I would appreciate your evaluation of this site, in respect for time (I'm retired and currently traveling) your response will be awaited with patience.

And your grammar of hebrew language studies, arimaic, greek?

Why did Adam not die immediately after eating the forbidden fruit, rather than several hundred years later?

And Jehovah commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17, emp. added).

A.

It was the dawn of mankind. Surrounded by all of the wonder and beauty of newly formed perfection, man enjoyed a harmonious relationship with his Father. On the sixth and final day of creation, man had been formed from the dust of the ground—a humble beginning for a being that was to be exalted and given d******n over all the other creatures. So dignified was this creature of dust, that he was given the unequivocal privilege of “walking with God in the cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8). Jehovah had formed man in His image and after His likeness, and placed him in an earthly paradise; but Eden was not only a place of leisure—there was work to be done. Adam was given the tasks of tending and keeping the garden, and assigning names to the animals. After allowing Adam to see that none from the animal kingdom was suitable to be his companion, Jehovah created woman from Adam’s rib. Man now occupied a most perfect environment, with the perfect mate by his side. Truly, Jehovah had done everything possible to ensure His children’s comfort, and to make their lives full and complete. Adam and Eve were commanded to tend the garden paradise, and to be fruitful and multiply so that the Earth would be filled (Genesis 1:28; 2:15; cf. Isaiah 45:18).

After issuing these initial commands, the Lord delivered a single, solemn prohibition. Adam was permitted to eat of any tree in Eden he desired—save one. In the midst of the garden stood the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil—a tree that was strictly forbidden, on penalty of death. The command, though ominous, was not grievous, as Jehovah demonstrated by setting it against a “background of broad permission” (Leupold, 1942, 1:127). One might question why God placed such a peculiar limitation on man, by allowing him to eat of every tree but one. Perhaps the tree was somehow dangerous to His children. Or maybe the fruit of the tree served only as a test—similar to the test Abraham was given in Genesis 22:1-19. Man, fashioned in the image of God, was given the capacity to make moral decisions, but with only “good” surrounding him, what was there to choose? Only after a command was given, could a decision/response be made (cf. Aalders, 1981, p. 92), and the options were only too clear: man could live up to his potential as a creature made in the image of Divinity, or he could, as certain angels had in earlier times, rebel against his Holy Creator and Benefactor (2 Peter 2:4), obeying his own desires instead of sacred fiat. Good—or evil; those were his choices.

This tree, which, as it turned out, would change the course of human history forever, was planted in the midst of the garden near another tree of equal or greater significance—the Tree of Life. Seemingly, these two trees were planted side by side as a reminder to the inhabitants of the garden—as long as Jehovah’s words were heeded, the life-giving tree was readily accessible. It was this promise of ever-renewed life that Adam stood to lose, should he choose to disobey His Creator.

Genesis 3, the chapter that outlines the events that t***spired directly after the happenings discussed above, is one of the saddest chapters in the entire Bible—perhaps second only to the heart-rending record of the Lord’s crucifixion. Evil entered paradise in the form of a serpent. John informs us in the Revelation that this serpent actually was Satan, the “deceiver of the whole world” (12:9). And “deceive” is precisely what he proceeded to do. Using a clever mix of persuasive words and partial t***hs, the devil convinced Eve to partake of the fruit, assuring her that she would “not surely die.” So she ate, and passed it on to Adam, who was as guilty as she. The tree had lived up to its potential. Adam and Eve knew what evil was; they now realized the horrible burden of guilt—the pervasive shame of sin. Remembering the penalty for eating the fruit, the couple ran and hid themselves, in fear of the wrath of God.

Jehovah had pledged death to the t***sgressor of His law. Satan, however, accused Him of exaggeration, and guaranteed Eve the knowledge of God. Whom would she believe? The fate of the human race was bound up in the decision that Eve faced on that day, and the penalty for that decision likewise affects us all. Paul commented in Romans: “Therefore, as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned” (5:12). Some have suggested that the devil spoke more accurately than God, because man did not actually die on the day he ate the forbidden fruit (see Beatty, as quoted by Hamilton, 1990, 1:172). If this were true, the statement of Paul would be of none effect. If this theory were correct, death would not have passed to all men. However, this old world hardly seems to house a society of immortal humans who possess the promised knowledge of God. The very pains we endure are a result of the fall of man in the garden; of that there can be no doubt. Paul was accurate in his epistle, yet the Genesis text does not reveal the “immediate death” of the first sinners. Death is the penalty for sin, yet Adam lived for hundreds of years after his t***sgression. Could there possibly be some t***h to the devil’s assessment after all?

Two things must be examined in this situation. First, we must consider the words of warning that Jehovah uttered on the day He actually gave Adam access to the trees of the garden. What is the intended definition of “death”? Second, knowing that “the Lord is not slack concerning His promise” (2 Peter 3:9), we can take a retrospective look back at the events that t***spired after the fall, to see in what way the promised penalty was executed.

The words of God to Adam were: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17). In an earlier article that appeared in Reason & Revelation on this subject, Garry Brantley addressed the grammatics of this phrase:

[T]he usage of the phrase “you shall surely die” (mot tamut) indicates that a violent, physical death is under consideration. This grammatical construction juxtaposes an infinitive absolute (mot), and the imperfect verb (tamut), which provides the emphatic nuance you will “surely, or indeed” die (Lambdin, 1971, p. 158). While it is true that the word “die” can refer to natural causes or to violent death (Smick, 1980, 1:496), the manner in which the verb is used in this phrase indicates the latter. In fact, this grammatical construction appears several times in the Hebrew Bible, and commonly denotes a physical, violent death (1995, 15:23).

Three Old Testament texts are cited in which this exact wording (“thou shalt surely die”) is used: Genesis 20:7; 1 Samuel 14:44; and 1 Kings 2:37. Each of these passages indicates a physical death. Not only does the grammar itself seem to indicate that a physical death is under discussion, but the text also appears to lack any warrant for interpreting “death” in a purely figurative manner (cf. Brantley, 1995). In theTheological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Smick discussed the word “death” in this context.

The normative OT teaching about death is presented in Gen 3:3, where God warns Adam and Eve that death is the result of r*******n against his commands. Since God’s purpose for our first parents was never ending life, the introduction of death was an undesirable but necessary result of disobedience. The physical corruption of the human body and the consequent suffering and pain brought about by the Fall were only the obvious symptoms of death. Death is the consequence and the punishment of sin (Harris, et al., 1980, 1:497).

When Jehovah issued the penalty for eating the fruit of the tree, He used terms that Adam could comprehend, lest the penalty be of no effect. While it is possible that Adam understood the concept of spiritual death (we do know that creation in the Divine image includes knowledge, righteousness, and holiness [Colossians 3:10; Ephesians 4:24]—cf. Barnes, 1949, 6:127), it seems more likely that Adam better understood physical death. His entire existence had been in the presence of Jehovah, surrounded only by good. It is possible that he had witnessed the extermination of some plant or animal, but the abstract idea of spiritual death surely would have been difficult for him to grasp. Biblical commentator Matthew Henry took some exegetical license, and expanded upon the words “in that day shalt thou surely die,” when he wrote:

Thou shalt become mortal and capable of dying; the grant of immortality shall be recalled, and that defence [sic] shall depart from thee; Thou shalt become obnoxious to death, like a condemned malefactor that is dead in law...nay, the harbingers and forerunners of death shall immediately seize thee and thy life, thenceforward, shall be a dying life: and this, surely; it is a settled rule, the soul that sinneth, it shall die (1706, 1:18).

As these and other authors have noted, God obviously intended a physical death for Adam and Eve. However, this is not to deny a spiritual death. The moment that man chose to follow his own desires—instead of God’s will—he cut himself off from God. Isaiah reminded us that our sin and iniquity have separated us from God (Isaiah 59:1-2), and James taught that death is a separation (James 2:26). Without doubt, man perished spiritually on that day, but equally certain is the fact that God’s punishment for that sin was a physical death.

But was it to be an immediate death, or the beginning of a long process of death? The phrases “surely” and “in that day” are matters of interest. The footnote accompanying Genesis 2:17 in the King James Version gives this alternate reading to “thou shalt surely die”: dying thou shalt die. The double emphasis in the Hebrew of the word “die” (mot), makes the marginal t***slation the more literal, and, together with the context, indicates the beginning of a process that eventually would terminate in Adam’s death (the immediate result of separation from the tree of life). “In that day” (the phrase that has caused so much confusion over the centuries) does not, of necessity, mean the very day that it happens; rather, it is an indication of the certainty of the command. Notice the comments of the following scholars regarding this difficult phrase:

It is just as naïve to insist that the phrase “in the day” means that on that very day death would occur. A little knowledge of the Hebrew idiom will relieve the tension here as well. For example, in 1 Kings 2:37 King Solomon warned a s*******s Shimei, “The day you leave [Jerusalem] and cross the Kidron Valley [which is immediately outside the city walls on the east side of the city], you can be sure you will die.” Neither the 1 Kings nor the Genesis text implies immediacy of action on that very same day; instead they point to thecertainty of the predicated consequence that would be set in motion by the act initiated on that day. Alternate wordings include at the time when, at that time, now when and the day [when] (see Gen. 5:1; Ex. 6:28; 10:28; 32:34) [Kaiser, et al., 1996, p. 92, emp. in orig.].

Hamilton, too, in commenting on Genesis 2:17, concluded by stating: “The verse is underscoring the certainty of death, not its chronology” (1990, 1:172).

Scholarly commentary aside, the true meaning of Jehovah’s intended punishment can be discovered in the conclusion of the story itself. Man, shameful of his nakedness and sin, hid himself in the garden. God called out to Adam, who timidly answered. Jehovah questioned Adam and Eve as a loving Father questions his children, trying to elicit a confession of guilt. “What is this thou hast done?” Though both attempted to pass the blame to another, they eventually confessed their sin. Then the sentencing began.

Unto the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” And unto Adam he said, “Because thou hast harkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of they face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return....” Therefore, Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from when he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life (Genesis 3:16-19, 23-24, emp. added).

The consequences of the first sin were many, and its results were far-reaching. Notice this observation by Albert Barnes in his commentary on Romans (5:12, which refers back to the sin and death of Adam, and, antithetically to life in Christ): “The evident meaning is, that the word ‘death,’ as here used by the apostle, refers to the train of evils which have been introduced by sin. It does not mean simply temporal death, condemnation, and exposure to eternal death, which is the consequence of t***sgression” (1949, 5:127, emp. in orig.). The dust in which Adam toiled (and in which we today still toil), he would become. From that point on, humanity would return to the dust whence it came. And that, in fact, has been our fate ever since. On the day of Adam’s sin, he began to die.

Exile from paradise, separation from the tree of life, the initiation of aging, and a severance from the very presence of God Almighty, were all consequences of our parents’ sin. That sin would have resulted in an eternal death, had it not been for the tender mercies of God. At some point, we all stand in the place of Adam and Eve—guilty of doing the exact opposite of what God has commanded. The inevitable result of our sin is likewise death—spiritual and eternal. Thanks be to God that, although we were dead in our trespasses, we have the opportunity to be made alive through His beloved Son (Ephesians 2:1ff.

Affirmative action facts...

Nixon’s Southern Strategy Was Not A R****t Appeal

In the arsenal of the Democrats is a condemnation of Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called “Southern Strategy.”  These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South v**ed solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, yet unfairly deride Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party that began in the 1970's.  Nixon's "Southern Strategy” was an effort on his part to get fair-minded people in the South to stop v****g for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against b****s.  Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the e******n of Republican Governor Bobby Jindal in 2007.

As the co-architect of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, Pat Buchanan provided a first-hand account of the origin and intent of that strategy in a 2002 article that can be found on the Internet at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30233

In that article, Buchanan wrote that when Nixon kicked off his historic comeback in 1966 with a column about the South (written by Buchanan), Nixon declared that the Republican Party would be built on a foundation of states rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the “party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice”.

During the 1966 campaign, Nixon was personally thanked by Dr. King for his help in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957.  Nixon also endorsed all Republicans, except the members of the John Birch Society.

Notably, the enforcement of affirmative action began with Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher who became known as “the father of affirmative action enforcement”) that set the nation‘s first goals and timetables.  Nixon was also responsible for the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1970’s, including the Equal Employment Act of 1972.

Fletcher, as president of the United Negro College Fund, coined the phrase “the mind is a terrible thing to waste.”  Fletcher was also one of the original nine plaintiffs in the famous “Brown v. Topeka Board of Education” decision.  Fletcher briefly pursued a bid for the Republican p**********l nomination in 1995.

Nixon began his merit-based affirmative action program to overcome the harm caused by Democrat President Woodrow Wilson who, after he was elected in 1912, kicked b****s out of federal government jobs and prevented b****s from obtaining federal contracts.  Also, while Wilson was president and Congress was controlled by the Democrats, more discriminatory bills were introduced in Congress than ever before in our nation’s history.  Today, Democrats have turned affirmative action into an unfair quota system that even most b****s do not support.

Republican President Eisenhower Achieved  Desegregation Of The Military

Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military.  Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Return to frequently asked questions

Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation

Little known is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.  In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968.  Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 V****g Rights Act.  He also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.

The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan.  None of these r

That is fact!!!!! Most liberals are blinded to the fact their party was infiltrated by c*******m/marxist decades ago. As well as the other evil powers controlling media, and mind through movie, network news, and Internet.

I agree with most of your context. There are groups that have turned the Confederate f**g into a r****t symbol, however that is not the majority.
I agree that b***k A******ns do not have the same opportunity. Graduate college, then try getting a job where bias abounds.
My mentor and life long friend (only True friend) taught me the black America often time daily struggle, not through words, but by being by his side so much of my life. (God rest his soul)
Our greatest gap is political, not social ine******y and r****m. KHH1 let's keep it that way. I have looked at the stats of w****s v****g for Obama, and b****s supporting conservatives in e******ns. I'm also looking at states of b***k A******ns entering the conservative party, departing the Democrat party. There are both true and false narratives dividing race's. Your enemies are not conservative thinking people, as the battle remains towards r****t and the overwhelming bias of individuals. There are far more "closet" liberal r****t one need only look at the states than the party would have one believe, just as there are great non r****t men and women of conservative mind than the liberal editors manipulate what we read and hear.
I'm sick to my stomach of the lies, and half t***hs.
There are extreme r****t that h**e obama because he is black, just as there are those hating him for his policies and direction he has taken our nation. One must be able to discern and separate t***h and reality.

No where does the bible say that Adam lost his place.

By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks (Hebrews 11:4).

Genesis 2:18; 3:8; 3:21

Well, Susan, the Bible doesn’t say for sure if Adam and Eve went to heaven or believed God’s promise of the coming Savior. I think that the Bible shows that it is a good possibility. Look at our verse above from the great faith chapter of Hebrews. God tells us that Abel offered an excellent sacrifice to God, that he had faith, and that he was made righteous. Abel was Adam and Eve’s son and it seems that the only way he could have learned about God was from his parents. After all, they walked with God and talked with God. They were the first two humans ever created. They were the first to sin and that sin started the practice of making sacrifices to God for the forgiveness of sins. (Remember how God k**led an animal to make clothes for Adam and Eve because they suddenly knew they were naked?) Abel knew how to offer a sacrifice that was pleasing to God. He offered that with a heart that believed in God through faith, and he probably learned that from his parents, Adam and Eve. If all that is true, then it seems as though Adam and Eve knew the t***h as well, and if they did, they will be in heaven.

Agreed, radio talk show host from an expert stance. Conservatives and liberals fueling articles on the Internet, and network news, all fueling false narratives to fit current events. Sadly readers sick this up and increase their h**e towards their brother's. KHH1 has valid points and perspectives, unseen by the increased gas on the fire r****m. The divider in chief of our nation, w***e s*********t, Al Sharpton and so many others are blinding Americans.

False theology! !!! Out of context, deception of satan

KHH1, I believe the t***h needs to be told. Race relations the last 7 years have deteriorated at light speed and mostly by nationalizing false narratives,

Falsifying History In Behalf Of Agendas
I used the so-called Civil War and the myths with which court historians have encumbered that war to show how history is falsified in order to serve agendas. I pointed out that it was a war of secession, not a civil war as the South was not fighting the North for control of the government in Washington. As for the matter of s***ery, all of Lincoln’s statements prove that he was neither for the b****s nor against s***ery. Yet he has been turned into a civil rights hero, and a war of northern aggression, whose purpose Lincoln stated over and over was “to preserve the union” (the empire), has been converted into a war to free the s***es.

As for the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln said it was “a practical war measure” that would help in defeating the South and would convince Europe, which was considering recognizing the Confederacy, that Washington was motivated by “something more than ambition.” The proclamation only freed s***es in the Confederacy, not in the Union. As Lincoln’s Secretary of State put it: “we emancipated s***es where we cannot reach them and hold them in bondage where we can set them free.”

A few readers took exception to the t***h and misconstrued a statement of historical facts as a r****t defense of s***ery. In an article on LewRockwell.comhttps://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/walter-e-williams/was-1861-a-civil-war/ , the well-known African-American, Walter Williams, points out that the war was about money, not s***ery. Just as Jews who tell the t***h about Israel’s policies are called “self-hating Jews,” will Walter Williams be called a “self-hating black?” Invective is used as a defense against t***h.

R****t explanations can be very misleading. For example, it is now a given that the police are r****ts because they k**l without cause b***k A******ns and almost always get away with it. Here is a case of a true fact being dangerously misconstrued. In actual fact, the police k**l more w****s than b****s, and they get away with these murders also. So how is race the explanation?

The real explanation is that the police have been militarized and trained to view the public as enemy who must first be subdued with force and then questioned. This is the reason that so many innocent people, of every race, are brutalized and k**led. No doubt some police are r****ts, but overall their attitude toward the public is a brutal attitude toward all races, g****rs, and ages. The police are a danger to everyone, not only to b****s.

We see the same kind of mistake made with the Confederate Battle F**g. Reading some of the accounts of the recent Charleston church shootings, I got the impression that the Confederate Battle F**g, not Dylann Roof, was responsible for the murders. Those declaring the f**g to be a “symbol of h**e” might be correct. Possibly it is a symbol of their hatred of the “white South,” a hatred that dates from the mischaracterization of what is called the “Civil War.” As one commentator pointed out, if flying over s***ery for four years makes the Confederate f**g a symbol of h**e, what does that make the U.S. f**g, which flew over s***ery for 88 years?

F**gs on a battlefield are information devices to show soldiers where their lines are. In the days of black powder, battles produced enormous clouds of smoke that obscured the line between opposing forces. In the first battle of Bull Run confusion resulted from the similarity of the f**gs. Thus, the Confederate Battle F**g was born. It had nothing to do with h**e.

Americans born into the centralized state are unaware that their forebears regarded themselves principally as residents of states, and not as Americans. Their loyalty was to their state. When Robert E. Lee was offered command in the Union Army, he declined on the grounds that he was a Virginian and could not go to war against his native country of Virginia.

A nonsensical myth has been created that Southerners made b****s into s***es because Southerners are r****t. The fact of the matter is that s***es were brought to the new world as a labor force for large scale agriculture. The first s***es were w****s sentenced to s***ery under European penal codes.Encyclopedia Virginia reports that “convict laborers could be purchased for a lower price than indentured white or ens***ed African laborers, and because they already existed outside society’s rules, they could be more easily exploited.”

White s***ery also took the form of indentured servants in which w****s served under contract as s***es for a limited time. Native Indians were ens***ed. But w****s and native Indians proved to be unsatisfactory labor forces for large scale agriculture. The w****s had no resistance to malaria and yellow fever. It was discovered that some Africans did, and Africans were also accustomed to hot climates. Favored by superior survivability, Africans became the labor force of choice.

S***es were more prominent in the Southern colonies than in the north, because the land in the South was more suitable for large scale agriculture. By the time of the American Revolution, the South was specialized in agriculture, and s***ery was an inherited institution that long pre-dated both the United States and the Confederate States of America. The percentage of s***e owners in the population was very small, because s***ery was associated with large land holdings that produced export crops.

The motive behind s***ery was to have a labor force in order to exploit the land. Those with large land holdings wanted labor and did not care about its color. Trial and error revealed that some Africans had superior survivability to malaria, and thus Africans became the labor force of choice. There was no free labor market. The expanding frontier offered poor w****s land of their own, which they preferred to wages as agricultural workers.

A r****t explanation of s***ery and the Confederacy satisfies some agendas, but it is ahistorical.

Explanations are not justifications. Every institution, every vice, every virtue, and language itself has roots. Every institution and every cause has vested interests defending them. There have been a few efforts, such as the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution, to remake the world in a day by casting off all existing institutions, but these attempts came a cropper.

Constant charges of r****m can both create and perpetuate r****m, just as the constant propaganda out of Washington is creating Islamophobia and Russophobia in the American population. We should be careful about the words we use and reject agenda-driven explanations.

Readers are forever asking me, “what can we do.” The answer is always the same. We can’t do anything unless we are informed.

 

Revelation 13:3

3 And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.

You have twisted the word of God into a pretzel, God does not unite all religions, the Muslims believe in a moon god, the Mormons believe they will become a god and there are many God's, I could go on infinitum.

Exodus 34:14

14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),

Your message is one that is very biblical, a deceiver, anti-christ, and birthed by demonic forces.


http://newlife.id.au/christian-theology/proving-that-jesus-is-god-from-the-old-testament/

you would do your soul good to know the diety of God, the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

The Messiah you await is the same Messiah the Muslims of Islam await, the bible calls him the Anti-Christ! !!
Jesus is the way, the t***h, and the life, no man comes to the father except through him!

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the t***h, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 5:43

I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Facts, evidence, proof mean nothing to this guy. Especially if it endorses prophecies, then it's a s**mper to Google anything an atheist site post to discredit God's word. There are those whom post articles based on knowledge of the topic, then those that cut and paste to prove a point they know nothing about, Marcus is the latter

Perfect, what a wonderful blessing and encouragement reading your post.
God bless

Israel that became a new nation, the war of 1967 that claimed Jerusalem is not an a*********n before God. Anyone teaching that may be..