Skip to comments.Is Obama the Antichrist ? (VIDEO purports to show that Christ was referring to our President)
Posted on 10/25/2009 8:39:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
More than one Christian friend has suggested to me, in all seriousness, that President Obama is the Antichrist. I havent taken such suggestions too seriously, but recently a video has shown up on Youtube that seems to claim that Jesus identified Obama as the Antichrist. Some Christians have been startled by this (and the video is wildly popular) and believe that the evidence is compelling. The video is found here.
The anonymous narrator introduces his provocative four-minute video by asking if Jesus identified the name of the Antichrist, then says, I will report the facts; you can decide (reminiscent of Greta Van Susterens tagline on her show on Fox News). The narrator then notes that in Luke 10.18, Jesus says, And he said unto them, I beheld Satan falling from the heavens.
He then begins to link several hypotheses together. First, he claims that Luke 10.18 was written originally in Greek, but that Jesus spoke these words in Aramaic, which is the most ancient form of Hebrew. Second, he observes that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and claims that the Aramaic that Jesus spoke would have been quite similar to the Hebrew that is spoken today and, presumably, similar to the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Third, he then says that Jesus spoke these words in Hebrew, and retranslates the text as follows: I saw Satan falling as lightning from the heights, or from the heavens. Fourth, he discusses the Hebrew words for lightning and heights. He notes that the word for lightning is baraq. Fifth, he claims that Isaiah is the source of the Christian understanding of Satan or Lucifer (Isa 14.12 in the KJV). Sixth, Isa 14.14 has Satan say, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High. Seventh, the Hebrew word in Isa 14.14 for heights is bamaw, and this is surely what heavens means in Luke 10.18. Eighth, the Hebrew letter waw is sometimes transliterated as a u or o. Ninth, the waw is used in Hebrew as a conjunction. Tenth, in Hebrew poetry baraq obamah literally is translated lightning and the heights or lightning from the heights. Eleventh, if Jesus words in Luke 10.18 were spoken in Hebrew by a Jewish Rabbi today he would say, And I saw Satan as baraq ubamah. He concludes his narration by asking, Did Jesus reveal the name of the Antichrist? I report; you decide. There is a disclaimer at the end of the video that simply says the correlation is striking, but not that the narrator is claiming that the President is the Antichrist.
This video was followed up by another by the same narrator. You can see it here :
It essentially argues the same point, but changes a couple of points (without warrant).
What can we say about these videos and the linguistic argument used? Of the eleven points noted above, the fourth and eighth are the only ones that are indisputable: the Hebrew word for lightning is baraq; and the waw is sometimes transliterated as a u or o. The seventh point comes close to being correct: the Hebrew word for height is bamah, but the plural is used in Isa 14.14, bamot (pronounced baw-moat). As for the rest of the points, some are debatable, while others are factually wrong. Taking them in order: (1) It is debatable whether Jesus spoke most of the time in Aramaic; he may have done much of his teaching in Greek. It is also not true that Aramaic is the oldest form of Hebrew. (2) and (3) A sleight of hand has occurred here: First, it is claimed that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but then it is claimed that he spoke in Hebrew. Which is it? Although the characters for both languages are the same, the vocabulary has some key differences, especially in vowel points but also often in the very consonants used. (5) and (6) Is Isaiah really the source for the Christian view of Satan? It may contribute to our understanding, but even that is disputed. The one passage that may speak about Satan is indeed Isa 14. But part of the reason for this being so interpreted is due to the influence of the KJV. At v. 12 the King James says, O Lucifer, son of the morning! The word lucifer, however, is simply a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate at this point. It is not another name for Satan. The Hebrew word, helel means morning star or shining one. Most modern translations (the NKJV is the only exception I found of the translations I checked) do not translate helel as Lucifer; rather they have shining one, day star, morning star, etc. (cf., e.g., NET, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, TEV, REB, NIV, TNIV, NAB, NJB, HCSB). Of course, there are still excellent scholars who believe that Isa 14 is ultimately a reference to Satan, though in the historical context it was directed at the Babylonian king. (9) This is true, but irrelevant. To have the idea of lightning from the heights would normally require a preposition, not a conjunction (see next point). (10) It seems to be an illegitimate leap to say lightning and the heights means the same thing as lightning from the heights. Indeed, there is a perfectly good Hebrew word that means from: min. But that would produce baraq min-bamot. Its getting more difficult to see the validity of the narrators linguistic points. (11) When all is said and done, the evidence is simply bogus. Jesus didnt speak in Hebrew, and the Hebrew that is given here does not mean lightning from the heights. Baraq ubamah means lightning and height. But that can hardly be the underlying Aramaic (which is not Hebrew) for the Greek text of Luke 10.18. Thus, a linguistic leap from Greek to Aramaic to Hebrew, with the grammar and vocabulary changing along the way, is required to make Luke 10.18 mean what the narrator wants it to mean. This is hardly a case of I report; you decide. It is rather a case of Ill tell you only part of the evidence, and will use some fancy exegetical gymnastics to make everything fit; and based on the skewered evidence, you decide.
Now, to be sure, the President did say at one public meeting that the rumors that he was born in a manger are not true (!). I didnt care for that comment (though it was in reaction to what many pundits, conservative politicians, and comedians had sarcastically said), nor do I care for many, if not most, of his policies. Perhaps hes a little full of himself. And certainly there has been hype about him that goes beyond reason, some that is even blasphemous (e.g., Evan Thomas, of Newsweek, who said that Obama was sort of God on MSNBCs Hardball with Chris Matthews, to which Matthews replied, yeah. Its that kind of rhetoric that is more persuasive than the video, since it reflects the opinions of so many Americans and even the global community). But is he the Antichrist? In the least, the linguistic torturing required to make the biblical evidence say this is beyond the pale of reason and, perhaps, sanity.
This Op-Ed was originally published at Parchment and Pen, a theology blog hosted by Reclaiming the Mind Ministries.
Dr. Daniel B. Wallace is a professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary who influences students across the country through his textbook on intermediate Greek grammar, which is used in more than two-thirds of the nations schools that teach that subject. Dr. Wallace is also the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible and coeditor of the NET-Nestle Greek-English diglot.
The anti-christ goes after Christians. That is because Christians won’t bow down to him in worship. But much of the world and even the US will do it when the left makes it politically incorrect to do otherwise. We saw the power of the radical left in imposing the lie of global warming on the world. It became dangerous for anyone to expose the lie - to go against the NWO agenda behind the lie. Rinos bowed down to the quickly so they would not be singled out and ridiculed by the liars like George Bush was.
Im not sure it says that anywhere. However, the AntiChrist will be known as The Great Deceiver and so implies that many good & Godly people will fall for his charm & charisma. I do admit I may be wrong though.
I dont get it myself.
So were Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler just the warm-up acts?
I’m not even sure the Anti-Christ is supposed to be an actual person.
(11) When all is said and done, the evidence is simply bogus. Jesus didnt speak in Hebrew, and the Hebrew that is given here does not mean lightning from the heights. Baraq ubamah means lightning and height. But that can hardly be the underlying Aramaic (which is not Hebrew) for the Greek text of Luke 10.18. Thus, a linguistic leap from Greek to Aramaic to Hebrew, with the grammar and vocabulary changing along the way, is required to make Luke 10.18 mean what the narrator wants it to mean. This is hardly a case of I report; you decide. It is rather a case of Ill tell you only part of the evidence, and will use some fancy exegetical gymnastics to make everything fit; and based on the skewered evidence, you decide.
But is he the Antichrist? In the least, the linguistic torturing required to make the biblical evidence say this is beyond the pale of reason and, perhaps, sanity.
So how many of those that replied in this thread actually read that part?
What if he’s the false prophet with Soros as AC?
Has anyone read about Soros?
Soros is way too old.
[p[I dont get it myself.]]
Me eithber- A lot of people call themselves Christians, but have never accepted Christ as Savior- and I can see people like htis being deceived, but I think true Christians might see through the deceit- however, when it coems to the political pressure, they may cave in- although I think the true Christians will not accept hte mark of hte beast- I think some bad times are coming quickly, and obama certainly IS using political position to force people to accept his policies by making it politically incorrect to oppse him like SarahJohnson corectly stated- We can see the dems manuevering into position already, and I’m not sure if obama is goign to be hte one, but it’s certainly a possibility, as much of the ‘politically correct’ far left aroudn hte world do indeed worship him without question
[[So how many of those that replied in this thread actually read that part?]]
I am not goign to stand one way or the other on the issue- because hte bible is obscure about who will be the AC- BUT, I will look at hte actions of the far left, and compare it with what the bible speaks about that we can know- and it’s clear the far left has a decideldly anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-Morals agenda that seemingly fit end times prophecy- however, all ages have thought the end times were near, and that signs were beign fulfilled- but I do think the time is nearing, and we might possibly be witness to it
I don’t believe Obama’s the anti-christ, but I do believe he’s one of the opening acts.
As you might well know, I am not a fan of Obama and have not and WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HIM. In fact, I strongly believe that his policies if implemented, are going to be
a disaster for this country, not only today but for future generations to come.
Having said that, I have to say that this video is STRETCHING IT.
There have been many attempts in the past to try to pinpoint who the anti-christ is, from the Pope in Rome to Hitler to even Ronald Reagan.
In the 80’s someone said that Reagan had the mark of the beast in him -— 666. Why ?
Well because his full name is RONALD WILSON REAGAN
RONALD — 6 characters
WILSON — 6 characters
REAGAN — 6 characters.
See how easy it is to make things up ?
If you’re against Obama’s policies, then go and fight his policies. But please, let’s not abuse our interpretation of the Bible to support our political ideology.
Just curios why you think age is an issue?
As an edit, his real name is Shwartz which does come out to 666. (played with it a bit after reading about this man full of sin).
Because I doubt an old geezer like Soros would have the charisma of the Anti-Christ.
I understand the confusion I see in the responses here.
I too have always given people too much credit.
Face It: The a/C is a numbnut too—that’s the long and the short of it.