Does the Bible Prophesy About the Israel/Hamas War?

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

 

It's kind of strange we didn't have the whole world worried about a humanitarian disaster when Russia invaded Ukraine.

I remember the Ukraine crisis differently than you do apparently.

Quote

The war in Ukraine has spiralled into a fully-fledged humanitarian catastrophe.

Heavy fighting and attacks continue to endanger the lives of civilians and cause severe damage to housing, water and electricity supply, heating, and public infrastructure such as schools and health facilities. Millions of people have limited or no access to basic services.

The EU has mobilised all available resources to enable emergency assistance into Ukraine.

https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/where/europe/ukraine_en#:~:text=Introduction,as schools and health facilities.

https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/ukraine-humanitarian-crisis-refugees-aid

Quote

How Bad Is Ukraine’s Humanitarian Crisis a Year Later? 

By Diana Roy

Last updated June 8, 2023 11:40 am (EST)

A year after Russia’s invasion, Ukraine is suffering a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. The outflow of millions of refugees has placed a strain on neighboring countries.

https://disasterphilanthropy.org/disasters/ukraine-humanitarian-crisis/
 

There is tons more.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Calm

[Damien the Leper]

17 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

It has the potential to become.much more than a border.war. 

It's kind of strange we didn't have the whole world worried about a humanitarian disaster when Russia invaded Ukraine. 

What a mess.

 

I hope this is figurative speech.

[rodheadlee]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

I remember the Ukraine crisis differently than you do apparently.

https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/where/europe/ukraine_en#:~:text=Introduction,as schools and health facilities.

https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/ukraine-humanitarian-crisis-refugees-aid

https://disasterphilanthropy.org/disasters/ukraine-humanitarian-crisis/
 

There is tons more.

Yeah I guess I was asleep at the wheel. I just don't remember all of the protest.

Edited October 18, 2023 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

32 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

The notes are wrong.

So, you're not LDS? I shouldn't trust the notes in the headers of my LDS scriptures?

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

So, you're not LDS? I shouldn't trust the notes in the headers of my LDS scriptures?

Some are wrong.  They are the result of traditional interpretation and scholarship and not revelation.  They did their best, but mistakes were made.  Thankfully, the Church isn’t locked into keeping the headings unchanged.   

And sometimes the scholarship is out of date, similar to the Bible Dictionary.  They are study aids and not meant to be seen as scripture.  They changed the headings for the 1981 edition and I believe the online version might not always match the print as I understand they updated some when LDS.org was updated.  I haven’t bought new scriptures for a couple of decades, unless you count the academic commentaries, so I can’t compare online to what is printed these days.  Wouldn’t surprise me if they were updated and I missed it or forgot about them.

http://www.blacklatterdaysaints.org/changes-to-lds-scripture-headings-footnotes

Quote

 

Here is what Bruce McConkie himself wrote on the nature of the chapter headings to the LDS Scriptures:
 

[As for the] Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only. (Mark McConkie, ed. Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989], 289-90 emphasis added)

 

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/05/bruce-mcconkie-on-fallibility-of.html

Edited October 18, 2023 by Calm

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, rpn said:

I'm not going to assume it is end times until our prophet says something is meeting a prophecy in official situation.   We don't need anyone to tell us that there are wars and rumors of wars ---- that's been true in all of recorded mortal existence (and likely in unrecorded existence too.

The LDS prophets are, like everyone else, are caught off guard regarding severe world events (covid, wars, natural disasters) and then they often don't have much to say about it.  Clearly their guidance as to such things is worthless.  If they really are prophets they are doing a poor job and prophesying.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Teancum

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Yes, but was this intended by the original author or is it a case of likening scriptures to ourselves?

By "this" I assume you mean the phrase "last days" referring to the times the author lived in, and "author" to refer to the writer of scripture (or what is to become accepted as scripture). I think the authors meant it that way since that was their language and their message first applied to the saints they were addressing.

At the same time, the author, speaking to eternal principle, understands that prophecy will be likened by any wise future saints, or that it will serve as a template or catalyst for someone reading it to receive a personal message from the Holy Ghost. And that the Lord will have prophets restored at some point after the first desolation of abomination to help them interpret as necessary.

As far as today's Israel-Hamas events, "Yes," in that it is a war taking place in the last times (i.e., between first and second coming, yet after the first desolation of abomination), against which backdrop the gathering of Israel successfully persists according to the Book of Mormon prophecies, and we are to take heed and prepare ourselves for the Lord's coming accordingly. We walk with the Lord through terrible times and His light shines in darkness. He stands at the door and knocks and "cometh quickly" for those who open it (the same things that make us happy in this life will make us happy in the next, so the Lord comes then and now and will yet come. Any negative event, large or small, is a sign or witness of Christ as the faithful see or find Him shine in the darkness. But the big ones in our scripture stress the point.

As far as a specific Israel-Hamas play-by-play prophesy (and to what end?), "No," since there is insufficient time/place/purpose detail in the Bible such as D&C 87 provides (for example), which isn't much either.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Dan is speaking of the poorly understood verses that people are using to suggest that there is a prophecy dealing with Israel or Hamas. 

Would you mind providing those verses? The YouTube format isn't my cup of tea. Thank you!

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, there is something disturbing about the End-Timer types getting all giddy excited every time people start dying in the Middle East.

Despicable. Were they giddy when 911 occurred I wonder, because according to Biden's speech in Israel I'm watching at the moment and in the news outlets, Israel is experiencing fifteen 911's when put in context. 

 

 

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

:Would you mind providing those verses? The YouTube format isn't my cup of tea. Thank you!

Revelations 9:16,  Revelations 16:13, and Ezekiel 38.

 

Dan says the Revelation verses are only applicable to 1st century geo-political events.

Ezekiel 38 is about the Euphrates river supernaturally drying up which Dan says is not true, there is still water in it though it is lower and the lower water is easily explainable through climate change and dams.

 

It is just a 10 minute video and takes less time to listen to than it did to type up this response.

Edited October 18, 2023 by CA Steve

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Revelations 9:16,  Revelations 16:13, and Ezekiel 38.

 

Dan says the Revelation verses are only applicable to 1st century geo-political events.

Ezekiel 38 is about the Euphrates river supernaturally drying up which Dan says is not true, there is still water in it though it is lower and the lower water is easily explainable through climate change and dams.

 

It is just a 10 minute video and takes less time to listen to than it did to type up this response.

I am not at all arguing with Dan about whether or not the Euphrates has dried up supernaturally. His explanation on that was perfect. Neither am I wondering if this verse could still somehow apply to the situation today even without the supernatural connotations.  But I did wonder about the use of the word supernatural and its application in the fulfillment of prophecy in general.

Was it the preacher who said that the Euphrates would dry up supernaturally or does it actually say that in the verse? I need to go and look it up and see what words are actually used.

Sometimes I know we interpret scripture as if it has to be fulfilled through supernatural means for it to come true but I think probably most of the time that’s not what it’s saying.  We like to make assumptions about what verses mean but forget that they are assumptions and interpretations.

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Joel talks about the Day of the Lord.

So does Amos in Chapter 5:

“Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! to what end is it for you? the day of the Lord is darkness, and not light. 

As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him.

Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?”

That doesn’t sound like something anyone should be pining for.

Joel also talks about swarms of locusts and an invading foreign army. That doesn’t sound like the current situation which was a border attack and is now, in essence, a siege which is going to become a humanitarian disaster within the next few days.

FYI. I am not pining for it. I have dreams, visions, nightmares about the streets filled with dead bodies and nuclear weapons going off in L.A. harbor. I can only hope that I am at ground zero. It still isn't the end of time.

[CA Steve]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Was it the preacher who said that the Euphrates would dry up supernaturally or does it actually say that in the verse? I need to go and look it up and see what words are actually used.

The preacher said it had dried up supernaturally. Dan said it still had water in it and no supernatural explanation was required to explain why it was lower.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

The preacher said it had dried up supernaturally. Dan said it still had water in it and no supernatural explanation was required to explain why it was lower.

Yes, I watched the video. I was wondering if the preacher is quoting the verse when he says supernatural or if he came up with that on his own. I need to go look at the verse. I just haven’t had a chance yet.

but I’m guessing (could be wrong) that he came up with the “supernatural” requirement on his own.

I think, sometimes we assume prophecy must come to pass through supernatural means, when most of the time, I don’t think that’s the case. The prophecy might come to pass through very explainable means. It doesn’t mean it’s not prophecy.

(And again, I’m not arguing at all with what Dent has said in the video about those specific prophecies. I think his response to the preacher is spot on. I’m just speaking in general on how our interpretations of prophecy sometimes aren’t rooted in anything other than assumption on how it has to work.)

[CV75]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Revelations 9:16,  Revelations 16:13, and Ezekiel 38.

 

Dan says the Revelation verses are only applicable to 1st century geo-political events.

Ezekiel 38 is about the Euphrates river supernaturally drying up which Dan says is not true, there is still water in it though it is lower and the lower water is easily explainable through climate change and dams.

 

It is just a 10 minute video and takes less time to listen to than it did to type up this response.

Thank you. I have it on good authority that this is where the expression “Gog a Magog with a spoon” came from.

I take these kinds of scripture to be metaphorical, which doesn’t make them any less real in application once properly recognized, since signs can be in the form of both symbols and events which in turn can refer to each other. I think they are functionally metaphorical due to the issues with terminology and translation along the timeline from Ezekiel's putting "pen to paper", to the earliest preservation available (often centuries afterward and perhaps inadequately). through the eye of tradition, and then interpreted into more modern languages.

In the case of the verses you listed, I find the overarching message is to be an invitation or warning to be prepared for the Lord ensuring the gathering of His people as it continues to be threatened, which is also the theme of more detailed, prophesied events found elsewhere, particularly in the Book of Mormon and D&C.

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I watched the video. I was wondering if the preacher is quoting the verse when he says supernatural or if he came up with that on his own. I need to go look at the verse. I just haven’t had a chance yet.

but I’m guessing (could be wrong) that he came up with the “supernatural” requirement on his own.

I think, sometimes we assume prophecy must come to pass through supernatural means, when most of the time, I don’t think that’s the case. The prophecy might come to pass through very explainable means. It doesn’t mean it’s not prophecy.

(And again, I’m not arguing at all with what Dent has said in the video about those specific prophecies. I think his response to the preacher is spot on. I’m just speaking in general on how our interpretations of prophecy sometimes aren’t rooted in anything other than assumption on how it has to work.)

"12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared."

"Supernatural" is not mentioned here. 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared."

"Supernatural" is not mentioned here. 

Thanks!

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

It has the potential to become.much more than a border.war. 

It's kind of strange we didn't have the whole world worried about a humanitarian disaster when Russia invaded Ukraine. 

What a mess.

 

Pay attention. We did in Ukraine. The world still is concerned. There is a lot of humanitarian aid going into Ukraine. Quit mouthing false analogies and propaganda from fools and deceivers. You’re better then that.

This is a different kind of disaster though. We have people whose water, food, and electricity have been cut off and they can’t fix any of that since a lot of it is controlled externally. When the hospitals lose power (their generator fuel won’t last forever) we can expect quite a few deaths. Without clean water dehydration will set in and people will start using unsafe water so we can expect a lot of disease. Unless it happened very recently virtually no humanitarian aid is getting in and there is no place for refugees to flee to. This is one thing the President will be hitting Israel hard on.

As to becoming more maybe but I doubt it. The only other likely other fronts are Lebanon and the West Bank. While Iran was probably involved they can’t meaningfully interfere on the ground. They don’t share a border with Israel and the nations in between are unlikely to want to be a battleground.

Edited October 18, 2023 by The Nehor

[Calm]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

"12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared."

"Supernatural" is not mentioned here. 

For some, most even, “angel”=“supernatural” though.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

For some, most even, “angel”=“supernatural” though.

Yes, it does. I took the question to be as to whether "supernatural" was used as an interpretive description of the message or part of the text. For me, angels and their powers are perfectly natural. I think the word "angel" as used in this verse is allegorical, but if not, describes a natural person(age) and event. The river drying up has happened quite a number of times throughout history, including 2014 when Turkey cut off the flow entirely (into Syria and Iran). What an angel!

[halconero]

This is the first Dan McClellan video I've watched, simply for lack of time. I have to be honest that, having watched it, I'm somewhat unimpressed by his approach coming from an academic standpoint. As a bit of context, I'm currently a Doctoral Fellow at the London School of Economics and Research Fellow with the University of Calgary, with a major focus on Research Design and Methodology in the social sciences. While I do, weirdly enough, have an Honours Bachelor in Early Christian Literature from the University of Toronto, my field of research right now is primarily Public Policy from a quantitative lens. In my day-to-day, this includes the ongoing development of a research project that aims to test contact theory and peer effects as it relates to refugees and host countries, as well as teaching two classes, one focused on methods, the other on theory development.

I don't share any of that to "wow" anyone, but rather provide some context for what I am about to say regarding the video:

--------

1) It wasn't the first thing that struck me, but one major sticking point is that, for a series aimed at prioritizing Data over Dogma, Dan does seem to delve into some normative statements with regards to how someone should view the conflict in Israel-Palestine and the suffering of those involved. That is fine from a personal standpoint, but it does shift the argument from a positive (in the scientific sense of the word), facts-based argument to what is ostensibly a normative one where value judgements come into play. I find this somewhat ironic given the definition and root of dogma is a "settled opinion" or "philosophical tenet."

This is based just on my observation, but Dan in the video seems to apply an Egalitarian point-of-view to the conflict - a conceptual view point that posts equality as the moral outcome we should prioritize. In this case, that outcome may be equal access to relief or freedom from suffering, wherein prioritizing the passive observation of the conflict in the hopes for the return of Jesus violates that norm.

That is not, however, the only normative framework someone might apply to this situation, nor is it the "best" one, given the lack of an objective best when it comes to normative frameworks, which are inherently about value judgements and trade-offs. What if, for example, someone applies a Utilitarian framework to this conflict? Under Utilitarianism, the best moral good are consequences that maximize societal utility, or happiness, regardless of how we got there. If you are a sincere, apocalyptic Christian watching the events in the Middle East, you may not be excited about the direct suffering of Palestinians, but because their suffering may be indicative of an imminent *end* to global suffering from the advent of Jesus.

To lay my own biases on the table, I am with Dan on this one when it comes to my choice of normative framework. I am more of a Rawlsian than a strict Egalitarian, but the Utilitarian framework presented here permits way too much human suffering for it to be good, in my opinion, which is also amplified that such suffering isn't guaranteed to bring the return of Jesus in this particular instance. It goes beyond the regular trolley problem faced by Utilitarians to one where I can flick the switch to and kill one person lying on the track, with no guaranteed pay-off that there's anyone actually lying on the other one.

But all that is besides the main point, which is that is Dan regularly opines on value judgements and their trade-offs in a manner that specifically elevates one set of norms over the other, I would firmly suggest that is actually beyond a positivist approach to data and very firmly entering into what is dogmatic or not.

So, that nets Dan a C- in my SP112 course.

--------

2) Dan is very imprecise to the point of irresponsibility when it comes to the language he uses in challenging truth claims by others. The key problem I have is that, in responding to what are ostensibly unfalsifiable truth claims, Dan himself makes several unfalsifiable statements, typically with phraseology like, "and never will be." Falsifiability, a cornerstone of the scientific method, is the ability of a claim or hypothesis to be proven wrong based on empirical evidence. The fact that Dan suggests that some events will "never" happen or occur introduces an infinite time frame that is empirically immune to testing, making it lean towards infalsifiability.

If, for example, I say "it will not rain tomorrow," that is an easily falsifiable claim where a single drop within the next 24 hour period proves me wrong. If, by contrast, I say "it will never rain again," that may give the veneer of falsifiability if it rains the next day, but what if it doesn't? What if it doesn't rain for the next 50 years? Does that mean my claim about "never raining again" is correct from a falsifiability standpoint? No, it could theoretically be proven false in the 51st first year, but because the claim requires verification over the infinite, it puts it beyond empirical testing. Weirdly enough, the claim that the current spike in the conflict is the imminent herald of Jesus' return is more falsifiable, because all we have to do is wait for the conflict to ebb and see if Jesus is back or not.

I get where Dan is coming from, because, ironically enough, the field of Biblical Criticism relies on making claims grounded in observable, repeatable evidence. Since the issue of miracles, God, or prophecy is not consistently observable or repeatable, scholars tend to approach the text from an atheistic standpoint - not in the popular sense of the word, but in the sense that without material evidence of God/not-God there is no way to prove or disprove their involvement with the text, and we must therefore rely on material and textual evidence that is presently available or likely to be available to develop theory and test it empirically. In this sense, I can see how Dan approaches the truth claims made by the preacher from the standpoint that, "you cannot place a premium over textual speculation when there are established alternatives in other textual sources." If he left his rebuttal at, "this claim can't be substantiated under current circumstances since falsifiability is retrospective, not prospective," followed by, "by contrast, we do have evidence from other texts written in the same time period wherein 'x' refers to some other political-cultural element or concept." For the TikTokers, that might be something as simple as, "there's no evidence to suggest this scripture is talking about the conflict in Gaza, and plenty to suggest it was related to an event occurring around the time it was written." It might even be as simple as suggesting that such claims are matter of unproveable faith rather than rigorous theoretical predictions.

I think Dan has a responsibility when it comes to his audience because suggesting that things cannot or will not ever be turns what are rather uncontroversial claims from Biblical Criticism into a certain form of dogma itself - immune or strengthened against testing.

--------

All together, I don't have any issue with the material Dan brings into support his claims that various passages have more to do with concurrent events than prophetic future. If he included that in an essay I would pass him for it on that basis alone. He would get severe marks off though his presentation of the evidence. To quote Bueno and Fowler 2019 from "Thinking Clearly in a Data-Driven Age":

Quote

Thinking clearly in a data-driven world is, first and foremost, about staying focused on ideas and questions, rather than technicalities. Unfortunately, in our experience, the statistics and quantitative reasoning classes in which most people learn about data do exactly the opposite. In most introductory courses, the focus is on technique. Students might learn mathematical facts, memorize the names of statistical procedures, and start crunching numbers without ever having been asked to think clearly and conceptually about the meaning of what they are doing or why they are doing it. Such an approach can work for people to whom thinking mathematically comes naturally. But we believe it is counterproductive for the vast majority. When technicality pushes students to stop thinking and start memorizing, they miss the forest for the trees. And it’s also no fun.

...

just because an argument contains seemingly sophisticated quantitative data analysis, that doesn’t mean the argument is rigorous or right. We can only harness the power of information to make better decisions by combining data analysis with clear thinking.

If, and that's a big if given I've watched little of his content, Dan approaches most of his videos this way, it seems like he's combined the data gathered from textual criticism of the Bible with normative frameworks in a manner that actually undermines testing and refuting established theories or emerging ones, whether from within the non-theistic magisterium of science or the theistic magisterium of religion. He and his viewers might benefit from his being more circumspect, humble, and careful in his language from a scientific standpoint.

[supersc]

On 10/17/2023 at 10:09 PM, rodheadlee said:

Does anyone care to comment on the Book of Joel? It specifies that it precedes the Second Coming. Also I don't know why they call it the end times? To me it's the beginning of a beautiful Thousand Years.

President Gordon B. Hinckley, in his initial October 2001 General Conference talk, stated that the prophecy of Joel has been fulfilled, wherein he states.... He then quotes Joel 2.

That one slipped by me when given until pointed out by someone else.  President Joseph Fielding Smith stated in the 1960's that Joel's prophecy had not yet been fulfilled.

So there you go, a prophet helping you know when an end time prophecy was finally fulfilled.

I've been listening closer since I learned that instance in 2002, after the fact, due to being in a cinnamon roll stupor in 2001.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, supersc said:

President Gordon B. Hinckley, in his initial October 2001 General Conference talk, stated that the prophecy of Joel has been fulfilled, wherein he states.... He then quotes Joel 2.

Full quotation please.

[The Nehor]

On 10/18/2023 at 2:44 AM, rodheadlee said:

So, you're not LDS? I shouldn't trust the notes in the headers of my LDS scriptures?

I wouldn’t.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Full quotation please.

It is this.

Quote

 

The era in which we live is the fulness of times spoken of in the scriptures, when God has brought together all of the elements of previous dispensations. From the day that He and His Beloved Son manifested themselves to the boy Joseph, there has been a tremendous cascade of enlightenment poured out upon the world. The hearts of men have turned to their fathers in fulfillment of the words of Malachi. The vision of Joel has been fulfilled wherein he declared:

“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

“And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

“And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.

“The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come.

“And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call” (Joel 2:28–32).

 

I haven’t seen the sun go dark. I have seen a blood red moon a few times now.