominately Arab confederacy of Psalm 83.
IRAN IS PERSIAN AND PSALM 83 IS ARAB
The Persian verses Arab distinction made in the previous sentence may be part of the reason Iran doesn’t participate alongside their Arab proxies in Psalm 83. The confederacy is dominated by Arab populations. Arabs and Persians have a longstanding history of warring against each other, dating as far back as the Persian conquest of the Babylonians around 539 BC. In modern history, Iraq and Iran fought against each other from 1980-1988.
Saudis, as the Ishmaelites, and Egyptians, as the Hagarenes, are members of Psalm 83 and they may feel threatened by any Iranian meddling in the Arab- Israeli war. Presently, both of these Arab countries are deeply concerned about Iran’s nuclear aspirations, and fear Iran’s greater goal is to subdue their respective nations in order to form a Shiite Crescent throughout the Middle East. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are primarily comprised of Sunni Muslims.
The Arab verses Persian argument is not the only possible reason Iran refrains from participating in the Psalm 83 War. Possibility number two is that part of Iran may be temporarily incapacitated at the time, according to a generally overlooked prophecy issued by Jeremiah.
In part two, we will look at the dual end time’s prophecies of Iran. Iran appears to experience a double jeopardy in the last days, but most scholars are fixated only on Iran’s role as Persia in Ezekiel’s prophecy regarded with the Gog of Magog invasion. At the time Ezekiel included Persia in the Magog coalition, it only covered a portion of modern day Iran; Elam and Media covered the rest.
Ezekiel appears to have purposely omitted Elam from Gog’s nine-member consortia; but why? It could be that the prophecies concerning Elam in Jeremiah 49:34-39 may hold the answer to this mystery.
The Dual Prophecies of Iran
Welcome to part two of this study regarding Iran in Bible prophecy. Part one, called “Why Iran’s Absent from Psalm 83,” lodged logical explanations as to why Iran is not part of the Psalm 83 Arab – Israeli war. Part two provides logistical
reasons by demonstrating that Iran seemingly faces a double jeopardy in
the days to come. This entire study is taken from the commentary of Revelation Road, Hope Beyond the Horizon.
Even though Iran appears to be absent from the climactic, concluding Arab-Israeli War, they are not excluded from two other significant end-time’s events. The one most widely taught among eschatologists today is described in Ezekiel 38, and is commonly called the Gog of Magog invasion of Israel. In Ezekiel’s prophecy modern day Iran is represented by ancient Persia, and is clearly identified militarily “with a shield and a helmet,” in Russia’s coalition.
Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya are with them, all of them with shield and helmet; (Ezekiel 38:5)
Presently Iran is ranked #12 among world armies, and if Ezekiel’s prophecy were to find fulfillment today, this would position Iran as the third strongest army within the Magog coalition behind Russia ranked #2, and Turkey ranked #6. Moreover, if Iran was included in Psalm 83:6-8, which does not appear to be the case, it would make it the strongest army within the confederacy in front of Egypt (#16), Saudi Arabia (#26), and Syria (#35).
Interestingly, Iran presently possesses strong proxy relationships, and bonafide war-pacts, with Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. All three of these proxies appear to be part of the Psalm 83 Arab confederacy. And yet, Iran somehow gets excluded or, otherwise excused from participating directly in Psalm 83.
Some scholars, like Dr. Mark Hitchcock and Dr. Thomas Ice, teach that Psalm 83 is an imprecatory prayer and probably not a specific prophecy. If their interpretations are correct, then the preponderance of this study becomes a useless exercise in futility, and the current Mideast crisis has little to no connection with Psalm 83 whatsoever. However, if they are wrong, and I believe my books Isralestine and Revelation Road evidences that they are; then one must wonder why Iran’s military might is not incorporated in the Psalm war.
Case in point, Psalm 83:4 says;
They have said, “Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, That the name of Israel may be remembered no more.”
Comparatively, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared publicly on several occasions that, “Israel must be wiped off the map.”
These similar quotes suggest that Iran and the confederacy of Psalm 83 share the same Anti-Semitic sentiment toward the nation of Israel. If so; then why does Iran appear to be absent from Psalm 83?
Perhaps Persia’s utter destruction in Ezekiel 38:16 – 39:6 prohibits Iran from fighting in Psalm 83. Although this would satisfactorily answer the question about Iran’s apparent absence in the Arab war, the problem is that Psalm 83 probably precedes Ezekiel 38. If this is the case, then Iran’s “shield and helmet,” could still exist when the Arabs come against Israel. If so; then why don’t the Arabs invite mighty Iran to participate in their war party?
The prophecy that may precede Ezekiel 38 – 39, and answer the question about Iran’s conspicuous absence in Psalm 83 is located in Jeremiah 49:34-39. Jeremiah 49:35 predicts Elam (Iran) gets struck at the “foremost of its might,” which if unfulfilled as of yet, could allude to its nuclear program. The next verse says the Elamites (Iranians) will be scattered out of the immediate area into world nations.
Thus says the LORD of hosts: “Behold, I will break the bow of, The foremost of their might. Against Elam I will bring the four winds From the four quarters of heaven, And scatter them toward all those winds; There shall be no nations where the outcasts of Elam will not go. (Jeremiah 49:35-36, nkjv)
Jeremiah and Ezekiel were contemporaries of each other. They both wrote over 2500 years ago. Why did Ezekiel prophesy about Persia, and Jeremiah about Elam? The probable answers are three-fold;
1. Geographically – Elam and Persia occupied two adjoining territories at the time,
2. Culturally – these territories consisted of differing ethnicities, and distinct civilizations,
3. Prophetically – the two prophets were probably predicting separate events.
Presently,
Persia and Elam comprise greater Iran. Elam covered west-central Iran
as depicted in the image, and Persia encompassed most of the other
surrounding territory. A careful study suggests both Ezekiel’s and
Jeremiah’s Iranian prophecies appear to be unfulfilled end time events.
If so, this suggests that modern day Iran faces a double jeopardy in the
last days.
Jeremiah predicts that Elam will be struck at the foremost place of its strength. If such an attack occurred in the near future that would probably be its nuclear site(s). Not necessarily all sites, but specifically sites existing within the boundaries of ancient Elam. A prime target would be the Bushehr nuclear site identified in the image.
Subsequently, the prophet warns that after the attack the affected populations are forced to scatter from the area. Jeremiah says, “There shall be no nations where the outcasts of Elam will not go.” This could be the result of Iranian’s attempting to flee from an isolated nuclear disaster. Should the Bushehr nuclear reactor be struck, this becomes a very real possibility because the facility is loaded with Russian supplied fuel rods. These rods were loaded during the summer of 2010. At the time former UN Ambassador John Bolton warned that once the rods were loaded in place, an attack upon the site could result in severe radioactive fallout.
If Jeremiah 49:34-39 is alluding to a pre-Psalm 83 strike upon Iran’s nuclear program, this could partially explain why the rogue state is not a participant in the Psalm. Additionally, perhaps nuclear fallout causes only the Iranians from the central west coast to evacuate into other nations, which would still leave the preponderance of Persia, (northern Iran) with some remaining shields and helmets to fight with in Ezekiel 38.
It is important to note that Ezekiel seems to intentionally omit Elam from the Gog of Magog invasion. This strongly suggests that not all of modern-day Iran participates in the infamous Gog of Magog invasion of Israel. This conclusion can be safely drawn by recognizing that Ezekiel 32:24-26 identifies Elam and Meshech and Tubal. Meshech and Tubal are listed in the Magog invasion, but Elam is not. Why not? Why didn’t Ezekiel list Elam alongside Persia to identify the entirety of modern-day Iran in his predicted invasion?
The fact that Ezekiel lists Persia in Ezekiel 27:10 and Ezekiel 38:5, and Elam in Ezekiel 32:24 implies that he recognized the territorial and ethnic distinctions between these two populations during his time. He probably omits Elam for the same reason that he omits the Arab populations identified in Psalm 83:6-8, which is because Elam and the Arabs of Psalm 83 do not participate in the Ezekiel 38 invasion.
The probable reason the Psalm 83 Arabs abstain is because they are dealt with in a prior separate war, won by the IDF. The likely reason Elam isn’t listed is because Jeremiah 49:34-39 tells us the Elamites are also involved in their own separate prophecy. Thus, there appear to be three prophecies identified: Psalm 83 (Arabs), Ezekiel 38-39 (Persians), and Jeremiah 49:34-39 (Elamites).
In
summary, it is important to note that clear territorial distinctions
existed between Elam and Persia when Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesied. It
is doubtful that all of modern-day Iran participates in the Magog
invasion of Israel in Ezekiel 38. More likely is the possibility that
only northern Iran joins in with Magog (Russia); otherwise Ezekiel
should have included both Persia and Elam in his prophecy. Since Elam is
not part of Ezekiel 38, it suggests that Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding
Elam is a separate prophetic event. If Elam is struck at the foremost of
its might prior to the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38, then this could be
the reason Ezekiel omitted Elam from his prophecy.
Moreover, Jeremiah 49:34-39 introduces nine related prophecies concerning Elam. This study has only discussed two of them. These nine prophecies are identified in the image, and are thoroughly explained in the commentary portion of Revelation Road. The pertinent commentary also presents a brief history lesson concerning Elam, and explains why Jeremiah’s Elamite prophecies still remain unfulfilled.
In the final analysis, Jeremiah’s nine prophecies of Elam may be simply adding more details to Ezekiel’s Gog of Magog invasion; but I doubt it.
This article was taken from a portion of the biblical commentary of the same name in my book called Revelation Road.
As the Psalm 83 confederates image depicts, Syrians and Iraqis find association through Assyria, Hezbollah via Tyre in Lebanon, and Hamas hailing from Gaza connects with Philistia. However, there is no mention of Iranians by their three primary historical names, Elamites, Medes, or Persians. This is puzzling, considering Iran reportedly formed bona fide war-pacts in December, 2009, with Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
Because
Iran is presently providing weapons to Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas,
some suggest Iran may be included in Psalm 83 as part of the Assyrians.
The Assyrians seem to be among the stronger members in the psalm,
because they support the Jordanian army referred to as the children of
Lot (Moab and Ammon) in Psalm 83:8.Assyria also has joined with them; they have helped the children of Lot [Jordanians]. Selah (Psalm 83:8)
The pitfall of connecting modern-day Iran with Assyria is that during the psalmist’s time, Assyria only comprised much of what is today northern Syria and part of Iraq.
In order for Iran to be mentioned in Psalm 83, the psalmist would need to have included, Elam, Media, or Persia in the confederate lineup. At the time the Psalm was written about 3,000 years ago, Elam existed in what is now west-central Iran, Media existed in eastern Iran and far beyond, and Persia occupied primarily the northerly parts of today’s Iran. Thus, it is reasonably safe to exclude Iranians, which are primarily of Persian descent, from the predominately Arab confederacy of Psalm 83.
IRAN IS PERSIAN AND PSALM 83 IS ARAB
The Persian verses Arab distinction made in the previous sentence may be part of the reason Iran doesn’t participate alongside their Arab proxies in Psalm 83. The confederacy is dominated by Arab populations. Arabs and Persians have a longstanding history of warring against each other, dating as far back as the Persian conquest of the Babylonians around 539 BC. In modern history, Iraq and Iran fought against each other from 1980-1988.
Saudis, as the Ishmaelites, and Egyptians, as the Hagarenes, are members of Psalm 83 and they may feel threatened by any Iranian meddling in the Arab- Israeli war. Presently, both of these Arab countries are deeply concerned about Iran’s nuclear aspirations, and fear Iran’s greater goal is to subdue their respective nations in order to form a Shiite Crescent throughout the Middle East. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are primarily comprised of Sunni Muslims.
The Arab verses Persian argument is not the only possible reason Iran refrains from participating in the Psalm 83 War. Possibility number two is that part of Iran may be temporarily incapacitated at the time, according to a generally overlooked prophecy issued by Jeremiah.
In part two, we will look at the dual end time’s prophecies of Iran. Iran appears to experience a double jeopardy in the last days, but most scholars are fixated only on Iran’s role as Persia in Ezekiel’s prophecy regarded with the Gog of Magog invasion. At the time Ezekiel included Persia in the Magog coalition, it only covered a portion of modern day Iran; Elam and Media covered the rest.
Ezekiel appears to have purposely omitted Elam from Gog’s nine-member consortia; but why? It could be that the prophecies concerning Elam in Jeremiah 49:34-39 may hold the answer to this mystery.
The Dual Prophecies of Iran
Welcome to part two of this study regarding Iran in Bible prophecy. Part one, called “Why Iran’s Absent from Psalm 83,” lodged logical explanations as to why Iran is not part of the Psalm 83 Arab – Israeli war. Part two provides logistical
reasons by demonstrating that Iran seemingly faces a double jeopardy in
the days to come. This entire study is taken from the commentary of Revelation Road, Hope Beyond the Horizon.Even though Iran appears to be absent from the climactic, concluding Arab-Israeli War, they are not excluded from two other significant end-time’s events. The one most widely taught among eschatologists today is described in Ezekiel 38, and is commonly called the Gog of Magog invasion of Israel. In Ezekiel’s prophecy modern day Iran is represented by ancient Persia, and is clearly identified militarily “with a shield and a helmet,” in Russia’s coalition.
Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya are with them, all of them with shield and helmet; (Ezekiel 38:5)
Presently Iran is ranked #12 among world armies, and if Ezekiel’s prophecy were to find fulfillment today, this would position Iran as the third strongest army within the Magog coalition behind Russia ranked #2, and Turkey ranked #6. Moreover, if Iran was included in Psalm 83:6-8, which does not appear to be the case, it would make it the strongest army within the confederacy in front of Egypt (#16), Saudi Arabia (#26), and Syria (#35).
Interestingly, Iran presently possesses strong proxy relationships, and bonafide war-pacts, with Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. All three of these proxies appear to be part of the Psalm 83 Arab confederacy. And yet, Iran somehow gets excluded or, otherwise excused from participating directly in Psalm 83.
Some scholars, like Dr. Mark Hitchcock and Dr. Thomas Ice, teach that Psalm 83 is an imprecatory prayer and probably not a specific prophecy. If their interpretations are correct, then the preponderance of this study becomes a useless exercise in futility, and the current Mideast crisis has little to no connection with Psalm 83 whatsoever. However, if they are wrong, and I believe my books Isralestine and Revelation Road evidences that they are; then one must wonder why Iran’s military might is not incorporated in the Psalm war.
Case in point, Psalm 83:4 says;
They have said, “Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, That the name of Israel may be remembered no more.”
Comparatively, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared publicly on several occasions that, “Israel must be wiped off the map.”
These similar quotes suggest that Iran and the confederacy of Psalm 83 share the same Anti-Semitic sentiment toward the nation of Israel. If so; then why does Iran appear to be absent from Psalm 83?
Perhaps Persia’s utter destruction in Ezekiel 38:16 – 39:6 prohibits Iran from fighting in Psalm 83. Although this would satisfactorily answer the question about Iran’s apparent absence in the Arab war, the problem is that Psalm 83 probably precedes Ezekiel 38. If this is the case, then Iran’s “shield and helmet,” could still exist when the Arabs come against Israel. If so; then why don’t the Arabs invite mighty Iran to participate in their war party?
The prophecy that may precede Ezekiel 38 – 39, and answer the question about Iran’s conspicuous absence in Psalm 83 is located in Jeremiah 49:34-39. Jeremiah 49:35 predicts Elam (Iran) gets struck at the “foremost of its might,” which if unfulfilled as of yet, could allude to its nuclear program. The next verse says the Elamites (Iranians) will be scattered out of the immediate area into world nations.
Thus says the LORD of hosts: “Behold, I will break the bow of, The foremost of their might. Against Elam I will bring the four winds From the four quarters of heaven, And scatter them toward all those winds; There shall be no nations where the outcasts of Elam will not go. (Jeremiah 49:35-36, nkjv)
Jeremiah and Ezekiel were contemporaries of each other. They both wrote over 2500 years ago. Why did Ezekiel prophesy about Persia, and Jeremiah about Elam? The probable answers are three-fold;
1. Geographically – Elam and Persia occupied two adjoining territories at the time,
2. Culturally – these territories consisted of differing ethnicities, and distinct civilizations,
3. Prophetically – the two prophets were probably predicting separate events.
Presently,
Persia and Elam comprise greater Iran. Elam covered west-central Iran
as depicted in the image, and Persia encompassed most of the other
surrounding territory. A careful study suggests both Ezekiel’s and
Jeremiah’s Iranian prophecies appear to be unfulfilled end time events.
If so, this suggests that modern day Iran faces a double jeopardy in the
last days.Jeremiah predicts that Elam will be struck at the foremost place of its strength. If such an attack occurred in the near future that would probably be its nuclear site(s). Not necessarily all sites, but specifically sites existing within the boundaries of ancient Elam. A prime target would be the Bushehr nuclear site identified in the image.
Subsequently, the prophet warns that after the attack the affected populations are forced to scatter from the area. Jeremiah says, “There shall be no nations where the outcasts of Elam will not go.” This could be the result of Iranian’s attempting to flee from an isolated nuclear disaster. Should the Bushehr nuclear reactor be struck, this becomes a very real possibility because the facility is loaded with Russian supplied fuel rods. These rods were loaded during the summer of 2010. At the time former UN Ambassador John Bolton warned that once the rods were loaded in place, an attack upon the site could result in severe radioactive fallout.
If Jeremiah 49:34-39 is alluding to a pre-Psalm 83 strike upon Iran’s nuclear program, this could partially explain why the rogue state is not a participant in the Psalm. Additionally, perhaps nuclear fallout causes only the Iranians from the central west coast to evacuate into other nations, which would still leave the preponderance of Persia, (northern Iran) with some remaining shields and helmets to fight with in Ezekiel 38.
It is important to note that Ezekiel seems to intentionally omit Elam from the Gog of Magog invasion. This strongly suggests that not all of modern-day Iran participates in the infamous Gog of Magog invasion of Israel. This conclusion can be safely drawn by recognizing that Ezekiel 32:24-26 identifies Elam and Meshech and Tubal. Meshech and Tubal are listed in the Magog invasion, but Elam is not. Why not? Why didn’t Ezekiel list Elam alongside Persia to identify the entirety of modern-day Iran in his predicted invasion?
The fact that Ezekiel lists Persia in Ezekiel 27:10 and Ezekiel 38:5, and Elam in Ezekiel 32:24 implies that he recognized the territorial and ethnic distinctions between these two populations during his time. He probably omits Elam for the same reason that he omits the Arab populations identified in Psalm 83:6-8, which is because Elam and the Arabs of Psalm 83 do not participate in the Ezekiel 38 invasion.
The probable reason the Psalm 83 Arabs abstain is because they are dealt with in a prior separate war, won by the IDF. The likely reason Elam isn’t listed is because Jeremiah 49:34-39 tells us the Elamites are also involved in their own separate prophecy. Thus, there appear to be three prophecies identified: Psalm 83 (Arabs), Ezekiel 38-39 (Persians), and Jeremiah 49:34-39 (Elamites).
In
summary, it is important to note that clear territorial distinctions
existed between Elam and Persia when Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesied. It
is doubtful that all of modern-day Iran participates in the Magog
invasion of Israel in Ezekiel 38. More likely is the possibility that
only northern Iran joins in with Magog (Russia); otherwise Ezekiel
should have included both Persia and Elam in his prophecy. Since Elam is
not part of Ezekiel 38, it suggests that Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding
Elam is a separate prophetic event. If Elam is struck at the foremost of
its might prior to the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38, then this could be
the reason Ezekiel omitted Elam from his prophecy.Moreover, Jeremiah 49:34-39 introduces nine related prophecies concerning Elam. This study has only discussed two of them. These nine prophecies are identified in the image, and are thoroughly explained in the commentary portion of Revelation Road. The pertinent commentary also presents a brief history lesson concerning Elam, and explains why Jeremiah’s Elamite prophecies still remain unfulfilled.
In the final analysis, Jeremiah’s nine prophecies of Elam may be simply adding more details to Ezekiel’s Gog of Magog invasion; but I doubt it.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
The Importance of President Obama's Birth Certificate
There is a great deal of controversy over whether President Obama has the credentials, per the U.S. Constitution, to hold the office of The President of the United States. On April 27, 2011 (about halfway into his presidency) President Obama produced a Certificate of Live Birththat allegedly validates he was born in Hawaii. Let's examine this very important issue further...
PEOPLE THAT SAY IT IS NOT IMPORTANT
Before I continue, I want to address people that say this is not an important issue and that it just distracts from more important things that need to be addressed.
First, saying that it's not important is demonstrating a complete ignorance about the intent of why that requirement was put into the United States Constitution in the first place. Keep in mind, we're not talking about some random company policy, we are discussing the highest law in the land: the Constitution of the United States! Further below I'll discuss why the forefathers included the requirements for the Office of the President, but suffice it to say if we start pushing aside the Constitution, then we are on a very slippery slope indeed.
Many people are claiming that this issue is diverting valuable time away from more important issues, and the President himself said this was becoming a "sideshow". Frankly, that statement is ludicrous for three main reasons:
1. The only reason there is any attention on this issue at this point in time in the first place is because the President chose not to release the document a long time ago. He spent over 2 million dollars in legal fees to avoid doing so. Consequently, much more time, effort, and money has been put into not releasing the document than simply doing so. That should actually cause any reasonable person to question why it was not released a long time ago.
2. It should not take up that much time to ask a staff member (or Michelle) to get the document, have it scanned, then hold a 5 minute press conference about it.
3. If President Obama can spend hours on the golf course, basketball court, and fill out a "March Madness" basketball bracket on TV; then surely he can take a few minutes to address the American people and the constitutional requirements of the office he holds. Saying this is diverting valuable time and that it's the "birthers" to blame is a lame argument by people that either do not see a much bigger issue at hand, or just want to bury their heads in the sand because they also sense there could be more to this than they want to admit.
AUTHENTICITY OF THE RECENTLY RELEASED DOCUMENT
Substantial questions remain about the authenticity of the birth certificate. However, anyone that brings this up is immediately labeled as a "birther" that will never be satisfied. I wonder what similar strategies were used when anyone objected to Hitler's tactics and policies? Will the American people also let the facts of the matter be squashed because bringing up the issue results in persecution and ridicule? I fear, for the most part, the answer to that is that most people will.
Though mostly ignored for the aforementioned reasons, experts are presenting compelling evidence suggesting the document is a forgery. THIS LINK presents some videos that question the authenticity of the document.
First, saying that it's not important is demonstrating a complete ignorance about the intent of why that requirement was put into the United States Constitution in the first place. Keep in mind, we're not talking about some random company policy, we are discussing the highest law in the land: the Constitution of the United States! Further below I'll discuss why the forefathers included the requirements for the Office of the President, but suffice it to say if we start pushing aside the Constitution, then we are on a very slippery slope indeed.
Many people are claiming that this issue is diverting valuable time away from more important issues, and the President himself said this was becoming a "sideshow". Frankly, that statement is ludicrous for three main reasons:
1. The only reason there is any attention on this issue at this point in time in the first place is because the President chose not to release the document a long time ago. He spent over 2 million dollars in legal fees to avoid doing so. Consequently, much more time, effort, and money has been put into not releasing the document than simply doing so. That should actually cause any reasonable person to question why it was not released a long time ago.
2. It should not take up that much time to ask a staff member (or Michelle) to get the document, have it scanned, then hold a 5 minute press conference about it.
3. If President Obama can spend hours on the golf course, basketball court, and fill out a "March Madness" basketball bracket on TV; then surely he can take a few minutes to address the American people and the constitutional requirements of the office he holds. Saying this is diverting valuable time and that it's the "birthers" to blame is a lame argument by people that either do not see a much bigger issue at hand, or just want to bury their heads in the sand because they also sense there could be more to this than they want to admit.
AUTHENTICITY OF THE RECENTLY RELEASED DOCUMENT
Though mostly ignored for the aforementioned reasons, experts are presenting compelling evidence suggesting the document is a forgery. THIS LINK presents some videos that question the authenticity of the document.
In addition to the technical issues, other people point out that President Obama's father is listed to be from "Kenya, East Africa", yet Kenya was not an independent country until 1963 — 2 years after the date of the birth certificate. Others point out his father's race is listed as "African", yet the term used in the early 60's, when the document was allegedly recorded, was actually "Negro". They also claim that government agencies that tracked statistics had narrow guidelines of how to record that information so that statistics could be kept.
I am not an expert, so I don't know if perhaps Kenya would still have been a valid option to record on a birth certificate regardless of its official independence and whether or not his father could have been recorded as "African" since he actually was "African". I would think other birth certificates could be examined and compared to see, though perhaps the odds of finding someone born in Hawaii with a father from Kenya, East Africa are very slim.
I am not an expert, so I don't know if perhaps Kenya would still have been a valid option to record on a birth certificate regardless of its official independence and whether or not his father could have been recorded as "African" since he actually was "African". I would think other birth certificates could be examined and compared to see, though perhaps the odds of finding someone born in Hawaii with a father from Kenya, East Africa are very slim.
IS IT A MATTER OF RACE?
This is a good place to interject that this is not a matter of race! If there were the same questions surrounding anyone — regardless of their color, race, gender, or religion — many people would want to know more. In fact, though a much lesser issue in terms of the affairs of our nation, recall that President Clinton was under a lot of scrutiny for his affairs with Monica Lewinsky. George W. Bush was sharply criticized for his behavior during his college years and President Nixon was forced to resign from office for engaging in unlawful behavior that had much less impact on his presidency than does the issue about President Obama's birth certificate.
There is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh would get equal or more scrutiny if he were president and his ideologies and credentials were in question. Indeed it's about a much more important matter: we are trying to explore the beliefs, values, and political ideology held by the person holding the most powerful position in the United States and whether or not they are in line with the best interests of the United States.
Playing the "race card" about this issue is divisive and only diverts attention where it need not be. The real attention should be about the Constitution of the United States, whether or not the person holding the highest office in the land is adhering to the law of the land, and the purpose that requirement for being President of the United States is there to begin with...
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT
The founding fathers of the United States did a fantastic job drawing up our Constitution. It took them a long time to do so as they carefully thought out, debated, and finally agreed to all that its comprised of. They carefully added many important things: like establishing the three branches of government, wherein a system of "checks and balances" was put into our governmental system; establishing what congress may and may not do; creating the courts and their function; and ensuring U.S. citizens enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and so on.
Article II of the Constitution establishes the Office of the President and requirements thereof. Therein we have the law that someone must be a natural born citizen, age 35, have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years prior, and so on.
Why were those requirements included? Were the founders just arbitrarily adding some meaningless law to the Constitution? No, of course not!
So, then, what were they thinking? It's quite clear if you logically think about it: they were recognizing that it would be in the best interest of the U.S. if they could reasonably ensure that the person holding the highest office in the land was absolutely loyal to the U.S.; thus, all of the beliefs, values, political ideology and consequent decisions that person made always had the best interest of the U.S. in mind. Now whether or not the policies were always right, at least it could be reasonably assured the right intentions were there.
WHERE HAS THE PRESS BEEN?
The question should be asked, "Why wasn't the birth certificate released long ago given it was asked for time and time again?" The mainstream press is not asking that very important question. Was it not provided to make some point that we have no right to know or that it should not be a constitutional requirement? I can't see either of those reasons settling well with most people. It was either a blatant act of defiance, or there is another reason. Frankly, I can not think of any goodreason nor have I seen one proposed.
Another important consideration about this matter is this: why isn't the press wanting to know about the college papers President Obama wrote? While not the "all knowing, all telling" indication of one's beliefs, values, and political ideology, I would think they could weigh into the matter at least some. Put another way, why is President Obama hiding that information? In fact, it's still ambiguous to me where President Obama went to school, what he was taught, who his friends are/were, what his friends and teachers have to say about him, etc.
Many employers require that one's work history be valid and ask for official college transcripts conditional to employment, and that is a very reasonable request. Frankly, the "employers" (the American people via the press) did not do their due diligence concerning Barack Obama. We really know very little about him. He was ushered in on a popularity contest where speeches and other factors played a larger role than the substance behind the man.
Had the issue of the birth certificate and such been discussed prior to the presidential election, the American people could have, at that time, made the decision at the polls of whether or not it was an issue. (Though arguably the founding fathers intended for it be a law, not something we vote on based on "popularity".) We'll never know how it may have played out, because the press did not do its job and, therefore, the issue is still being dealt with now, after the election.
As for correcting the problem, to do so would require that the press essentially report on itself about how poor of a job it did, which is not likely to happen. Also, many people in the mainstream media likely voted for President Obama, therefore they have further motives to ignore this issue. Except for web sites like this, the issue will not likely get any attention. If you dare to share this blog, then perhaps you can help.
As for correcting the problem, to do so would require that the press essentially report on itself about how poor of a job it did, which is not likely to happen. Also, many people in the mainstream media likely voted for President Obama, therefore they have further motives to ignore this issue. Except for web sites like this, the issue will not likely get any attention. If you dare to share this blog, then perhaps you can help.
Consequently, there is still a cloud of doubt about whether or not President Obama is actually legally holding the office of President of the United States. Now, some people are quick (too quick) to say that it should be a non-issue and that anyone discussing the matter is doing so foolishly. They mention that our economy is in trouble, we have conflicts going on around the world, and that there are otherwise many other issues to be addressed. It's for exactly those reasons that this is an important issue. As noted before, the founding fathers of the United States thought it was quite important!
WHY DID IT TAKE THIS LONG TO RELEASE THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
Had the document been released a long time ago, questions of whether or not it is legitimate would have long been dismissed or dealt with; but that is far from the case. I won't rehash some of the points that reasonably question its legitimacy, but I think the main point is worth asking: what, then, was the motivation behind hiding this document for so long? Why hide a document substantiating one's legal eligibility to be in office (and pay so much money to do so) only to eventually produce it?
Moreover, all too readily accepting a document that was produced years later and still has a lot of questions about its authenticity is foolish at best, and hints of not wanting to address the deeper issue at hand: who is the man holding the highest office in the nation, what are his values, what is his political ideology, and therefore what is his agenda?
Time will tell how this all plays out, though I'm not sure if it will ever be settled. Should the Lord tarry, it could go down as one of the most unsolved conspiracy theories ever. Who shot Kennedy, what happened at Roswell, did President Obama ever legally hold the office of President of the United States... ?
Time will tell how this all plays out, though I'm not sure if it will ever be settled. Should the Lord tarry, it could go down as one of the most unsolved conspiracy theories ever. Who shot Kennedy, what happened at Roswell, did President Obama ever legally hold the office of President of the United States... ?
Now you may be asking, "What does this have to do with Bible prophecy?" It could actually have a lot to do with that.
Where Is President Obama Leading Us?
President Obama has demonstrated that he has the moral and political fortitude to push his own agenda, regardless of the wishes of most Americans. We need only look to the Health Care Bill which was passed despite obvious opposition by the American people. Many elected officials in the Legislative Branch made deals, bowed to political pressure from the White House, and essentially ignored what their constituents wanted. It was one of the major reasons so many democrat incumbents who assisted in doing so were voted out of office in the recent elections. It's a topic all its own and I only use it to set up the thesis of another important matter...
I believe a much more grave issue of prophetic proportions is on the horizon. Namely that now that the elections are over, President Obama will turn his attention to the Middle East; and while most Americans support Israel, there is strong evidence that President Obama does not!
 |
What makes President Obama's potential to dismiss the best interest and wishes of the American people even more ominous is that the office he holds is arguably the most powerful political office in the world. Historically, the U.S. has exercised it veto power within the U.N. because it only does what is in the best interest of the U.S. and its close allies; therefore, Israel has been saved from its enemies within the U.N. However, if President Obama's campaign platform of "change" were to extend to that area of policy too, then the U.S. would withdraw that support and leave Israel very vulnerable to U.N. resolutions that would not favor the nation of Israel.
What makes it all the more interesting is what is foretold in Zechariah 12:2-3, where we read that at some point in the future “all nations of the earth” will be against Israel:
I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves. (Emphasis added)
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT ABOUT ISRAEL
So, then, it's not really of any surprise that we have recently seen the United States pulling back its support for Israel compared to the strong alliance the United States and Israel once enjoyed. In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly in late September 2009, President Obama said, “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” First, let's note that he is speaking as if he is speaking for "America", yet poll after poll suggest that is not how most U.S. citizens view Israel! Once again we are witness to the fact President Obama will do whatever his own personal agenda and beliefs dictate, regardless of how most Americans feel about a given issue. President Obama was talking about Israel building homes in the area of land called the West Bank, yet this is land that is rightfully Israel’s via a promise from God to Abraham and his descendants recorded in Genesis 15:18-21, as well as by the fact Israel took the land back during the Six-Day War, which they were lawfully allowed to do under international law (not unlike how most nations, including the United States, have the land they now occupy).
It's important that we recognize Israel is very small and does not have land that it can easily afford to give away, especially when we understand that it is still rapidly growing in population. Moreover, if the West Bank were to be given to the Palestinians, Israel would then be only nine miles wide in a location directly north of Tel Aviv. As we look at a map, we realize that it would be nearly dividing the country in two and that it would make the Israeli citizens much more vulnerable to military attack.
If that’s not enough, Israel is being asked to give the land to an enemy that time and time again has fired missiles and launched attacks against Israel and her people. What makes President Obama's rhetoric even more suspicious is that after the disputed elections in Iran (with protestors in the streets complaining the election was not democratic), he said that he would not get involved because Iran was a sovereign nation; yet a short time later we saw him getting involved with Israel's right to build homes within its own borders, and he continues to do so today as much as ever.
Another disconcerting issue is that when President Obama was elected, the American people knew so very little about him (and to some extent we still don't know all that much, especially in light of the position he holds). As Chuck Missler once said, "The U.S. population got an I.Q. Test, and failed!" Indeed our knowledge of President Obama's school records and place of birth are murky at best, as he spends a considerable amount of money keeping them from our awareness. WHY? Anyone with a reasonable amount of discernment knows he is hiding something.
To use an analogy, it would be like walking into the kitchen and finding a plate of cookies beside a 3 year old that is standing there with his hands behind his back. You then ask him if he has anything in his hands and he sheepishly replies, "no". So you ask if you can see his hands and he refuses to show you. You ask several more times, at first nicely, and then a little more sternly, perhaps even demanding that you see his hands; and yet he still refuses, and even begins to retreat. If he didn't have something to hide, then why would he just not show his hands to easily prove that? Obviously because he does, indeed, have something to hide.
To use an analogy, it would be like walking into the kitchen and finding a plate of cookies beside a 3 year old that is standing there with his hands behind his back. You then ask him if he has anything in his hands and he sheepishly replies, "no". So you ask if you can see his hands and he refuses to show you. You ask several more times, at first nicely, and then a little more sternly, perhaps even demanding that you see his hands; and yet he still refuses, and even begins to retreat. If he didn't have something to hide, then why would he just not show his hands to easily prove that? Obviously because he does, indeed, have something to hide.
President Obama says he is a Christian, but he gives every indication he is a Muslim through his actions. As we all know, actions speak louder than words. Moreover, according to the Koran, a Muslim has permission to lie to the "infidels" (even pretending to befriend them) if doing so ultimately will help the Nation of Islam. It is called “Al-taqiyya.” Consequently, we should look to one's actions, not their words, more than ever concerning such matters. Not because we are on some religious "witch hunt", but because knowing someone's faith (particularly someone that holds a powerful position and whose faith is hateful and violent against anyone outside that faith), helps us determine what their underlying motives, beliefs, political and religious agenda may be. As we do so with President Obama, I believe the actions are telling...
Referring to the United States, President Obama has gone out of his way more than once to proclaim we are not a Christian nation. Why would a Christian, surely either aware of our deep Christian heritage or extremely ill-equipped to hold the office of President, say that about the United States? Moreover, why would he say that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on earth", when anyone with just a little knowledge about such matters understands that Islam commands its followers to hate Christians? Surely, he knows that the Muslim faith contradicts God's Word wherein Jesus says in John 14:6, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Also, in a speech he distinguished himself from Christians that believes in the authority of the Bible by saying, “Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do.” He then went on in that speech to make fun of scripture and take some verses out of context. Does that sound like something a true Christian would do?
Moreover, examining his actions, we know that President Obama stands against the principles most Christians hold dear. For example, he is pro-abortion (and even supports the horrendous partial-birth abortion practices that many pro-abortion people concede is going too far) and he strongly supports homosexuality (despite numerous places in the Bible explaining it is an immoral lifestyle that God does not condone).
WHERE IS THE U.S. IN END-TIMES BIBLE PROPHECY?
When I speak to people about Bible prophecy, one of the questions often asked is where the U.S. fits into the prophetic scene. The Bible says that at the very least the U.S. will not be on the side of Israel. That also has to take place because of the way in which God once again will permit Israel to be victorious, which would not be as miraculous if a superpower were on Israel’s side. The reason why the U.S. will be “against Israel” is not clearly known. Many eschatologists theorize that the Rapture will have taken the Christians (and thus, the driving force behind why the U.S. is “Jewish-friendly”) away. Indeed, such an event would thrust the entire world into a chaotic situation and open the need for a so-called “savior” to offer peace and stability to a world in turmoil; hence, it would provide an opportune time for the Antichrist to enter the scene.
There are many other theories that, when especially combined with the rapture theory, easily explain how the U.S. will be absent from end-times prophecy. I explain them all in my book, Pray That You May Escape; but for the lack of space and due to the focus of this article, I will not include them all here. Suffice it to say, no matter how it happens, we know it will happen because God's Word says so.
There are many other theories that, when especially combined with the rapture theory, easily explain how the U.S. will be absent from end-times prophecy. I explain them all in my book, Pray That You May Escape; but for the lack of space and due to the focus of this article, I will not include them all here. Suffice it to say, no matter how it happens, we know it will happen because God's Word says so.
In light of the political environment in which we are in right now, the question is: "Where is President Obama leading us?" As we ponder that important question and continue to watch the news unfold, we should follow Christ's words in Luke 21:36, wherein Jesus told us, "Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)