PDA

View Full Version : Hal Lindsey's view on Daniel 9:27



rimbaud65
Dec 31st 2012, 03:10 AM
Recently I've studied Lindsey's analysis of Revelation, "There's a New World Coming" and I've been puzzled by one particular point. On page 210 of that book Lindsey has this passage: "As the Russian leader looks northward from Egypt, he hears that the Revived Roman Empire is preparing to enter the war. The Roman Antichrist will rush to Israels defense after she is attacked by the Arabs and Russians, since the False Prophet and Israel have signed a defense pact with the Antichrist which commits him to protect Israel (Daniel 9:27)." Is this the normal dispensational viewpoint (if there is such a thing) at how the Antichrist will act as Israel is being attacked? I can't quite figure out the point of this, that the Antichrist will be obliged to honor the treaty and to come to Israel's defense here. As I understand it the view is that the Antichrist will establish or confirm a peace treaty and then he will break it, so why doesn't he break the treaty then when Israel is being attacked? As I understand it the Antichrist will establish this treaty, which will begin the Tribulation period and then break it after 3 1/2 years. This is when Lindsey deals with Revelation 16:12-16.

markedward
Dec 31st 2012, 04:13 AM
My opinion: forget about Hal Lindsey. He was a leading 'prophecy expert' back in the 70s, predicting that the rapture would occur in 1981 and that Jesus would return in 1988. When his predictions failed he kept pretending to be an 'expert'. He learned from his mistake not to set specific dates, but that's about it.

Diggindeeper
Dec 31st 2012, 05:16 AM
My opinion: forget about Hal Lindsey. He was a leading 'prophecy expert' back in the 70s, predicting that the rapture would occur in 1981 and that Jesus would return in 1988. When his predictions failed he kept pretending to be an 'expert'. He learned from his mistake not to set specific dates, but that's about it.

That's my opinion too. He's made too many 'predictions' that never happened. I don't have any trust in him any longer, although I did read his books a long time ago. That is why today I can truthfully say I have no confidence in his teachings.

Stormcrow
Dec 31st 2012, 07:37 AM
Yes, Hal Lindsay is a false teacher. Best just to ignore him.

Vakeros
Dec 31st 2012, 11:48 AM
It is good to note inconsistencies in other's teaching so that you can discern what is right and wrong.

I have never read Hal Lindsey's book(s). I don't intend to. What you need to decide is how you will approach prophecy. I think you have to approach it like any other part of the Bible. Where literal, take literally; where poetic, take poetically etc. You also want to try to understand the message as if you were the one receiving it at the time it is given - i.e. as if you're Daniel or John etc. so an understanding of what was happening around them helps. For any explanation of a prophecy you have to see if it makes sense internally and externally. So if one part of the vision describes one thing then does it change for your interpretation. Does what happened also tie in with what has been deduced as happening?

rimbaud65
Dec 31st 2012, 04:36 PM
My opinion: forget about Hal Lindsey. He was a leading 'prophecy expert' back in the 70s, predicting that the rapture would occur in 1981 and that Jesus would return in 1988. When his predictions failed he kept pretending to be an 'expert'. He learned from his mistake not to set specific dates, but that's about it.
Recommendations like these are not helpful to me. I'm not really asking about Lindsey because he could be correct but the point was to learn more about his position and those of other dispensationalist. I'm fully aware of his prediction about 1981, which was due to the establishment of Israel in 1948, and that's why we have the 1988 prediction, i.e. understood to be a generation. But again, I would like to discuss if Lindsey's take on the Antichrist defending Israel is his unique take or if it is somewhat typical of dispensationalism. Don't think it is.

markedward
Dec 31st 2012, 05:39 PM
Dispensationalism is extremely varied in the specifics. The only thing that is typical throughout that system is the idea that God has a plan for Israel as separate from the Church. Otherwise, pretty much anything is up for grabs depending on how the individual reads the rest of Scripture.

dan
Dec 31st 2012, 09:09 PM
Recently I've studied Lindsey's analysis of Revelation, "There's a New World Coming" and I've been puzzled by one particular point. On page 210 of that book Lindsey has this passage: "As the Russian leader looks northward from Egypt, he hears that the Revived Roman Empire is preparing to enter the war. The Roman Antichrist will rush to Israels defense after she is attacked by the Arabs and Russians, since the False Prophet and Israel have signed a defense pact with the Antichrist which commits him to protect Israel (Daniel 9:27)." Is this the normal dispensational viewpoint (if there is such a thing) at how the Antichrist will act as Israel is being attacked? I can't quite figure out the point of this, that the Antichrist will be obliged to honor the treaty and to come to Israel's defense here. As I understand it the view is that the Antichrist will establish or confirm a peace treaty and then he will break it, so why doesn't he break the treaty then when Israel is being attacked? As I understand it the Antichrist will establish this treaty, which will begin the Tribulation period and then break it after 3 1/2 years. This is when Lindsey deals with Revelation 16:12-16.

Lots of folk believe that Europe will be the AC, and that would leave Russian and Islamic dreams of world dominance outside the scenario to do as they seem want to do.

The AC would make the pact, and perhaps, ask Russia to attack besides, just to establish his sincerity, IMO.

I've never read Hal Lindsay, although some have accused me of doing just that.

Best advice I can think of is too obvious: Keep watching.

Silvermist
Jan 1st 2013, 12:19 AM
I was reading "Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth" when I believed. However, when 1988 came and went without incident, I stopped believing that he could be counted on for Bible prophecy. What he says is thought provoking and we can always look it up for ourselves but no one really knows the date and hour.

Jollyrogers
Jan 1st 2013, 01:05 AM
I was reading "Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth" when I believed. However, when 1988 came and went without incident, I stopped believing that he could be counted on for Bible prophecy. What he says is thought provoking and we can always look it up for ourselves but no one really knows the date and hour.

I believe you are refering to this book "88 reasons Why The Rapture Will Be in 1988" which was written by Edgar C. Whisenant, not Hal Lindsey

http://www.amazon.com/reasons-Why-Rapture-Will-1988/dp/B00073BM8O

Jollyrogers
Jan 1st 2013, 01:14 AM
Recently I've studied Lindsey's analysis of Revelation, "There's a New World Coming" and I've been puzzled by one particular point. On page 210 of that book Lindsey has this passage: "As the Russian leader looks northward from Egypt, he hears that the Revived Roman Empire is preparing to enter the war. The Roman Antichrist will rush to Israels defense after she is attacked by the Arabs and Russians, since the False Prophet and Israel have signed a defense pact with the Antichrist which commits him to protect Israel (Daniel 9:27)." Is this the normal dispensational viewpoint (if there is such a thing) at how the Antichrist will act as Israel is being attacked? I can't quite figure out the point of this, that the Antichrist will be obliged to honor the treaty and to come to Israel's defense here. As I understand it the view is that the Antichrist will establish or confirm a peace treaty and then he will break it, so why doesn't he break the treaty then when Israel is being attacked? As I understand it the Antichrist will establish this treaty, which will begin the Tribulation period and then break it after 3 1/2 years. This is when Lindsey deals with Revelation 16:12-16.

I have a copy of Hal's "Late Great Planet Earth" that was printed in the 1970's. I never found anywhere where he set a date. Now he was very opinionated about how he saw things playing out (heavy emphasis on the Russian involvement, remember this is the 1970's and the cold war was on), which most dismissed after the Berlin wall fell.

I have not read that book however Hal is of the opinion that the battle of Gog & Magog (Ezek 37 & 38) is part of the Armageddon scenario. Therefore he does tend to combine the two. From what you posted It sounds like this is what you are reading. Some have that view but most disposationalist I have heard believe that Gog & Magog are before the rapture.

vinsight4u8
Jan 1st 2013, 11:40 PM
Recently I've studied Lindsey's analysis of Revelation, "There's a New World Coming" and I've been puzzled by one particular point. On page 210 of that book Lindsey has this passage: "As the Russian leader looks northward from Egypt, he hears that the Revived Roman Empire is preparing to enter the war. The Roman Antichrist will rush to Israels defense after she is attacked by the Arabs and Russians, since the False Prophet and Israel have signed a defense pact with the Antichrist which commits him to protect Israel (Daniel 9:27)." Is this the normal dispensational viewpoint (if there is such a thing) at how the Antichrist will act as Israel is being attacked? I can't quite figure out the point of this, that the Antichrist will be obliged to honor the treaty and to come to Israel's defense here. As I understand it the view is that the Antichrist will establish or confirm a peace treaty and then he will break it, so why doesn't he break the treaty then when Israel is being attacked? As I understand it the Antichrist will establish this treaty, which will begin the Tribulation period and then break it after 3 1/2 years. This is when Lindsey deals with Revelation 16:12-16.

Are you having Rev. 16 as part of the time of trouble against Israel (in that book)? Rev. 16 starts the time of the first pouring out of the seven vials full on Babylon and her followers. Israel will not be punished by things like that coming in full measure. The rapture happened and Jerusalem was freed at His coming back in chapter 11 /at the 7th trumpet. See how the ark gets seen in the end part of Rev. 11? This shows it is time for His mercy on Israel. The ark shows they will have their strengh back. God is gong to then soon go after her enemy /Babylon/Iraq. Look at the end of Rev. 16, as to It is done, then God again remembers Babylon's sins. It is not Israel's sins that are being punished by God. Since God remembers Babylon's iniquities again, Babylon will have to endure the seven vials for a second round. It is during this time, it seems when the saints come from heaven, as in scenes in chapter 19 as armies. One of these armies will go to the battle against the beast - Armageddon/the battle at the end of Rev. 19.

DurbanDude
Jan 3rd 2013, 10:54 AM
Recommendations like these are not helpful to me. I'm not really asking about Lindsey because he could be correct but the point was to learn more about his position and those of other dispensationalist. I'm fully aware of his prediction about 1981, which was due to the establishment of Israel in 1948, and that's why we have the 1988 prediction, i.e. understood to be a generation. But again, I would like to discuss if Lindsey's take on the Antichrist defending Israel is his unique take or if it is somewhat typical of dispensationalism. Don't think it is.

I believe the antichrist will be defending Israel, not attacking Israel. Nothing else makes much sense. I don't value Lindsey's views and yet on this point we may have some overlap, and I believe it is currently unique, but the common sense of the view should make it more common.

In Ezekiel 38/39 we see the Gog invasion is on a peaceful and unsuspecting people, unlike the high alert Israel of today, this speaks of a future alliance with the world system that is in place, and only then does Israel get attacked. We know from 2 Thessalonians 2 that the man of sin is declared god, in Israel. Daniel 11:35-45 is commonly regarded as also referring to this man of sin, during which he is alarmed by attacks coming from the same direction as the Gog attacks against Israel. So he is not attacking , he is being attacked while in Israel. Thus these seem to be two evil forces at war, Gog versus Israel. This is pretty common in Israel's history, Egypt vs Israel.. Assyria vs Israel.. Babylon vs Israel.. Rome vs Israel. While Israel is caught up in its worldliness it seems unlikely that it will not be invaded again, God always caused Israel to be invaded when it was not serving God correctly. Always God sent prophets to warn Israel, these prophets are the two witnesses of Revelation 11 who will warn the world. When Israel does not repent, Israel will be invaded and then then they will repent and Jesus himself will intervene on Israel's behalf.

Reynolds357
Jan 3rd 2013, 01:25 PM
Recently I've studied Lindsey's analysis of Revelation, "There's a New World Coming" and I've been puzzled by one particular point. On page 210 of that book Lindsey has this passage: "As the Russian leader looks northward from Egypt, he hears that the Revived Roman Empire is preparing to enter the war. The Roman Antichrist will rush to Israels defense after she is attacked by the Arabs and Russians, since the False Prophet and Israel have signed a defense pact with the Antichrist which commits him to protect Israel (Daniel 9:27)." Is this the normal dispensational viewpoint (if there is such a thing) at how the Antichrist will act as Israel is being attacked? I can't quite figure out the point of this, that the Antichrist will be obliged to honor the treaty and to come to Israel's defense here. As I understand it the view is that the Antichrist will establish or confirm a peace treaty and then he will break it, so why doesn't he break the treaty then when Israel is being attacked? As I understand it the Antichrist will establish this treaty, which will begin the Tribulation period and then break it after 3 1/2 years. This is when Lindsey deals with Revelation 16:12-16.
Its possible. My interpretation of Revelation is that anitchrist will break his treaty with Israel when he attacks them at the midpoint of the tribulation. He might very well defend them before that time.