Great Article, Bill!

I think you have hit the nail on the head! If Mr. Netanyahu fails to heed Jeremiah's warnings about smooth talk, he is high! But I think Mr. Netanyahu, is wise enough to know that the 2 state-solution would be a suicidal move on Y'israel's part.

The more and more distant that the U.S. becomes from Y'israel, will only serve to set the stage for Y'israel to have to turn back to YHWH. I also think, as I have discussed with you many times before, that when Y'israel hits Iran (provided the rebellion in Iran fails), it will be a chain reaction event, which will end up leading to the Psalm 83 event, followed in a year or so, by the Ezekiel 38-39. But if we are here to see the Psalm 83 event, things will be very exciting to say the least!

Blessings to all!

Maranatha_Mark

Dr. Reagan, Very Good Article;

There was a self-taught Christian Archaeologist by the name of Ron Wyatt, who thinks he found the Ark of the Covenant in a cavern under Golgotha, if I remember correctly back in the 80's. He claims to have found Noah's Ark, the area when Moses and the Y'israelis leaving Egypt crossed the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba, and the ruins of Sodom. Any way, his findings were very interesting, and there is video available on the web where he is explaining his findings and how he confirmed his findings. You can find a video account at this site: http://www.wyattmuseum.com/, and though I am not saying they are true, his dissertations are worth the time to watch, whether true or not. You can also see Ron's finding in a 51 minute video on YouTube.com at this link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVnkObzcHqM.

Anyway, hope you find it interesting. My take on The Ark of the Covenant is, without the Shekhinah Glory, it is just another very interest religious artifact. According to the scriptures the Shekhinah Glory was seen leaving when Solomon's Temple was burned, which I would assume means that since the Shekhinah Glory rested upon the Ark, that would indicate that the Shekhinah Glory no longer rest upon it.

Blessings to all!

Maranatha! Mark

I can't say that I know that you, Gramma, are guilty any such things, at least what I have read of late.

I can't say that pride drives me, but I have been defensive, for reasons I won't go into at this point, and I must say, I don't like what I am seeing coming from myself at times, and I grow weary of having to defend ever word I type.

There has definitely been a dramatic shift from the discussions we used to have here, only a month or so ago, and it has been somewhat negative. I will accept a certain amount of the blame, as I have stated before, I will stand for what I believe. Unfortunately, the more darts that are hurled my way, the more resolved in my defense, I become. I will aspire to resisted that reflex. I will try to just state what I am lead to state, and not worry about what anyone else has to say, right or wrong. There are many comments, that I have already refused to comment on, simply because there is no point in doing so.

So, I hope I can at least do my part in cleaning up the "Hostility" part. But please don't misconstrued my desire for truth to be protect and fostered, as a "spirit of Pride". I am proud of being a follower of Yeshua Hammashiach, and proud to be counted as one of YHWH's adopted children, but I am not always proud of my behavior or attitude. I have a great deal of knowledge, but in comparison to that which is contained within the word, I barely have a drop in a bucket.

I apologize Gramma, if my past comments have been disquieting and disconcerting in any way. However, it seems the more I try to avoid such things the enemy finds a way to trick me and drag me back into them. I will do my best to stick to commenting only on the articles in question, and leave the rest to more capable hands than mine.

Blessings to all!

Maranatha! Mark

Thanks Nathan, Great Article!

I guess those of us who are simple-minded will just lean on the literal interpretation of the Word. The Bible clearly says it is Babylon, and I believe that is what it means. One of the rules of studying the word (I am paraphrasing here): The word usually (not always), means what it states, unless otherwise noted at the beginning or end of the verse. I don't remember ever reading that the Anti-Christ's capital "Would be like Babylon" or any similar such syntax. But in all honesty, I don't worry about it, as I won't be around to see who is right and who is wrong on this one.

Blessings to all!

Maranatha! Mark

Excellent article, Brother Kinsella!

I already was aware of everything you said, but one thing you said was very refreshing, and I can't recall looking at it this way:

Jack Kinsella said:

"The unbelieving Gentiles have already had their chance and rejected it. Revelation Chapter 7 tells of 144,000 Jews who will be 'sealed' with the indwelling Holy Spirit. The Jews of Israel aren't saved during the Tribulation by the Temple practices or law. Zechariah 12:10 makes it clear that the Jews of Israel during the Tribulation are saved the same way we are - by grace and supplications (prayer)."

I knew that the Church age begin with the Jews rejecting the Messiah, Yeshua, but for some reason, I never put it together, that the Law dispensational age would resume, and the Church age would end, when the gentile rejected the Grace and Mercy of Yeshua's sacrifice, and it would be offered for a 2nd and final time to the Hebrew people! That's a very neat way of looking at it, and it makes perfect sense! At least to me it does. Once it was we Gentiles who benefited from the rejection of Yeshua Hammashiach, and how many of us have railed about how could anyone reject Yeshua Hammashiach as the Mashiach!?! But the Church age will end with the rapture of the Church (true believers) leaving only those Gentiles who have reject the Savior's offer of salvation, and it will be once again offered to YHWH's Chosen People! I love the symmetry in this!

Blessings and Kudos Brother Kinsella!

Maranatha! Mark

James, your stated belief is one of the 3 different theories on what the "Sons of God" means, however, the consensus is, that it is talking about "Fallen Angels" hence the need for Tartarus to imprison them. If you get down to the actual birth of Yeshua, Mary was female, but still carried on the bloodline of David. As for the fallen, all humans, including Seth was under the curse of Adam's sin, that includes David as well. The fact that Yeshua was conceived, (right Michael?) by the Holy Spirit causing the egg within Mary's womb to immaculately to start dividing as if it had a sperm introduced to it, means thats Yeshua had no mortal father, so if the man's blood line only, carried the "seed". But I am merely a novice, I am sure there are those here who can give you the actual low down on it.

That is what my feeble studies have lead me to believe. I hope it helps in some way or another.

Blessings to all!

Maranatha! Mark

That is fine, what ever you think is fine by me. I merely wanted to try and help you out, but there are those who are unteachable. But based on what you have stated in your comments here, I know you have a descent amount of confusion already. I trust the Holy Spirit will eventually help you straighten out your understanding of the Word and the time-line in the eschatology area.

Peace and blessings to all!

Maranatha! Mark

In these verses the "Wild Beast", "Owls", "dragons" "raven", "saytr" and in some translations (not represented above), "jackals" and "ostriches" are all referencing demons that are living in the burning ruins for Babylon and Bozrah. Could they be real owls, dragons, ravens, jackels, ostriches and saytr? Well, the last time I check none of the animals that bare these names today, could live in an environment of burning brimstone (sulfur) and pitch, which the fumes alone would not permit it. Most folks agree this is a reference to demons, but if they were in humanoid form, then why reference them as the various animals listed? I guess old Isaiah had Alzheimer, and got confused and couldn't think of the word, "demons" or "fallen angels". But hey, you are the expert here Michael, I am sure you will be able to explain this all way.

I have also seen, though at this time I can't recall where, the "messenger angels" have manifest themselves as a bird of prey. Of course, you could argue that Yeshua, the Angel of the Lord, isn't an angel at all, but He has appeared as a "burning bush". But I am sure these were just analogies used by Moses and other prophets to describe things that they didn't understand, right? Whatever you say is fine.

I have presented the scriptures I felt backed up my statements, and I have address my accuser directly. You folks can read and make up your mind for yourselves. I don't ask that you take my word for it, nor anyone else save for YHWH Himself. You don't have to agree with what I have written, but at least study and make your own decision as to what is right.

If you like to continue to make light of what I have posted, have a blast. If I state it on these comments, is generally has scripture to back it up, unless I state, "This my theory..."; "I think it could happen this way"; or "This is one possible scenario", or something of similar wording.

The facts are, which you have even confirmed, is that fallen angels did have sexual relations with women, and now those fallen angels that fathered the Nephillim are in Tartarus which was created just for them. But since one group of angles were able to do it, that would to me, indicate that the rest could if they elect to, do it as well, for the scriptures make no mention that the rest of the angels were unable to do it as well, if they chose to do so. The main reason for the lack of nephillim today, is they serve no purpose, for the whole nephillim thing in the days before Yeshua's birth was to try and corrupt/pollute the bloodline and prevent the coming Messiah from being born. I don't care if you believe it or not, but my studies indicate that this is the reasons for them.

I do agree that the angels in heaven are not permitted to marry or father children. But I believe that is due to the fact that the Father YHWH has given them that as a commandment, which they will obediently obey , not that they are unable to do so, if they chose to rebel. But that is my foolish belief, that angels have free will as do humans. Humans now are able to have children, correct? Once we are in heaven (unless you are a Mormon), we won't be able to have children or marry, so one does not disprove the other, in that because we won't be able to have children in heaven, doesn't mean that we can't have children now... in our fallen state (cursed flesh). That is my 'theory' not found in the Bible, so I know it is hardly worth mentioning, but someone might find it amusing.

Blessings to All!

Maranatha! Mark

Ha Ha Ha! If you are going to talk about someone, be polite enough to address them.

You know the funny thing, is with all this text you typed, I don't see any chapter and verse to support your claims, where I gave you chapter and verse. You can make whatever you want of the verses I quoted.

You are saying that "Nephillim" is short for 'Sons of God' and that isn't true either. The name or term "Nephillim" was used in place of "Giant(s)"; "Heros" or "Men of Great Renown", in some translations, but never for "Sons of God", however when I did the "Google" on the "Sons of God" , the consensus was that it was talking about 'fallen angles', however, there are enough opinion out there to satisfy any view point you want to take. I like Chuck Missler, but not everything he writes or says, as with any one else, including myself, is the absolute final word on any given subject. Much of what Chuck writes, I can honestly say, I can support, but some I don't, but who I am I to disagree with Chuck or You, a published author. The answer, is I am no one of consequence, nor do I want to be, unlike some folks.

Back to your snide comments, Michael James Stone said:

Since the bible says Sons of God it is easier to use then the Nephillim word.

I was told recently angels are shapeshifters like some Xmen movies and i had to start wondering if the discussion is worth the material coming out because it exposes the persons wild ideas, that are Not scriptural.

So angels don't shape-shift? Humm, well what about the serpent in the Garden of Eden that deceived Eve. I have always heard that the serpent was actually Lucifer, himself, but perhaps it was just a talking snake, oh I am sorry, a talking 'serpent'. No some how, I don't think Archangels normally take the form of a "serpent", but I am more then willing to concede that they do, if you can show me chapter and verse.

Gensis 3:1-5 (NKJV)
1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

I guess the serpent here was not actually Satan, but just a talking snake or dragon, some translations use the term "wyrm" which is a ancient term for dragon. In fact in book of Isaiah, they talk of both the "dragons" and "wild beast" such as in Isaiah 13.
Isaiah 13:21-22 (KJV):
21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

Isaiah 34:9-17 (KJV)
9 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.
10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.
11 But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.
12 They shall call the nobles thereof to the kingdom, but none shall be there, and all her princes shall be nothing.
13 ¶ And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be a habitation of dragons, and a court for owls.
14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.
15 There shall the great owl make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shadow: there shall the vultures also be gathered, every one with her mate.
16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.
17 And he hath cast the lot for them, and his hand hath divided it unto them by line: they shall possess it for ever, from generation to generation shall they dwell therein.

(continued in next comment)

Blessings to all!

Maranatha! Mark

Man I sure hate seeing that Moses, Joshua and Samuel had gotten it all wrong about there being nephillim after the flood. I guess they didn't know what they were talking about. Bless their souls! I guess that Goliath and his brothers were just freakish large men, but certainly not "Nephillim", though their father was Anak! Thanks for pointing out those errors in the Word!

Blessings to all!

Maranatha! Mark