BIBLICAL PROPHECY TODAY NETWORK
Biblical Prophecy Today Biblical Prophecy Today Biblical Prophecy Today Biblical Prophecy Today
Every day We Post Perspectives in Prophecy
(BiblicalProphecyToday@gmail.com)
(google: "Prophecy Today Q&A" or "Biblical Prophecy Today")
"Articulating Prophecy Biblically"
Prophecy Article Today
"Answering Questions in Prophecy Biblically"
|
Yes! Jesus is Coming!
BIBLICAL PROPHECY TODAY NETWORK
Biblical Prophecy Today Biblical Prophecy Today Biblical Prophecy Today Biblical Prophecy Today
BIBLICAL PROPHECY TODAY with JACK KELLEY
Every day We Post Perspectives in Prophecy
(BiblicalProphecyToday@gmail.com)
(google: "Prophecy Today Q&A" or "Biblical Prophecy Today")
"Articulating Prophecy Biblically"
Prophecy Today Q & A
"Answering the Questions in Prophecy Biblically"
Jack Kelley
Q. I have run into a number of people lately that are pushing an anti-Zionist agenda, but they say they are not anti-Judiasm or anti-Jews. They even go as far as to say Zionists are the One World Order. I cannot find any scripture that suggests we should be anti- Zionists. Am I missing something about this?
A. The Zionist movement supports the right of the Jewish people to return to their homeland and maintain Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. This is consistent with God’s commitment to Abraham that his descendants (through Isaac and Jacob) would be given the Promised Land as an everlasting possession (Genesis 17:7-8). Being an anti-Zionist puts one in opposition to God’s promise to Abraham.
|
Yes! Jesus is Coming!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGZVohQHf-Q&feature=player_embedded
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCTuiugo7mU
|
BIBLICAL PROPHECY TODAY NETWORK
Biblical Prophecy Today Biblical Prophecy Today Biblical Prophecy Today Biblical Prophecy Today
BIBLICAL PROPHECY TODAY with JACK KELLEY
Every day We Post Perspectives in Prophecy
(BiblicalProphecyToday@gmail.com)
(google: "Prophecy Today Q&A" or "Biblical Prophecy Today")
"Articulating Prophecy Biblically"
Prophecy Today Q & A
"Answering the Questions in Prophecy Biblically"
Jack Kelley
Q. Somebody asked me a question and I didn’t know what to answer, I hope you can help me out. We were talking about 1 Thessalonians 5. In verse 6, referring to the 2nd. Coming, Paul includes himself in the verse like he is going to be waiting for the Lord also. But doesn’t he suppose that he and the church will be in the presence of God by then? I get the impression that Paul or any other writer in the Bible talk as if they will be on earth at the second coming.
A. Paul’s use of the phrase “Day of the Lord” in 1 Thes. 5:2 refers to the Great Tribulation, not to the 2nd Coming. Verse 3 helps make that clear when he says the world will be caught by surprise and won’t escape the judgment. All this is in the 3rd person.
Then in verse 4 he switched to the 2nd person to differentiate the Church from the world, saying we shouldn’t be surprised to see this coming because we should be awake and alert, as if watching for signs of it. And in verses 9-11 he confirmed that we’re not appointed to suffer wrath because the Lord died for us, and we should encourage one another.
This is consistent with his earlier promises in the letter that Jesus will rescue us out of the time and place of the coming wrath (1 Thes. 1:10), his prayer that we’ll be in the presence of God when the Lord returns to Earth at the 2nd Coming (1 Thes. 3:13) and that the Lord will catch us up to be with Him (1 Thes. 4:16-17).
|
Yes! Jesus is Coming!
BIBLICAL PROPHECY TODAY NETWORK
Biblical Prophecy Today Biblical Prophecy Today Biblical Prophecy Today Biblical Prophecy Today
BIBLICAL PROPHECY TODAY with KOINONIA HOUSE
Every day We Post Perspectives in Prophecy
(BiblicalProphecyToday@gmail.com)
(google: "Biblical Prophecy Today")
"Articulating Prophecy Biblically"
Prophecy Article Today
"Answering the Questions in Prophecy Biblically"
THE GRAND CANYON FORMATION - ALTERNATE THEORIES - (Print)
The Grand Canyon is a geological wonder, a vast chasm stretching 277 miles west to east through northern Arizona. The canyon offers one of the best geological cross sections in the world, with nearly 30 distinct layers found from the bottom to the top; its mesas, buttes, colorful slopes and spires illustrate the geological story of the great American southwest. School children are fed a simple tale about how the canyon was formed, but as any honest geologist will admit, nobody knows exactly how it got there.
The true cause of the Grand Canyon is still hotly debated among geologists, and all recognize there's no solid answer. There are too many missing pieces. The basic park ranger explanation is that the Colorado Plateau - 130,000 square miles covering northern Arizona, southern and eastern Utah, western Colorado and northwestern New Mexico - began to rise up 50-70 million years ago, causing the existing Colorado River to downcut. After millions of years of steady uplift, the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon. The higher the plateau rose, pushed upward by magma from deep in the earth, the more powerful the erosional forces of the river proved to be.
The Colorado River was tamed a great deal when the Glen Canyon Dam was finished in 1966. The dam controls the flow of the river now. The Colorado's flashfloods once carried boulders the size of VW Buses, and it transported an estimated 160 million tons of sediment every year, scouring the canyon bottom. Still, many people consider the vast expanse of the Grand Canyon and despise the Colorado as an underfit river, one that could not have possibly hauled out all the necessary sediment.
A Few Puzzles:
The simple explanation does have serious geological issues. The Colorado River flows into the Gulf of California – the Sea of Cortez - which contains sediments from geologically young Pliocene layers - not older layers. It appears that the eastern part of the Grand Canyon is much older than the western part of the Grand Canyon, but nobody knows exactly what happened.
The western end of the canyon is fairly young. Local sediments come from the Basin and Range area to the west of the Canyon and are from Miocene layers. No river could have carved through there until after the Miocene. There's also no evidence that an older Colorado River ran through the Grand Wash Cliffs at the western end of the canyon. There is therefore an upper Colorado River system to the east that did not originally continue west of the Colorado Plateau.
Alternate Theories:
The first thought, of course, is that the deposits were carried away by a different route. Perhaps the canyon was carved by a river that flowed down through Marble Canyon through what is now the Little Colorado River, draining into the Rio Grande. According to the theory, another small but steep and vigorous river rushed westward across the Basin and Range. It moved eastward by headward erosion until it ran into the upper Colorado. It "captured" the Colorado , caveman style, and the two married and carved the Grand Canyon in 4-6 million years, dumping into the Sea of Cortez like today.
There's a problem there, though. The Continental Divide would have prevented the Little Colorado River from reaching the Rio Grande, and the sediment evidence is not there.
Some argue that the old river flowed south at Peach Springs Canyon, until the river burst through whatever blocked the way to the western part of the Grand Canyon. Some argue that the Colorado Plateau tipped one way and then the other as it rose so that the Colorado River flowed in the opposite direction. Some argue the river flowed underground, or flowed northwest, draining into lakes in Nevada and Utah.
The deposits to prove these drainage systems haven't been found. That's part of the problem; there is a lot of data that is just plain missing.
A Breached Dam:
According to one theory, two major lakes formed in the so-called Bidahochi Formation to the east of the current day Grand Canyon. The Colorado River overflowed the basins of the Colorado Rockies, filling the vast Hopi Lake and Grand Lake to the east. When the natural dam holding back the lakes broke, they gushed down, tearing out the soft limestone and sandstone layers of the Grand Canyon. With a rupture in the Kaibab Upwarp, the Colorado River changed course and followed the fissure down through what is now the western end of the canyon and south into the Gulf of California. In other words, the Colorado did not really cause the Grand Canyon at all, it merely followed the easiest path down to the Sea of Cortez after the Canyon had been formed.;
The breached dam theory has an interesting bit of support from the legends of the local tribes. More than 500 Native American sites in the Grand Canyon park indicate that significant populations lived in the vicinity throughout history. In his video Grand Canyon, part of the Great National Parks series, Dan Goldblatt refers to a Navajo legend about the formation of Grand Canyon. In the full story, it rained in the land for many days. It rained so much that waters rose high over the tops of the mountains. After the rain stopped, whatever was holding back the waters broke, and the waters rushed down and carved out the canyon.
Young Earth geologists like Steve Austin believe that these great lakes were leftover from the Flood of Noah. When the natural dam that held them broke, the waters ripped through the Kaibab Plateau with a fury. If the lakes were quite large - three times the size of Lake Michigan, by some estimates - the erosion would not have had to take the millions of years that geologists would have expected.
In the end, the scientists will keep battling it out. Only God knows exactly how that fantastic crevasse in the earth was formed, but every bit of information adds to the tremendous fun of figuring out the mystery.
Related Links:
• The Breached Dam Theory - Advanced Creationism
TORNADOES, SOCIALISM, AND CLIMATE CHANGE - (Print)
Animal rights activists picketed the elephant rides at the San Diego County Fair in Del Mar on Sunday because they said the elephants were being mistreated. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Animal Defenders International (ADI) point to a video of the elephants' being beaten, hooked with bull hooks and shocked. The elephants' owners responded that they themselves are animal activists, and they care about the ethical treatment of their elephants. Elephant co-owner Kari Johnson said the activists "cut the film to take everything out of context and make it look far worse." She said, "PETA doesn't know anything about the treatment of elephants. They just don't want animals in the hands of people at all."
Save the animals. Save the earth. Somewhere in the middle of it there may be somebody who wants to save the people. We'd hope.
NASA's website offers of a variety of charts showing basic indicators of climate change. We see rising carbon dioxide levels (100 parts per million since 1950), rising surface temperature levels (.9oC since 1880), shrinking arctic sea ice levels (2 million square km since 1979), and rising sea water levels (20 cm over 130 years). Climate change aficionados trumpet the need to make new laws to clamp down on carbon dioxide emissions, and those who balk and say, "the temperature has risen one degree!" are eviscerated in the media.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently released data that shows a dip in carbon dioxide emissions about the time of the 2008 financial crisis. Since then, though, carbon dioxide levels have again risen, and the 2010 CO2 concentrations are higher than ever before. (Apparently, the global economy has improved.) The colder winters are blamed on climate change. The tornadoes are blamed on climate change. The humidity on the east coast is blamed on the Gulf of Mexico, which has experienced climate change.
Despite the haranguing of global warming zealots, climate change talks got off to a sluggish start in Bonn, Germany on June 6. The next Conference of the Parties (COP) in Durban, South Africa is this December, and the two weeks of talks in Bonn are just a precursor.
Discussions about how to deal with climate change just do not inspire great excitement. The countries that are the worst polluters don't want to do anything about it, because changing direction would mean hurting their industries. Carbon dioxide levels may be up, but that doesn't mean that anybody's economy is stable.
Saving the earth has long been the religion of certain groups of people. They approach the salvation of the planet with the relish of a Pentecostal, insisting that if something is not done about carbon dioxide emissions now, we are all going to hell in a handbasket.
Justine McGill wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald on June 10: "If the message of climate change is that we are sinners, responsible for a massive crime against humanity and the environment, then it is little wonder that some people react by rejecting climate change as fiction, and others become fervent in declaring their exemplary willingness to make personally purifying sacrifices to atone for it."
The green movement might get along faster if legislators put aside the need to use the environment as a means to gain control of the world. It is a perfect excuse for shackles. We all need to live on this planet; there aren't any other ones ready to move to. We are all culpable for the destruction that we cause. However, as President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus warned "environmentalism with its 'Earth First' arguments represents 'Leviathan Two' [and is a] menace which may become even more dangerous than old socialism."
Mr. Klaus noted that socialistic environmentalists support "an old doctrine which is based on the wrong conclusion that the more complex the world is, the more government intervention, regulation and control [is required]."
Ed Feulner writes in The Washington Times, "Indeed, 'green' has become the new red."
We all want to avoid massive state control in the name of the environment. We want to avoid the treatment of human beings as parasites who have no real business existing on the planet.
At the same time, the very first job that God gave to humankind was to take care of a Garden. God told Adam to manage things, and if God watches every sparrow that falls (Matt 10:29), it is likely He did not intend for Adam to destroy everything he touched. We do need to manage things well.
Deforestation of the rain forests really is a problem; once the trees are gone they don't grow back. The high rainfall in the Amazon region leaches all the nutrients out of the soil, quickly making the ground useless for crops and leading to desertification. That's a problem. As we noted last week, water use is a problem. We need to manage our water resources wisely, or we're going to be in trouble. It's something we can all pay attention to without having to be strong-armed by a global government system.
The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday announced that Hecla Mining Co., of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, will have to pay $263.4 million plus interest as part of the cleanup of the millions of tons of toxic mining wastes that were released into the South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River in the Silver Valley over the years. The lawsuit has been going on since 1991. Hecla wasn't the only culprit. The EPA has been trying to clean up the Silver Valley since the 1980s, and anybody who drives through that part of Idaho understands why. The world's longest gondola climbs up to the Silver Mountain Ski Resort over Kellogg, Idaho, and the first part of the journey sweeps over what has been the most ugly, brown, dead valley you'd ever want to see. Since several of the mines and the smelter near Kellogg shut down, the air has cleared and trees have finally started to grow back on the barren mountainsides. That's good.
There needs to be some balance. We do not want the environment to become our god or an excuse for socialistic control. However, we need to be wise about our stewardship of resources; we want to have healthy forests and clean air and water to drink in a hundred years. We need to make wise management choices, caring for both humans and elephants. The needs of ravens do not supersede everything else, but God does care about them too (Luke 12:24).
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." - Rev 4:11
Related Links:
• Climate Change Indicators - NASA
ISRAEL VS. THE BULLIES - (Print)
It appears that President Barack Obama did not mean what he said in his speech at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on May 22. That is, he didn't mean any of the things he said on Israel's behalf. In that speech, for instance, Obama had declared that Israel could not be expected to negotiate with Hamas until Hamas decided to give up its goal to destroy Israel.
Basic things.
Now, the White House is pressuring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to go to the bargaining table with Israel's enemies, as they are, to keep the UN from declaring a Palestinian state in the fall. And yes, Obama still wants Netanyahu to agree to use the 1967 borders as a starting point.
Obama's proposal in his May 19th speech had suggested that Israel and a Palestinian state should exist side by side based on the 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps. The issues of Jerusalem and refugees were not the immediate concern and would be addressed later.
The Palestinians have agreed to return to the peace table on the basis of Obama's proposal, according to Palestinian envoy Saeb Erekat. And why not? The US moved a lot of negotiation ground in their favor.
Netanyahu, though, flatly rejected the idea that Israel should accept the 1967 borders as a basis for negotiations, and the Obama administration and much of Europe have been miffed ever since.
According to an inside Israeli source, the US is frustrated with Netanyahu's stand. On Friday, The US National Security Council's Middle East head, Steve Simon, told American Jewish leaders that the US expected a reply from Netanyahu in one month regarding the Obama Administration's proposal to restart talks. One European diplomat sided with the US saying, "We want to hear Netanyahu say he's willing to negotiate on the basis of Obama's speech and that he'll discuss borders based on the 1967 lines with land swaps."
The whole thing is ridiculous. The Palestinians are in no position to start talks. Fatah is still in a unity government with Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist group that would like nothing better than to beat Israel to death with a fiery cosmic cricket bat. After Hamas won parliamentary elections in 2006, the Quartet (the US, Russia, the European Union and the UN) gave Hamas three conditions to be allowed to be a part of the game; recognizing Israel, renouncing terrorism and accepting past peace accords. Hamas has done none of the above, and Israel therefore has no reasonable negotiating partner. With whom do Steve Simon and these European diplomats expect Israel to drink tea and chat?
According to Obama's own words less than a month ago, Israel should not be expected to enter into peace talks right now. Obama told AIPAC on May 22 that Israel could not be expected to negotiate with Hamas if Hamas did not even recognize Israel's right to exist. In his speech, Obama said, "We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace, including recognizing Israel's right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements."
Hamas not improved in the past three weeks, and now Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah have turned their backs on the Oslo Accords. In a sudden reverse, the Obama Administration appears to be pressuring Israel to sit down with people who won't stick to past agreements and don't recognize Israel's right to exist. The President is in fact handing the Palestinians a huge gift by making the 1967 borders the beginning ground for negotiations on the weak argument that it's necessary in order to stop the UN from declaring a Palestinian state this fall.
Did the United States lose veto power in the UN? Did we miss that somehow?
Jennifer Rubin quoted a GOP advisor in The Washington Post as saying, "If the administration really wanted to, it could pressure the Quartet to formally oppose the Palestinians' unilateral move at the U.N. and nip the whole issue in the bud in a long weekend. Clearly, they would rather use this situation to box Prime Minister Netanyahu into a false choice between unilateral statehood and '67 borders. The Congress will reject this false choice and so should the PM."
In the meanwhile, Netanyahu recently returned from a visit to Rome, where Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi had already agreed to stand with Israel against any UN resolution to create a Palestinian state by fiat. At a news conference, Netanyahu spoke directly to the real issue - the UN resolution. He pointed out that such a move by the UN would be counterproductive.
"First, it would violate the agreements between the Palestinians and Israel but it would also harden the Palestinian position because if the UN General Assembly adopts the Palestinian positions in advance of negotiations why should they negotiate?" Netanyahu said.
"Peace will only come from negotiations. It will be a negotiated peace. It cannot be imposed from the outside, not by any power and certainly not by one-sided UN resolutions," he said.
Netanyahu's office said it was "unaware of any American pressure or ultimatum."
The US and Europe may be miffed, but Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing a good job of standing his ground. He has some bullies to stand up to, and he needs to continue to do so solidly and wisely. We pray that the God of Israel will continue to protect him and direct him and give him true wisdom. We pray the Holy Spirit will give the leaders of Israel direction and guidance as they navigate the dirty waters of international politics.
Related Links:
• Netanyahu Under Pressure to Accept Obama's Peace Plan - Palestine News Network
|
Yes! Jesus is Coming!
