Christians Beware:

Internet Frauds and the Need for Spiritual Discernment

Question #1: 

Hi Dr Luginbill, I found an interesting website while I was looking at the Hebrew Aleph Bet for clues into Psalm 119, and I write a few excerpts about it with links here:

It is something that seems along the lines of the kind of research you might enjoy, in fact, maybe you already know about much of what he talks about....??? I think it is wonderfully fascinating to see the symmetry in God's word and how eloquently it again reveals another aspect of how incredible the Bible is.

Have a happy 2010!

Response #1:  

This sort of thing is always interesting, but I'm ever reluctant to put too much stock in it. As I may have written you before, I find such things a bit suspect especially when it comes to counting letters, verses, or books, since all of those numbers are in truth variable and, in the case of verses in particular, not original and come very late in the scheme of things (Old Testament: 15^th Century?; New Testament: 16^th Century). Kabbalah in particular makes very convincing use of the number values of the letters of key Hebrew words, but in the end, while such things may reflect a certain symmetry (and there is certainly is that in the Word in ever aspect), I don't think they get us much closer to any kind truth we can use for spiritual growth. That said, I do very much appreciate the link! It was, indeed, very interesting information.

Here's wishing you a very blessed new year as well!

In Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #2:

Dear DR

What is your opinion on the late Archeologist Rob Wyatts' dicoveries.

1) That the Ark is in the skull of Golgotha, directly beneath where Jesus was crucified. That when the earthquake happened to cause a crack in the ground, the blood of our loving Savior went through and onto the mercy seat, and this being the exact place where God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac, after traveling three days, and that Isaac carried wood up the mountain like our Lord Jesus carried up the wooden cross.

This all makes very clear sense to me. But I am very weary of being deceived by any false information to do with the bible and if you could shed any more light on it I would be very grateful.

2) That the real Mt Sinai is in Northeast Saudi Arabia, ( Jabal Al Hawz ) and contains all the areas that are mentioned in Exodus, including two pillars, one with writing on from Solomon declaring that this is where Moses crossed the red sea, and archeological findings of ancient chariot wheels in the water there. Again I ask you if you could shed any light on these.

I look forward to hearing from you, but please write in your own time.

In Jesus I Trust

Response #2: 

Let me start by saying that these sorts of claims are the modern day evangelical equivalent to the fascination generated by religious relics in the Roman Catholic church during the late middle ages. Just as when the Roman church became completely bankrupt in theological terms they turned entirely to such gimmicks, so now today as we find ourselves in the late stages of the lukewarm age of Laodicea (please see the link) there seems to be no lack of hucksters who are offering up Noah's ark or the two tablets of the Law or the shroud of Turin or the like as putative supports for faith when the only thing that really counts is the truth of the Word of God.

To take your second question first, I have heard of these alternative theories before in regard to the crossing of the Red Sea and they do not pass biblical muster (please see the link: The Route of the Israelites in Crossing the Red Sea). None of these claims by Wyatt have ever been verified. I have not seen the column personally, only Wyatt's photo. It has alternatively been said to be made of concrete (that is what it appears to be in his photo), in which case it would probably be modern. As an academic myself, I find it highly unlikely that such an important find standing in the open would have been missed in the first place (with all the expensive archaeological digs and surveys going on in the Middle East every year), and even more unlikely that it would not have been followed up if legitimate. Archaeologists and epigraphers are very keen to "publish" anything new, and something like this, if true, would generate a lot of excitement (and money). I have seen the Red Sea video and find it singularly unconvincing myself. We are a very visual culture and, even though we should all know better since we are aware of things like CGI, video editing, staging and posing, we still have the tendency to apply the old saw "seeing is believing" even to things on the internet. That is clearly a mistake. In any case, a close reading of Exodus 12-14 in my view makes it quite clear that the western shore of Sinai reached from Egypt proper is what is being described (not a crossing of the eastern branch of the Red Sea from Sinai to modern day Saudi Arabia – see the link above).

If there were any real doubts about the flimflam upon which this "work" by Mr. Wyatt is based, the claims to have found the ark of the covenant in a cave under the place which today tourists are told is Golgotha certainly clears them up. Can we really be expected to believe that the ark was found and no one cared? Or that it was carefully excavated and no photos taken (the ones provided at the site could be of the underside of my bathtub)? The only artifact picture is that of a clay receptacle, and these are very common at every archaeological site in the Mediterranean world. What should set the alarm bell's off in any biblical Christian's conscience, however, is the perverse notion of Jesus' blood dripping down to cover the ark's mercy seat. This is Roman Catholicism at its worst. The New Testament goes to great lengths to teach anyone with a mind to learn that Jesus did not bleed to death, so that when it speaks of His blood it speaks of His work in dying for our sins on the cross. Animal sacrifices were a symbol of Christ's death for us. They did not cleanse sin. They represented very vividly with their literal blood what Jesus would do on Calvary by dying in the darkness for us, paying the penalty for our sins, suffering in our place. Their blood spilled (the life is in the blood) represented His death to sin and the suffering whereby He expiated our sins. To reduce what He did in being put to death for our sins to the spilling of His literal blood is not only contradicted by scripture at every turn, it is perhaps the ultimate heresy. Please see the following links:

These sorts of fantastic claims always produce a natural enough fascination in genuine Christians who really do believe the truth of the Bible (who wouldn't we want to find Noah's ark?!). But while we are as followers of Jesus told to be innocent as doves, we are also told to be wise as serpents (Matt.10:16; cf. Rom.16:19; 1Cor.14:20; Prov.14:15-16; 14:18), the second injunction being directed towards our attitude to false teaching. We are responsible to ferret out, ward off, and shy away from anything wrong, false, and contrary to the truth of the Word of God – of which errors I am sad to say the late Mr. Wyatt's "teachings" are clearly full. The Bible tells us much about the events of the past, and as genuine Christians we are more than willing to believe without any earthly confirmation at all whatever God has committed to His Word. The problems with generating such confirmation falsely are two-fold: 1) faith is undermined when the confirmation is proved to be a lie; 2) false doctrine is inevitably included in all such constructs (as in the "blood on the mercy-seat" here). The result for those who put any faith on such shaky reeds is that they will be led into error on the one hand and have their faith deeply shaken when the house of cards collapses on the other. However, no such problems accrue to those who set themselves to learning all they can about God's truth from the one source we know to be absolutely reliable: the Bible, God's Word itself.

In Him who is the Living Word of God, our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob Luginbill

Question #3:  

Here are a couple more shroud of Turin articles. You getting many email questions about this? This strikes me as a real RC kind of thing; a modern version of relics.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139981

Response #3:    

Blessedly, I haven't had to deal with this one too much. I'm not sure what the question would be. Even if the shroud were in fact and indeed a burial shroud which rested on our Lord's body for the short time it was in the sepulcher, and even if that could be proved, "so what?" If a person needs a physical artifact even to believe that Jesus existed, there's not much faith there (if there is any faith there). Moreover, for skeptics and unbelievers, even such rock-solid proof of a connection with our Lord (and there is of course nothing of the sort – not even anything close to approaching anything of the sort) would not prove that He is who He is. To do any good it would still require faith in the gospel, belief that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins (and of course such faith is available to all independent of artifacts).

I completely agree that this is an "RC kind of thing", and does indeed smack of the medieval trade in relics. To me, it is a measure of how empty of true content the teaching of the denominations of any and all who get het up about such things must be that they have to look for things like Noah's ark in a vain attempt at spirituality and spiritual momentum. Definitely a "sign of the times".

Yours in Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #4: 

Would you comment on this article identifying antichrist as Islamic?

Link to discussion forum with opinions on this article:

Can't wait to hear your review of this.

In Christ,

Response #4:   

There are many versions of this increasingly popular and misguided notion out there today to the effect that antichrist is Islamic. That certainly cannot be true because anti-Christ is a pseudo-Messiah, claiming to be Jesus – clearly eliminating anything or anyone connected to Islam since he must have a plausible claim at being Jewish and proclaim himself as the Jewish Messiah. As to the specifics of the name/number here, as I always try to make clear in discussions of this issue, the actual number of the beast will be a litmus test, not a predictor. That is to say, it is in the nature of a numerical designator of this sort that it can fit many possibilities before the fact, so that one would never be able to predict ahead of time the precise name of antichrist with any (legitimate) application of the number (see the link in CT 4: "The Number of the Beast: Revelation 13:18"). What will be possible to do during the Tribulation by means of this test applied to the particular name he is employing in the tattoo is to see that the person who is claiming he is Jesus is really antichrist. Beyond all argument, however, the six-hundred and sixty six is a Greek calculation since Revelation and the passage that discusses this are in Greek. Arabic is a non-starter.

The main danger with this sort of theory is that it will play right into the real antichrist's hands. That is so because the king of the south whom he will oppose and defeat will most probably be riding an Islamic wave (as things look from our present perspective, at any rate). By identifying his adversary as "antichrist", the beast will fortify his claim to be Christ and will thereby deceive many putative Christians into joining his "crusade". So making this mistake is something that will have serious consequences, at least for those Christians who are not growing spiritually and taking their spiritual sustenance from scripture.

Hope this is of some help – thanks for your good "sleuthing" of internet pitfalls!

In our Lord Jesus, the One and only Christ.

Bob L.

Question #5:

More nuttiness

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=148021

Response #5: 

Yes, I've heard about this Islamic antichrist thing. I think it is likely to grow (this is not the only book out there on the subject). The danger on this one in my view is that if people believe the King of the South is antichrist, then antichrist's claim to be Christ leading a crusade to oppose him is all the more likely to be accepted by erstwhile Christians (see the link: in CT 3B: "Antichrist's Crusade against the King of the South").

On the shroud of Turin, I think I saw something about the pope weighing in that it is an article of "faith". So much for RC faith.

Yours in Christ,

Bob L.

Question #6:  

Think I'd put my faith in something more than a physical piece of cloth that moths can eat. Satan is the master of confusion and camouflage; Eve thought she was getting knowledge and Adam went along. Will be like that at the end where one spouse will follow the lead of another rather than make that hard decision to chose between God and man (or woman). Will be a lonely time as we have to trust in the Almighty but lose people we care for. Jesus wept over Jerusalem knowing what was coming for it; no doubt many will have that kind of sorrow knowing that in the end the loved one will be the real loser as that loved one sides with antichrist against them and denounces, persecutes or helps kill them.

On that cheery note, have a good weekend.

Response #6:    

That's a thought I have had many times – and always try to suppress. I suppose I'm putting that in the category of "blow that bridge when we come to it". How Christians are to cope with the events of the Tribulation is a subject salted into the whole CT Series. It will be covered in detail in part 7, some time off at present. See also the link: In CT 4: "A Brief Christian "Code of Conduct" for the Great Persecution".

Yours in Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #7: 

The story goes that as Armistead and Garnett were standing together looking across the field toward the Union lines being shelled in preparation for what became known as Pickett's Charge, Garnett commented to Armistead that what they were about to do was a desperate thing to attempt. Armistead agreed but stated the issue was with the Almighty and that it must be left in His hands. That sums up my feelings about the end times, we may feel desperate but the outcome is left in His hands. Thankfully, we already know that the final victory is His, and we who faithfully endure the shot and shell will share in it. I guess Semper Fidelis can also have a spiritual meaning.

Response #7:   

Good stuff! That's the sort of thing many of our fellow Christians will need to hear when the going gets rough (and all their previous suppositions are overturned):

In anticipation of that glorious day!

Bob L.

Question #8:

Hello Dr,

I was wondering, when Israel turns seventy as a nation do you think this could be significant? I read and enjoyed you 'Coming Tribulation'' series, and although we do not know the exact timing of the second coming, I believe you have come up with a very good time frame for us all to be vigilant about. I have confidence in you that you are probably correct and your explanation of how you came to this time is believable.

But with the situation at the moment with Israel. It is just like predicted that she would be a burden and troublesome to the world. She is enjoying prosperity. The EU is really becoming a big power. There is financial woes, earthquakes. It's as if where getting closer to the Tribulation. If these Peace Talks do work out in the next two years, then is it possible that we may enter into the Tribulation after a short period of peace. which will take us through the seven years and to Israel's seventieth birthday as a nation.

If God decides to shorten the days, could this be possible. Or could Israel's seventy years be the beginning of the tribulation. This is just an idea I still like yours as the time frame for each of the seven churches in revelations make sense. I suppose I just want Jesus to get here quicker even if we have to go through a terrible ordeal it is worth it.

I just feel there must be some significance to Israel turning seventy, even if its not Tribulation related. What do you think?

In Jesus I Trust

Response #8: 

I'm a bit leery of attaching any significance to dates that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible. The only exception for pre-Tribulation dating I have ever found in scripture is the (indirect) system of dating implied by the Seven Churches of Revelation (see the link) as set within the two millennial days which make up the Church Age (see the link: in SR 5: "The Seven Days of Human History").

Israel today is a secular nation founded by unbelievers and apart from even any reference to biblical prophecy. Zionism is a secular movement and the Jews of Israel today are among the most secular people in the world (with the exception of the ultra-religious minority who of course are not saved). So I'm loath to put any stock in the birthday, although I do find the "seven years of peace" after the seventy years of statehood intriguing (since that would come pretty close to the 2026 date). You are certainly correct that the times and seasons of history are all in the Lord's hands, and He is free to do whatever He wants whenever He wants; however it is also true that the information He does give us in scripture (considered in the links above) we ignore at our own peril. Given the increasing frequency and volume of tribulational predictions out there in the ether at present (bound to continue and intensify), my own position of studied ignorance of anything our eyes can presently see is one I think which has at least this to recommend it: it keeps the focus on what scripture actually has to say rather than on extra-biblical events which can be interpreted in any manner of ways, and which may or may not have anything to do with way the end times events will develop.

Thanks so much for your interest in God's Word!

In our dear Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #9:  

Hello, Dr. L! We have been studying with you for some time, and after encountering these words through an e-mail, we were wondering about the accuracy of them, and whether we should read anything into the English phonetic pronunciation:

We know that Satan will give his authority to Antichrist. Was Jesus referring to this when he followed the statement about Satan with a statement about his own authority being given to the 72? Also, is this a clue about our current US President, or a nutty coincidence? (We know Antichrist comes from Babylon, and agree that at present, the US best fits that description.) We've been pondering on the idea of Obama being "the one" since he was campaigning for the Presidency. He, being from Kenya, could possibly belong to descendants of the lost tribe of Dan found recently in Ethiopia, and he certainly has "sought to change times, etc." and is handsome, "eloquent in speech", very persuasive, and has been pegged by renowned Psychiatrists (don't have the data handy to support this one) as an extreme Narcissist. We know there have been - and will be until the end of this world - many types of the eventual Antichrist, but he sure fits the Bible's description, and he's only getting started - and time is short! 16 years or so to go! He may be a little old, though, if you are correct about his birth possibly coinciding with the turn of the century. Obama could be around 60 by then. Is Antichrist's rise very fast, then? These are many of the circles we kept spinning in during our recent study.

So I guess this is two-fold, yet related: is this an accurate translation, and does it mean anything - and - was Jesus making a connection with Satan's authority being given / Jesus's authority being given? Two statements that seem unrelated . . . are they significant for the coming Tribulation?

Thank you for your dedication, and you remain in our prayers.

In the Name of Jesus,

Response #9:    

I have heard variations of this interpretation before (please see the link: "Antichrist and Babylon"), but at least in terms of its use of the original languages this one is lacking. That is because the word barakh is fundamentally different from the word baraq. They sound similar, but there is a world of difference between having a final letter caph (where the word would mean "to bless") and a final letter qoph (where the word would mean "to flash like lightning"); secondly, "heaven" in Hebrew is shamyim, and in Greek it is ouranos, so I don't see at all any connection with the first name, not even an obviously incorrect and tenuous one as in the first instance. Next, the hermeneutic is odd. Even if the name were related to the words "lightning" and "heaven", I am not sure why that would be indicative of antichrist. The only thing we know on that score is that the beast's name will be subject to the six hundred and sixty six litmus test; that is, we will be able to confirm that the beast is the beast by tallying up the letters of his name according to the Greek system of counting (and I don't see how that can be made to work in the present case). As to the tribe of Dan and Ethiopia, there was always a remnant in Judah of all the tribes, so the dissolution of the 10 is not a real issue. But the Ethiopian claim to Jewish roots is very questionable – and in any case there is a big difference between Ethiopia and Kenya (akin to the difference between Canada and Bolivia).

So while it is true that things are coming on fast (in my own interpretation of the scripture, at any rate), and while it is also very possible, even likely, that the beast is currently alive, at present I don't think it is possible to discern who he may be:

Even now you know what it is that restrains [antichrist's arrival] so that he will be revealed [only] in his own time.  For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work – [and] it is only the Restrainer [who keeps things in check, and will] until He moves out of the way.  And then (i.e., not until the Tribulation has begun) the lawless one (i.e., antichrist) will be revealed . . .
2nd Thessalonians 2:6-8

For what it is worth, I don't think it is likely that the beast is currently any sort of celebrity. The bottom line is that we just don't know, so that prematurely focusing in on one particular individual is potentially very spiritually counter-productive. Case in point here, it is my suspicion that the beast, strong proponent of Israel, militarism, and "Christianity" that he will be as the pseudo-Messiah, is far more likely to come from the political right than the political left (or will perhaps be completely apolitical in traditional terms), leading a reaction to outrageous developments in the world, not the least of which will be a resurgent world-wide Islamic movement. Many good Christians are very likely to be deceived by these events if they get drawn into the politics instead of sticking with their personal spiritual growth and ministering to the Church of Jesus Christ. Your attention to the scripture on these matters is thus very prudent and greatly appreciated. If you have not already done so, you might have a look at the following link where some similar matters are discussed:

Thanks as always for alerting me to these issues! And thank you so much for your prayers – they mean quite a lot to me.

Yours in Jesus Christ our Lord, the true Messiah.

Bob L.

Question #10: 

Hi Bob L.,

I am writing to you regarding your article on ichthys.com concerning the Star of David and the Star of Rephan. I just would like to pass long some information on the subject which may surprise you.

The Star of David actually is essentially the Star of Rephan. The planet associated with Baal/Rephan worship is Saturn. On ancient inscriptions, Baal is often depicted with Saturn somewhere nearby, with a six-sided star (Star of David) nearby as well. In addition, the "Star of David" appears in many pagan religions, such as Hinduism and Shintoism, and is an important symbol in the occult world. For more information I sincerely recommend a group of short videos on occult symbols made by a Christian. It can be found here:

Please note that I do not agree with everything on the website or in the videos, but there is indisputable proof that the Star of David was associated with Baal, and that it was around for centuries before Christ. While a mere 6 months ago I would agree with your article, my learning on the subject has revealed to me that the Star of David is essentially the Star of Rephan/Baal/Saturn, as the six pointed star was Baal's symbol. It is most unfortunate that Israel has chosen this symbol to be their own, and to be on their flag.

Best,

Response #10:   

Good to make your acquaintance. Whether the star of David was/is meant by some to represent the planet Saturn or is/was connected to the worship thereof is really beside the point since as far as I know, the information you provide notwithstanding (please see below), the star is of (relatively) late design. We can argue about the precise date of origin, but it certainly post-dates the Bible by many centuries and so for that reason alone cannot have any connection to Acts 7:43 or Amos 5:25-26.

It has been some years since I have read the Phoenician inscriptions (there are not that many of them – ancient Phoenician is almost indistinguishable from Biblical Hebrew), but I never recall seeing any such visual description as you relate. That would be the "operative" part of the argument, for without any definitive proof that this symbol existed before, say, the 11th century A.D., any attempt to connect it to "the star of Rephan" would not only be highly speculative but also highly suspect. Since the corpus of inscriptions in ancient Phoenician is very small (and the number of inscriptions which combine visual images must be minuscule – I don't remember ever seeing any of these), such a piece would certainly be well-known and well-documented. If it doesn't occur in the CIS (Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum), it would certainly have been published in a scholarly archaeological journal (probably in many). I am a "show me" type when it comes to this sort of thing, especially given the preponderance of faked images on the internet. I would be happy to have a look at any such evidence. All I need is the name of the inscription/artifact (or any reference number) and I should be able to track it down.

As to the website, I could not find the file you referenced (even though I searched the appropriate terms). Nevertheless, there were a number of things I did see on the site which I found disturbing (from an accuracy point of view). I think it is fair to say that just because a site has some things which are clearly mistaken, that does not mean that everything is. However, it is also fair to say that a large quantity of questionable material should, in the sound judgment of any user, weigh in the balance when considering reliability overall.

What we know about Baal worship outside of what the Bible has to say is infinitesimally small. Given what a controversial subject this is, I would be most surprised to learn that such stunning evidence really exists and has not come to general prominence. I am not unwilling to be convinced, but I would need the evidence.

I offer you my best wishes and encouragement in your search to find out the truth about the Word of God.

In Jesus our one and only Lord and Savior.

Bob Luginbill

Question #11:

I just read The Purpose, Creation and Fall of Man.

Have you read this?

Two of my Christian friends have sent it to me and frankly I hate to admit it but it has shaken me up a lot. Could I pay you to debunk and/or discredit the piece so I can give it to my Christian friends before they lose their way. It would need to be from someone like you who knows eschatology and the bible thoroughly to point out where this person is wrong. Normally it wouldn't matter but he is published on mainstream websites.

Thank you

Response #11: 

Good to make your acquaintance. There is a plethora of this sort of end-times calculation essays out there, on the internet and in print. They all look pretty much like this. They all make use of any number of "historical dates" and extra-biblical prophecies, with liberal doses of quotations from scripture (which are never fully explained). In fact, however, there are no un-fulfilled prophecies until the Tribulation begins (so that the date of the foundation of the state of Israel, just for example, has absolutely no prophetic import), and on the other hand there is no need (or point) in calculating any number of historical dates or numbers (in scripture or out) which were never meant to be used in such a way in order predict the future (since the Bible does give us a very simple schema of human history; see below).

So from a "debunking" point of view, I would hope that any serious Christian who is pursuing spiritual growth in Jesus Christ through reading, studying, believing and applying the scripture (admittedly, a very small percentage of those who call themselves Christians today) would understand prima facie that the adding together of historical dates in some math equation is not a biblically authorized thing to do (not to mention that it makes no common sense to do so either).

This would be my main approach to debunking with Christian friends:

Best wishes for your continued efforts on behalf of the truth of Jesus Christ.

Bob Luginbill

Question #12:  

Thank you for responding and I could see you would conclude this is an end times view. But first of all this is not an end times view and second there is nothing anywhere in history that makes this point, that is the Jews could not have arrived in Israel in 1948 by chance occurrence.

I am pretty sure Gurney is correct, the dome of the rock is the abomination of desolation. Two Dallas Theological Seminary Professors have confirmed that fact.

I would ask you to reread the piece again. This is not something that can be dismissed out of hand. Either God or Satan is behind getting the Jews to Israel in exactly 1948. It makes no sense that God would kill 70 million people just to get them to Israel in 1948. It makes more sense it was Satan as the essay states. I realize that is a problem for Christianity since Christian Zionists believe the Modern State of Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophesy, therefore I could Satan be responsible for a pivotal event for Jews and Christians.. the messiahs return.

Again with all due respect this is not something you can put in the category of a blog or internet nonsense. Singer's article is published on sites that an editor has to review the material and decide whether the site would be embarrassed if they published the content.

Pakistan Daily, The Peoples Voice, Disinfo are respected websites that do their homework.

Thanks again for your help,

From the Article:

Response #12:    

The abomination of desolation is an idol which antichrist (or more specifically his false prophet) will set up outside the third temple. As the Dome is a building, not an idol, and as the third temple has yet to be erected, and as antichrist has not yet acceded to power, there is no need to go further in order to "debunk" this particular view. For scripture very specifically attributes the erection of the idol to the beast (Dan.11:31). And it is the erection of the idol which occasions the flight from Jerusalem (Mk.13:14), whereas if the Dome were the idol then the flight would have occurred centuries ago. If interested, you can find out more about the biblical view of the abomination and its connection to antichrist's tribulational religion at the following link: The Abomination of Desolation (in Coming Tribulation part 3B: Antichrist and his Kingdom).

Yours in Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #13: 

Thank you again. But I am afraid you missed the point of Singer's article. It doesn't matter if 688 A.D. is or is not the abomination of desolation (which a ten year world wide expert, Ian Gurney argues persuasively it is), what matters is there appears to be a satanic purpose for . . .

Mr. Gurney did not consider SINGER's conclusion that:

I think it is important to understand the difference between what God anticipated and whose plan it was to Get the JEWS to the Israel, not in 1946 or 1950 but in 1948.

Let me know how I can donate to your ministry.

Response #14: 

I remain a bit perplexed. It is certainly the case that everything which happens does so in accordance with God's plan (there is no such thing as "chance"). Since God uses all events in history to His own purposes, the answer to your question depends upon your point of view. To take an example, Satan's tormenting of Paul with the "thorn in the flesh" (2Cor.12) was certainly "evil" in that was of the devil and meant to hinder the great apostle. However we would be remiss not recognize that it had, much to the devil's discomfiture, positive effects instead, leading Paul to a deeper relationship with the Lord without he would not have attained the same depth of spiritual insight (cf. v.10: "when I am weak, then I am strong"). To interpret your issue in the same light, even if it were true that the devil had some plan regarding 1948, that would not mean that God is not using the secular return of unbelieving Jews to the land to further His plan, for He most certainly is. During the Tribulation, Jerusalem will be the focal point of the ministry of the two witnesses, Moses and Elijah, and the place of the third temple (see the link: "The Two Witnesses"). It is hard to see how these events (and very many more besides) could possibly take place without some prior return to the land of a large number of Jewish people.

Perhaps that is why I am largely unconcerned about things such as Messrs. Gurney and Singer relate. God has all these matters in hand. We are certainly to be concerned about end times events, but everything we need to know on this score is contained in the Bible (and as I have said repeatedly it is for this reason that scripture in my exclusive focus in such things). Indeed, since there is no spiritual way of discerning the specifics of the events and issues about which you ask, speculation has the possibility of doing more harm than good. At the very least, it tends to distract believers from what is really important: what scripture has to say about the coming Tribulation. That is particularly true when viewed in light of the Great Apostasy (see the link), the predicted falling away from the faith of fully one third of actual Christians through the deceptions of antichrist.

So when you say "I think it is important to understand the difference between what God anticipated and whose plan it was . . .", on the one hand I am not sure that it does matter (as long as we really are paying attention to the Bible), and on the other hand, I know of no way of dis-aggregating the two entirely. For even if it could be "proved" that the devil had a hand in a small or great way in past historical developments (a difficult thing to do given that we are dealing with events of which scripture makes no comment), that does not mean that God was not using him to do His own bidding (please see the link: God's Employment of Evil Spirits):

In Jesus our Lord, whose victory we await.

Bob L.

Question #15:  

So am I, perplexed that is. You are admitting:

It was either God or Satan that got the Jews to Israel. Singer's hypothesis that there was a satanic purpose you have not discredited. But on the other hand you can't or won't speculate on what that satanic or godly purpose that would be. You claim "since there is no spiritual way of discerning the specifics of the events" in this case the Jews arriving in Israel in 1948 is laid out and it's importance discussed in detail in the Bible. Either God got them there or Satan did. I am sorry but that question is valid. Singers argument it was Satan is valid. If you want to argue God was behind killing 70 million people to get them there in 1948 instead of 1950, go ahead, but I think you will find a problem with that assertion. This is important and needs to be answered. If you cannot do it, I will understand.

Response #15:    

As a Bible teacher, I try to shy away from speculation. There is no way to tell whether or not 1948 was part of some deliberate satanic plan, therefore no refutation of assertions to the contrary is necessary. Everyone is free to speculate, but surmising what hand the devil may or may not have had in a particular historical event is a far cry from biblical evidence or scriptural commentary. Your statement which I take to be a part of Singer's thesis that "the Jews arriving in Israel in 1948 is laid out and it's importance discussed in detail in the Bible" cannot be correct since this event is not described in the Bible at all. All of the "return" passages are millennial, and those end times passages which assume Jews living in the land during the Tribulation (e.g., Ezek.38-39) say nothing about the prior return (let alone mentioning dates). So if it is a question of speculation, that is fine as long as it is labeled as such. But if anyone is saying something to the effect that the Bible discusses or predicts the foundation of the Jewish state in 1948, that is simply not true.

Regardless of any other consideration, we have to look to the scriptures as our guide for faith and practice in all things.

In Jesus our Lord,

Bob L.

Ichthys Home