brace yourself for the tribulation

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's coming.  The economic crises we're experiencing is sure to develop into the great tribulation spoken of in the prophetic scriptures.  The ingrediants, as well as the timing is all in place.   Question is, Are you ready for it? The greater question however is, Are you ready for the Coming of the Lord after that tribulation?

Daniel 12:1 describes that tribulation as "a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time", meaning that, It will be a time of trouble such as never was since America became a nation.

People, we Americans an't seen nothing yet!!  Like birth pangs, our way of life, caused by the economic crisis, is growing worse and worse.
When China and others stops bailing out America, then America will have to stop bailing out her people.  And thus shall come to pass the prophecy in Dan.11:45 which says,

"And he (America) shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

Yes, the tribulation is coming.  But I don't agree with your identification of America.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Of course you don't believe it's America!  This wicked generation doesn't believe ANYTHING that's prophecied about America in the scriptures.

The nation that experiences the tribulation of which Daniel spoke, is the same nation of which John spoke in Revelation 18.

"Babylon the great is fallen..."

Oh, I actually lean towards the theory that America is the Babylon of Revelation.  I started coming to that conclusion a several years ago on my own and after goggling it I was surprised to find many who also lean in that direction.

But I do NOT agree that Daniel is speaking of America in the verses you quoted, rather I believe he is speaking of the AntiChrist's reign in Jerusalem.  Nor do I believe the tribulation will be limited to America, but will be felt worldwide.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The inevitable battle that comes up when two people forget to take their medication.

Oh, nevermind that business about the "thief in the night" or the fact that Jesus, the Son, doesn't even know when this time will come.  Oh, no.  I have it all figured out.  Can't you read the signs?  I see the signs.

Did I give a time for Jesus' return?  No.

And since Jesus stated explicit signs of return in the Olivet (sp?) Discourse and said "when you see these things happening, lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near", AND since in that same discourse he stated "no one knows that day or hour"...doesn't it seem we should be able to reconcile those two facts:

1) we will be able to discern the signs when his return draws near
2) we won't know the day or hour

Is it not reasonable that we WILL be able to tell when his coming is near but that we will NOT be able to pinpoint his return on a calendar with any accuracy?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Did I give a time for Jesus' return?  No.

And since Jesus stated explicit signs of return in the Olivet (sp?) Discourse and said "when you see these things happening, lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near", AND since in that same discourse he stated "no one knows that day or hour"...doesn't it seem we should be able to reconcile those two facts:

1) we will be able to discern the signs when his return draws near
2) we won't know the day or hour

Is it not reasonable that we WILL be able to tell when his coming is near but that we will NOT be able to pinpoint his return on a calendar with any accuracy?

Of course, unlike the other prophets of doom that seem to come up every 3rd generation, you are correct.

How does my statement that the "tribulation is coming" equate to those you're referring to?  I've given no definitive timeline, rather I have simply stated that if the tribulation is going to occur soon (say, within the next 20 years), then America is probably Revelation's Babylon because at the present time America best matches her description.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Here is a chart to help you out, jmf.  You see the Pope as the Beast?  And the Pope riding the Beast?  Huh... that's kinda confusing.  Which is it?

please point to a single post of mine over my 7+ years on this forum, where I ever said that I hold to the belief that the Pope is the Beast or that the Pope is riding the Beast.  If you would take the time to search for my use of the word "pope" on this forum, you'll find that my comments have been extremely neutral.

Better yet, why do you interpret my view that the Tribulation could begin within the next 20 years as being anti-Catholic?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Oh, I actually lean towards the theory that America is the Babylon of Revelation.  I started coming to that conclusion a several years ago on my own and after goggling it I was surprised to find many who also lean in that direction.

But I do NOT agree that Daniel is speaking of America in the verses you quoted, rather I believe he is speaking of the AntiChrist's reign in Jerusalem.  Nor do I believe the tribulation will be limited to America, but will be felt worldwide.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why do you not believe that DANIEL was speaking of America?  Both he and John saw in their visions the very same end-time beast kingdom/nation!
Daniel described that nation as that of "a little horn" that came out of the European kingdom, and waxed exceeding great", while John described it as "Babylon the great".

we've already been through this several months back.  And what I stated then is exactly what I am going to tell you now: I do NOT believe Babylon is the same entity as the Beast.  Babylon is riding the Beast, but Babylon is NOT the Beast.  Babylon will be hated by the Beast and destroyed by the Beast's authority.

So, basically, there is a world power (Babylon, the whore) who is subduing (riding) the Beast.  In order for the Beast to do what it wants to do (destroy the nation of Israel), it must destoy the world power (Babylon) that is controlling (riding) it.

That interpretation is NOT based on current events, rather it is based on what is pictured in the scripture.  However, my assignment of the identity of Babylon to America IS based upon current events because the attributes of Babylon listed in the bible fit almost EXACTLY the desription of America EXCEPT for one area: the blood of the saints was found in Babylon.  In time, even that may become a reality in America.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

LOL, he isn't even denying it. So when is the next Klan meeting? Have you guys decided whose lawn you'll burn a cross on next?

Has the MAN OF LAWLESSNESS and the NAACP decided yet which will be the next white establishment to extort?, or which white individual to shake down for more money?

not even sure I should ask this question, but since Acts 17:26 says, "26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."...why are you focused on the black man?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

LOL, he isn't even denying it. So when is the next Klan meeting? Have you guys decided whose lawn you'll burn a cross on next?

Has the MAN OF LAWLESSNESS and the NAACP decided yet which will be the next white establishment to extort?, or which white individual to shake down for more money?

not even sure I should ask this question, but since Acts 17:26 says, "26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."...why are you focused on the black man?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

>>>From one man he made every nation of men...<<<

That is NOT what Acts 17:26 says in the King James Authorized version of the Bible.

It says "(God) hath made of one blood (of human blood) all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation."

All races of man DID NOT spring from Adam and Eve.  GOD created on the 6th day, the different races, ie, the black man of Africa, the yellow man of the Orient, the Indians of India, etc.

On the 7th day God rested. 
Afterwards, He created the Adamic CAUCASIAN man of whom God's chosen people (the house of Israel) descended, AND of whom God's Son was born.

I knew I should not have asked that question

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All races of man DID NOT spring from Adam and Eve.  GOD created on the 6th day, the different races, ie, the black man of Africa, the yellow man of the Orient, the Indians of India, etc.

On the 7th day God rested. 
Afterwards, He created the Adamic CAUCASIAN man of whom God's chosen people (the house of Israel) descended, AND of whom God's Son was born.

Rom 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (KJV)

so, it was the white Adam that sinned, but the black, yellow, and Indian Adams didn't sin?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All races of man DID NOT spring from Adam and Eve.  GOD created on the 6th day, the different races, ie, the black man of Africa, the yellow man of the Orient, the Indians of India, etc.

On the 7th day God rested. 
Afterwards, He created the Adamic CAUCASIAN man of whom God's chosen people (the house of Israel) descended, AND of whom God's Son was born.

Rom 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (KJV)

so, it was the white Adam that sinned, but the black, yellow, and Indian Adams didn't sin?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All races of man DID NOT spring from Adam and Eve.  GOD created on the 6th day, the different races, ie, the black man of Africa, the yellow man of the Orient, the Indians of India, etc.

On the 7th day God rested. 
Afterwards, He created the Adamic CAUCASIAN man of whom God's chosen people (the house of Israel) descended, AND of whom God's Son was born.

Rom 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (KJV)

so, it was the white Adam that sinned, but the black, yellow, and Indian Adams didn't sin?

As I stated before, God created the other races of man BEFORE he created the Adamic/caucasian man.

With that, you need to read the following verses 13 and 14 of Romans 5.

Rom 5:13For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


That doesn't answer the question I poised to you:

so, it was the white Adam that sinned, but the black, yellow, and Indian Adams didn't sin?

How did sin get imputed to blacks if the white Adam sinned...sounds like you're saying the White Man messed everything up.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All races of man DID NOT spring from Adam and Eve.  GOD created on the 6th day, the different races, ie, the black man of Africa, the yellow man of the Orient, the Indians of India, etc.

On the 7th day God rested. 
Afterwards, He created the Adamic CAUCASIAN man of whom God's chosen people (the house of Israel) descended, AND of whom God's Son was born.

Rom 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (KJV)

so, it was the white Adam that sinned, but the black, yellow, and Indian Adams didn't sin?

As I stated before, God created the other races of man BEFORE he created the Adamic/caucasian man.

With that, you need to read the following verses 13 and 14 of Romans 5.

Rom 5:13For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


That doesn't answer the question I poised to you:

so, it was the white Adam that sinned, but the black, yellow, and Indian Adams didn't sin?

How did sin get imputed to blacks if the white Adam sinned...sounds like you're saying the White Man messed everything up.

As verse 13 says, Sin was in the world when God created the Adamic/caucasian man, and those other races were committing sin, BUT those other races of people were not governed by the law until Adam and the law was enacted.

Rom 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

"from Adam to Moses" means everyone in the family tree of Adam up to the Law of Moses, not people outside of the Adam's family tree.  And it explicitly states that sin entered the world through ONE MAN...so you're theory of stating that sin was in the world prior to WhiteBoyAdam is in total contradiction.

And there was no 8th day of Creation, in fact, the 7th day never even had an evening for it was an eternal rest.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Go ahead and make all the lame arguments you like

the fact that there was no 8th day and the fact that the 7th "day" was eternal, is anything but lame.  And it totally refutes your idea that God created WhiteAdam after the 7th day. 

Like every false doctrine, no matter how well thought out, it doesn't mesh with scripture.

---

, but you cannot dispute the fact that Adam fathered the people of God, ie, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob and the house of Israel.  These were all people of caucasian descent, and the ancestors of todays European/caucasians.

Adam fathered everyone.

---

Cain on the other hand is not even listed in Adam's progenity.

huh?  then who was the father of Cain if not Adam?

Gen 4:1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain

---

There were no laws governing sin before Adam.  It was ADAM, the CAUCASIAN race of man of whom God gave the first commandment when He said, "Thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
 

the "law" Paul is referring to in Rom 5:12-14 is the Law of Moses - "death reign from Adam to Moses".  Paul does mention the single commandment given to Adam, but that commandment did NOT apply after Adam for it only applied to the Garden - it was not in place after they were driven out of the Garden.

But Romans ch 5 is a tad too involved for this discussion.  We've have much more fundamental differences to discuss (see above).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are clearly two creation events in Genesis; In chapter 1, verse 27, and in chapter 2, verse 7.

... Compared to the African black man, and the yellow/Oriental man, the European/caucasian man is a relatively young race of man.  And it's because God created Adam, the caucasian man perhaps thousands of years after the 6th day creation of mankind.

no, Gen ch2 is simply filling in detail of Gen ch 1.  Any attempt to turn chapter two into another creation series won't mesh with scripture's own interpretation of Genesis in that God was finished creating by the 7th day:

Hebrews 4:3-4 "His work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: 'And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.'"

That's why there is no evening for the 7th day in Genesis - it was an eternal rest from creating this world.  And that eternal rest is the same rest promised to believers.

Any attempt to turn Gen 2 into another creation series is going to contradict scripture's own interpretation.

---

Oh, so after Adam and Eve disobeyed God and mated with the black race, God just did away with the commandment that they should not be fruitful with the black man, eh?   HAH!, I think not.   That commandment still stands today!  God never intended for his caucasian people to co-habit with the black man.  It is totally un-natural.

...Having said that, I'm finished with this thread except to say that, the tribulation is quickly coming upon America, and it's all because every single prophecy about America has been fulfilled.

I am sure you could go on to tell us how modern day Israelis are not true descendants of Jacob...and so on and so on...

But your doctrine doesn't mesh with scripture.  Rather it only serves to justify your own desires.  It is as transparent as those who attempt to use scripture to justify homosexuality, and the only ones who are deceived by it are those who are already deceived.

Tribulation may very well be coming to America, but not for the reasons you list.

BTW, what church do you go to?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

well done Smid.  I like the way you divide scripture.  Why haven't you and I ever discussed doctrine?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

well done Smid.  I like the way you divide scripture.  Why haven't you and I ever discussed doctrine?

Sure you like Smid's way of dividing the scriptures!, because his way is just like yours.
Nontheless, it's not GOD'S WAY.

Is that a fact?!  Then check out your statement below...

As I stated before, God created the other races of man BEFORE he created the Adamic/caucasian man.

You've basically been claiming that Adam wasn't the first man, but was created in Genesis ch2, and that the other races of men were previously created in Genesis ch1...but that is NOT how the bible interprets it:

1Cor 15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul."

Obviously, Paul thought "Adam" was "the first man".

---

So, your doctrine has two very major flaws:
1) God had finished all of creation by the 7th day, which was eternal (Heb 4:3-4)...therefore Genesis ch2 is NOT a separate creation but simply fills in the details of Genesis ch1.
2) Adam was the first man (1Cor 15:45)...therefore there were no races of men created prior to Adam.

Now, I ask you:  If your way of dividing the word is God's way, then why does Heb 4:3-4 and 1Cor 15:45 explicitly interpret the Genesis account differently than you do? 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dibble/Dead0man

What’s going on here?  Are you two competing for The Accidental Bible Interpreter Award, or something?  Hehe.

As for me, once again I find myself agreeing with the unbeliever’s interpretation of scripture.  Strange how that always seems to happen.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

1Cor 15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul, and the last Adam (Jesus Christ) was made a quickening spirit"

Quite the contrary!....Those scriptures say exactly what I'm saying. You just simply don't have the spiritual eyes to see it.

I see you saying that Adam was NOT the first man.  And I see Paul saying that Adam WAS the first man.

What you are saying and what Paul is saying are NOT the same.

And where in scripture does it say Adam was white?  And why wouldn't whites be the descendents of Japheth, and not Shem?  How on earth do you conclude that white are a product of Shem's descendents and not Japheth's?