Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

Subject: Hillbilly Author: Connie [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 11:10:11 02/28/10 Sun Joel Richardson has produced two new videos "The Islamic Antichrist, Parts I and II." This is some of what he claims: "The Bible abounds with proofs that the Antichrist's empire will consist only of nations that are, today, Islamic," says Richardson. "Despite the numerous prevailing arguments for the emergence of a revived European Roman empire as the Antichrist's power base, the specific nations the Bible identifies as comprising his empire are today all Muslim." Richardson believes the key error of many previous prophecy scholars involves the misinterpretation of a prediction by Daniel to Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel describes the rise and fall of empires of the future, leading to the endtimes. Western Christians have viewed one of those empires as Rome, when, claims Richardson, Rome never actually conquered Babylon and was thus disqualified as a possibility. It had to be another empire that rose and fell and rose again that would lead to rule of this "man of sin," described in the Bible. That empire, he says, is the Islamic Empire, which did conquer Babylon and, in fact, rules over it even today. Many evangelical Christians believe the Bible predicts a charismatic ruler, the Antichrist, will arise in the last days, before the return of Jesus. The Quran also predicts that a man, called the Mahdi, will rise up to lead the nations, pledging to usher in an era of peace. Richardson makes the case these two men are, in fact, one in the same. It makes a lot of sense to me but it's something I had never heard before. I don't intend to buy the videos but am curious as to whether or not you agree with him. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: Connie, Author: Hillbilly [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:37:01 02/28/10 Sun We are in close agreement but this statement: "Western Christians have viewed one of those empires as Rome, when, claims Richardson, Rome never actually conquered Babylon and was thus disqualified as a possibility." is to me in error. Babylon did not have to be conquered by all the nations mentioned and as I have tried to point out in the studies on Daniel, each of these nations continued even after being subjected. These verses here show that Rome had to be one of the nations: Daniel 9:25-26 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. The ones who destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 A.D. was Rome and it was Rome who actually crucified Jesus. It may have been at the insistence of the Jews but it was Rome who carried out the deed. While I have been teaching the probability of the Islamic faith being connected to the anti-Christ we must also remember the Islamic Religion did not exist as such until well after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.