God's most favorite false prophet and end time witless witness has declared that in the fall of 2017 the Beast power will arise and the proverbial crap that Armstrongism has been preaching about will hit the fan.
You now have been warned! You now have one year left to party hearty!
What is the point of following Malm's ridiculous teachings if you are going to fry anyway? So as Martin Luther says:
"Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ.”
Woo Hoo! 2017 is going to be a fun year!!!!! Keep your TV's tuned to Jerusalem so you can watch Malm and Constance preach the warning as the two witnesses.
Provided the Calendar data is correct the highly probable year of the coming of Christ and the cleansing of the sanctuary is:Coming forward 2300 years from 280 BC and adding 1 for year zero, arrives at spring 2021 AD, when the sanctuary shall be cleansed by the coming of Jesus Christ.Now subtracting 42 months (1260 days) shows that this final beast emperor will occupy Jerusalem, beginning at the end of 2017.Given the historical difficulties of the Greek struggles it is possible that this date might be in error by a year or two, but one thing is certain; IT IS VERY CLOSE INDEED!These are indications of the nearness of the times; they are not dates certain until proved by the appearance of ALL of the Biblical signs.At the present time the British people have been promised a referendum on continued EU membership before the end of 2017 with French and German elections scheduled for Sep / Oct 2017.Britain is highly likely to leave the EU, but exactly how long that process takes is unclear; and certain other countries are likely to follow, creating a crisis in the EU and opening the way for the setting up of the miracle working deceiver in the Vatican in late 2017, who will immediately call for and bring about the rise of a New Europe; the seventh revival of the Scarlet Beast of the Holy Roman Empire.This man of sin will then go to the Holy Place [Temple Mount] 75 days after being set up in the Vatican and the great tribulation of Mat 24:15 will begin.Along with this is the coming defeat of radical Islam and a move towards a Mideast peace deal (1 Thess 5:3).These events are right in line with a date of late 2017 for the start of the tribulation; followed by the coming of Messiah 42 months later; in 2021 AD!Brethren, the writing is on the wall!
23 comments:
The writing's on the wall, eh?
I got a can of touch-up paint. Wanna use it? Got a brush you can use, too.
He still thinks the end time is based on math, and has plugged in some new numbers to tweek it! Ever since William Miller, there's always been someone around to indulge in this error, and all of their calculations have failed! 100% inaccuracy, and totally undependable!
When are they going to learn that if and when the end comes, it would be a judgment call, made unilaterally by God, because conditions on planet Earth have gone beyond the point of no return. That is the only end time scenario that makes any sense. But, pretending you know all the insider secrets and the date means people will send you money, and at least in the world of the ACOGs, you get to control the ones who do. Incredible as it seems, I'll bet that even as we speak, there are probably some people out there who have prayed about Malm, and believe that the Holy Spirit has revealed to them that Malm is right.
BB
People who engage in calculating the "year of the return of Jesus" are nothing but fucked in the head, period.
All kinds of wackos try to one-up each other or impress people by claiming they have the low-down.
GAK!
Christ cannot return yet. Pack said the "First Dominion" will come first, when he and all faithful RCGers (who obeyed "common") will rule from Jerusalem under Pack (I mean Christ, Pack will be on His right hand, not sure yet who is on the left, perhaps one of Zebedee's sons) with "rods of iron."
As I mentioned in a comment over at Gavin's, just as a dead language ceases to be dynamic in response to daily use, most current members of the splinter groups and many of the independents (Livingroom Church of God) have frozen Herbert W. Armstrong's basic doctrinal package at the time of his death. This is what they all claim to preserve.
Nobody can know how he might have responded to such things as the mapping of the human genome, the rise of Islam and international terrorism, the internet, and his continued audiences with international dignitaries. All that anyone can do is to guess at what he would be doing today, based on what became frozen in time on the day he died. To illustrate the fallacy in that, imagine if HWA had died in 1942. Because he had stated that Hitler was the beast, most likely Armstrongites today would be preaching that God would have to ressurrect Hitler. We know now that sometime in the early 1960s, HWA finally quit preaching that Hitler was yet alive in South America, and would rise again to lead Germany in the Third World War. Suddenly, he began pointing towards Strauss. So, he did evolve, and change on that point, on Pentecost, on divorce and remarriage, and several times on cosmetics.
When HWA died, his end time was only a little over 10 years overdue, and we knew comparatively little about genetics and ethnicity. What about the passage of time? Would he have admitted the inevitable at 40 years overdue and counting? Would he modify his approach in the face of haplotypes, if for no other reason than to preserve his stature amongst world leaders? We can't know these things, because on the day of his death, his teachings became frozen much the same as a dead language, and the church he founded split up into various nostalgia acts.
There comes a time when a "hook" is no longer effective. As an advertising man, surely he would have realized this, and perhaps distanced himself from it, possibly finding effective new ways to manipulate interested parties into full membership in his church. I'm told that the church peaked even after the disappointment of 1975, perhaps because of the new "commission" to preach the gospel to world leaders about a "strong hand from somewhere". It is even possible, had he lived, that that would have supplanted the old British Israel gospel. We can only guess.
BB
The funny thing is that he can't even get this simple math right. There's no year zero. So counting 2300 years starting from 280BC (inclusive) only gets you to 2020, not 2021.
What an igoramus! And that's on top of being a arrogant, superstitious, hate-filled buffoon.
Malme Malme Tickle Your Farsin. The writing is always on the wall and fading
Malmo will be right some day. Which is true of any person if they make enough predictions, According to many You Tube videos on Americas looming economic collapse. there can't be many years left before all hell breaks loose. America can't consume other nations wealth indefinitely, by just giving them funny money in return. Bad times are coming.
BB many of your "Livingroom Church of God" members are spiritually thriving. They are constantly 'proving all things,' be it the teachings of HWA, the opinions of BB, Dennis and everyone else.
Comment was made: "God's most favorite false prophet and end time witless witness has declared that in the fall of 2017 the Beast power will arise..."
What is this "Beast power?" One cannot find that phrase in the Bible! But, Malm, what or who is the "Beast?"
Perhaps Malm used that phrase "Beast power" someplace, but it is a phrase that isn't in the Bible. Is it anything like the "Unpardonable Sin?" Oh, another phrase one cannot find it the Bible? Is it anything like "second coming?" Oh, another phrase nowhere found in the Bible.
Nevertheless, Malm cannot identify the Beast.
Malm did spew out: "...Britain is highly likely to leave the EU, but exactly how long that process takes is unclear; and certain other countries are likely to follow, creating a crisis in the EU and opening the way for the setting up of the miracle working deceiver in the Vatican in late 2017, who will immediately call for and bring about the rise of a New Europe; the seventh revival of the Scarlet Beast of the Holy Roman Empire..."
Oh, now, we have the "Scarlet Beast!" Scarlet Beast: another phrase nowhere found in the Bible!
"...the seventh revival of the Scarlet Beast of the Holy Roman Empire..."
There is another phrase nowhere found in the Bible: "seventh revival!"
What is that? Spin another false theory, another myth, another guess!
Want to talk about the 8th head? The seven heads of Revelation 17, of which that 7th head does not exist on the world scene until AFTER Satan is loosed from the bottomless pit and is identified with something called Gog.
Malm's understanding is flawed, regardless of how much zeal he thinks he has.
Malm just cannot believe the identity of the beast mentioned in the Bible:
"And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads." Revelation 12:3
"And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy." Revelation 13:1
And believing comes by way of God's Spirit:
"And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power," Ephesians 1:19
When will James Malm believe Revelation 12:3 and 13:1? He surely does not believe them today.
He just needs to make sure that that Beast is one "...having seven heads and ten horns."
And time will tell...
John
Stephen you forgot to add 1 more year due to crossing over from B.C. to A.D.
In my opinion, James is taking advantage of people that have such low self esteem that they do not trust their own ability to read and understand scripture. They think that they need someone to explain it to them. I often wonder if the thought ever passes their mind that as people who believe that they have the Holy Spirit, why do they need another to explain everything to them? If this were true, then why have the Holy Spirit in the first place.
These have opened the door and the windows, to every egoistical person who are looking for a way to 'earn' an income. With the economy so bad, many are using their inflated egos to reel in weak people in order for them to have a steady income.
When one looks at the work of James, one finds that all he is doing is a copy and paste of scriptures and then putting his own interpretation on it. He cannot stand opinions that differ with his pronouncements. If one comments on his site, the comments have to be in line with what he states, otherwise they are not published. This shows that he is not man enough or confident enough in his own statements. As such, he will never fill the shoes of one of the two witnesses.
Byker Bob - Interesting questions and post.
It is interesting to note that the Mormons, who believe that the American Indians are the "Lost 10 Tribes" have not budged a single bit from this whacked out idea in spite of all the DNA and historical evidence against it. So no, I do not believe that the "2016 HWA" would be much different than the 1986 one.
Mormon DNA article ...
http://www.truthandgrace.com/mormondna.htm
No, Sweety, there is no year 0.
It's not like this is some observed phenomenon, where there is debate about the true nature of it. There are simply people who understand this humanly devised convention, and there are those who are ignorant of it.
The calendrical numberline is a post-hoc conventional structure devised during the middle ages and adopted by historians to put historical events in order.
Since there was no agreement on when time began, Europeans sidestepped that hurdle by adopting the convention of assigning dates in terms of whether they occurred before or after the beginning of the year in which they assumed that Jesus was born.
The BC/AD notation was first proposed by the monk Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525 CE to identify the years in his Easter tables. Though he didn't then use it as historians do today, Dionysius implied that Jesus was born 25 December 1 BC.
If there were a year 0, would that be 0 BCE, 0 CE, or neither? Would it be a year-long period of "no man's land" in between BCE and CE? And if the year of Jesus' birth were supposed to be the "origin" of the calendrical numberline, shouldn't Jesus' birth have been assigned to December 25th of the year 0? Perhaps a year 0 was omitted because these were all seen as undesirable outcomes for one reason or another.
Later, christian historians in the middle ages adopted Dionysius' technique and assigned Jesus' birth to the year 1. And thus our historical BCE/CE convention has been ever since. Note that Jesus' birth was not assigned to a nonexistant year 0.
However, when mapping conventional dates onto historical events, the assignment of year 1 is an arbitrary one, and scholars now widely accept that the conventionally assigned year 1 is not the year that Jesus would have been born after all (if indeed he ever existed in the first place).
Therefoe, there is no gap between BCE and CE, and there are no years for which either BCE or CE do not apply. Assuming that our "origin" or starting point on the calendrical numberline is year 1, then BCE is the abbreviation used to denote all years that occurred prior to year 1. CE is used on all dates starting with year 1. Therefore, the year 1 BCE comes to an end on December 31 and is followed directly by January 1, 1 CE, not year 0. There is no year-long period of 0 in between 1 BCE and 1 CE.
It's a common mistake to think that there should be, I guess by assuming that historians followed the same convention as a mathematical numberline follows when the the BC/AD convention was devised. However, even if you don't like the accepted conventions, if you wish to communicate in terms everyone can understand, you're kind of stuck with them.
Connie, actually the Mormons did more than budge. The 2006 version of the Book of Mormon contains a one word revision in its introduction. The Mormons use the term "Lamanites" to establish a Hebrew connection with Native Americans. Up until 2006, the introduction stated that Lamanites were the principal ancestors of Native Americans. Per the revision it now states that Lamanites are among the ancestors of Native Americans. This has caused controversy in some LDS circles, but it represents a willingness to change in the face of emerging science.
The Mormon Church is sufficiently large that they have resources that Armstrongism could only dream of. Thomas Murphy, LDS anthropologist, and Simon Southerton, LDS molecular biologist, made some noise to the effect that there is no genetic connection to Hebrew blood in Native Americans. With the much published emergence of new technology, the doctrine of the Lamanites began to appear embarrassing on an international level, and was thought to be an obstacle to the attraction and conversion of new members. Hence, the mild revision to the introduction, which has never been considered part of the official translation of the so-called golden plates.
The Mormon usage of this tribe fell into the category of peripheral information. HWA, on the other hand, used the tribes as his main hook, to support the idea that English-speaking nations were about to lose favor with God and be punished, with the only safety to be found in becoming part of "God's True Church" (Armstrongism). As the Mormons realized that their doctine of the Lamanites was unsupportable, an obstacle, and an internationally embarrassing one at that, HWA might have come to the realization that British Israelism was a throwback to simpler and more ignorant times. We can't know, because he died prior to the emergence of the science, and as you stated, he'd be 124 if he were living today. All we can know is that the ACOGs have all but deified him, and as such, they consider the British Israelism which he taught to be unchangeable, gospel truth. And that is an international embarrassment, and most likely the main obstacle to their winning of new converts and growth.
Eventually, the ACOGs and Armstrongites are going to need to come to terms with this, just as the Mormons have, and just as the Catholic Church was compelled to embrace Galileo.
BB
Let's illustrate this further with a hypothetical conversation which might have taken place in 2007:
Prince Charles: "Mr. Armstrong, we are meeting today because nck has informed me that you wish to perpetually endow some of our charities. Naturally, we want to ensure that those who support us do not reflect poorly on the work of these charities. So, I must ask, what's this rubbish that I hear about Mannasseh, Ephraim, and Assyria? Certainly you must realize that I and my family are German?"
HWA: (fumbling with new-fangled cell-phone). "Hello, Herman? I have a very special and extremely urgent project for you!"
The thing we must remember is that HWA was very sensitive to such things as "only" representing a church or college. Do we think he would have been any less sensitive to being thought of as someone who subscribed to increasingly questionable theories?
BB
Who is smarter, the scientists with their supposed DNA based conclusion, or God? A
prayer request can settle the validity of British-Israelism, no?
"Who is smarter, the scientists with their supposed DNA based conclusion, or God?
I'd put my money on the scientists over the gods.
"A prayer request can settle the validity of British-Israelism, no?
Okay, you pray that your deity will reveal the validity of British-Israelism to me and Gary. As your "two or three witnesses," when I and Gary hear back from your deity, we'll let you know, and thus consider the matter settled. This ought to be a cakewalk for your deity. Do you accept, and agree to abide by the outcome?
Yep. The prayer request did, 3:16. He said "no" on the B.I. Besides, we're not comparing God and science. We're comparing some Deut. 18:22 false prophets with science. God failed to honor or validate the false prophecies in 1975, and has continued to fail to validate them ever since. Scientists basically discover God's laws and processes. Some of them give God credit, others don't. Not all scientists are God-haters.
BB
Scientists are way more likely to listen to Creation's feedback than those that already claim to speak for god! Just goes to show who has truly gone off the path.
DBP
Just thinking about my response to 3:16, and don't want it to come off as being flippant or arrogant. The fact is though, I did put a lot of prayer in while I was writing my articles disproving British Israelism using the Bible. There were scripture references plain as the nose on your face which somehow never were referenced or considered in all of the Armstrong publications on the topic.
Those articles are still available in the archives over at Painful Truth, written under the Byker Bob byline. Knowing that material as well as I do, it is very difficult to imagine that God would validate British Israelism as an answer to someone's prayers.
BB
Stephen, as much as I hate to defend Malm, his math is accurate. Precisely because there is no year 0.
The way you're doing the math (which is simply -280 BC + 2300 years = 2020 AD) includes zero on the number line. You have to add one to the final year to compensate for the lack of a year zero. This is pretty simple discrete mathematics.
To make the math simpler than what he's doing: It is Jan 1, 1 BC. What date would it be two years later? Jan 1, 2 AD. Which is mathematically: -1 BC + 2 years + 1 to compensate for the 0 = 2 AD. And you can mentally arrive at the same result by thinking
Year 1: Jan 1 - Dec 31, 1 BC
Year 2: Jan 1 - Dec 31, 1 AD
So after 2 years, the very beginning of 2 AD even if it looks like that's a gap of 3 years.
Anon1:02PM-
In the first place, precisely to avoid any possibility of such errors, I did NOT do the math the way you say I must have.
Nope. I simply built my own zero-free numberline in Excel. It's not hard to do.
280...1, in the first 280 rows, and then starting to count forward in row 281 with 1...2020, is what gets you to 2300 rows in Excel.
Or if you choose, you could use two rows for each year, the first row representing the first day of the year, and the second representing the last day of the year, and then extending your numberline out to 4600 rows instead. If you wanted to do individual days, you'd need a bit of extra effort, since that takes you over 839,000 days, and runs into possibly needing to account for every calendrical error made between then and now.
Moreover, I stated my assumptions, that I was counting inclusive, so that means Jan 1, 280 BCE to Dec 31, 2020.
But come to think of it, with his calendar nonsense, who knows what time of year Malm is starting to count from in 280 BCE...
Stephen: Then you didn't account for the change in how the years were measured from the starting point. AD measures time lapsed from that point while BC measures time left until. The way you did Excel, the line between the rows served as your year zero. You would initially have "one row until" zero and then the next one would be "one row away" from zero--but that row wouldn't be complete until you moved onto the next line.
Again, let's make the math simpler.
Instead of January, let's start on June 30, 1 BC. Add two years.
Year 1: July 1, 1 BC to June 30, 1 AD
Year 2: July 1, 1 AD to June 30, 2 AD
It's still: -1 BC + 2 years + 1 to account for the zero = 2 AD.
This is different than adding two years to June 30, 2016, in which case you still end up at 2018.
Year 1: July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017
Year 2, July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018
Mathematically: 2016 AD + 2 years = 2018 AD.
Your basic assumption was flawed. As I said, this is basic discrete mathematics and covered in classrooms on the subject. This has little to do with Malm or anything Biblical and entirely just about properly calculating date and time differentials.
Post a Comment