Eli-kittim - Eli Of Kittim

Revelation 8:1, 7th seal, silence in heaven about 1 half hour? 29.6 minutes = about 1 half hour. 29.6 minutes = 1776 seconds. STRONG's Concordance H1776 is is a Hebrew word meaning "silence." Ben Franklin pen name, Silence Dogood

Perhaps this quote may shed some light: “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings, who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour [1 century]” (Rev. 17:9-12). If one hour equals a century, as in the aforementioned quote (for details, refer to my book), then one-half hour must refer to a half-century. The “half an hour” reference in Rev. 8:1 actually has a double meaning. On the one hand, it signifies the seven weeks of Daniel’s prophecy (fifty-year Jubilee/Ch. 9) that marks the appearance of Messiah. In others words, the Messiah is “silent” for “half an hour,” or for seven weeks until his appearance. But the “half an hour” idiom also refers to the middle of the tribulation period when Christ will be revealed to wage war on the Antichrist. And, in this case, the reference is not to thirty literal minutes but rather to the three-and-a-half year interim (or 42 months) that is constantly repeated throughout the text. That is, the Great Tribulation commences, and it appears as though God is silent for a very short period of time until he finally rescues his people. This time period is also known as "a time, times, and half a time," and it is equal to three and a half years. Here's an excerpt from my book, "The Little Book of Revelation""Likewise, the Bible warns us that the little horn’s [or Antichrist's] allied forces ‘will destroy many while they are at ease’ (Dan. 8:25); that is to say, in a time of peace. Then, all exertions cease. Only the eerie silence remains (Rev. 8:1) as the heavens prepare a punitive response. From the Bible to Nostradamus, the unifying theme that runs across the litany of these texts – like Ariadne’s thread guiding us out of a labyrinth of obscurity – is the ubiquitous prophecy of the Messiah who will deliver us from worldwide disaster at the end of time (Matt. 24:21-22)!" 

Misinterpreting the Bible: Borrowed Stories, Anachronistic Beliefs, and Misleading Past Tenses

By Author Eli of Kittim

Just as the gospel stories are borrowed, to a large extent, from the Jewish Bible in order to show that Jesus is the messianic fulfillment of Hebrew Scripture, the idea of Jesus and the 12 apostles equally comes from the Old Testament:

“Kαι ανακαλεσαμενος Ιησους [Jesus] δωδεκα ανδρας των ενδοξων απο των υιων ισραηλ ενα αφ’ εκαστης φυλης.” (Joshua 4:4, Septuagint).

Translation: “And Jesus [Ιησους] called twelve men, whom he had chosen out of the children of Israel, one out of every tribe.”

It is the same with the slaughter of the innocents. This is a reworking of the Exodus story in an effort to show that Jesus is the new Moses. Just as the Pharaoh attempts to kill the Israelite children—but Moses escapes—so Herod tries to kill all the children of Bethlehem—but Jesus escapes!

“The quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.” (Powell, Mark A. Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee. 1998. Westminster: John Knox Press).

Bible prophecy Scholars know that what is referenced in the following passage concerns future events, not past history. Moreover, it is well-known that the phrase, “In that day,” which is repeated throughout, refers to the last days. But here’s an important and definitive contradiction between the Jesus of antiquity (our current view) and the “pierced” Jesus of the end times who is looked upon by those who pierce him. How could the same people who pierced Christ 2,000 years ago look at him “In that [future] day”? Unless the piercing of Jesus is a future event, it does not make any sense, scriptural or otherwise, for it creates a bizarre case of anachronism:

“When they lay siege against Judah and Jerusalem. And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it. In that day,” says the Lord, “I will strike every horse with confusion, and its rider with madness; I will open My eyes on the house of Judah, and will strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. … they shall devour all the surrounding peoples on the right hand and on the left, but Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place—Jerusalem…. In that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the one who is feeble among them in that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the Angel of the Lord before them. It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.” (Zechariah 12:2–10).

This constitutes further evidence that a) Jesus is “pierced” AFTER the Jews return to their homeland (“In that day … Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place—Jerusalem”), and b) that this “piercing” occurs sometime in the future (“In that day … they will look on Me whom they pierced”)—just as Daniel states in Chapter 9 verses 24 to 26, namely, that the “anointed one” (messiah) will die after the restoration of Jerusalem (which occurred in 1967).

But here’s the game changer. Scholars claim that past tenses imply past history. Thus, for example, when we read 1 Corinthians 15:3, we must assume Paul is referring to the past, not the future:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.”

Using the same criteria of past tenses, let us now read another passage to determine whether it refers to prophecy (future), or history:

“Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.” (Isaiah 53:1-9).

If we didn’t know better, we would swear that this passage refers to past history, and that Isaiah is recounting an event which occurred before his time. For his verses are saturated with past tenses. But, surprise, surprise… despite all of the past tenses, it’s a prophecy that Isaiah is writing about! This passage teaches us that a) past tenses in the Bible do not necessarily reflect past history, and that b) prophecies themselves could equally be set in the past.

P.S. Also, notice that, just as in Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 53:5 describes the Messiah as being “pierced” (not crucified)!

What the Gospels Are, and What they are Not

By Author Eli of Kittim

Some of my readers have not fully understood my position regarding the gospels because they have not read my book, and therefore do not know the extent of these teachings. As a result, they have voiced their disagreement with my position. But in order to conclusively reject my view on the grounds that it fails to be supported by scripture, certain criteria must be met. However, based on some of my debates, their initial grounds for dismissal are often based on erroneous premises, such as tradition or dogma, conjecture and hearsay. At any rate, whatever it is that they think of my view is patently wrong because they haven’t yet grasped the gist of it. For example, I never said or implied that the gospels are made up stories, or that they were invented or manufactured by the writers themselves. Never was I so bold as to say that the gospels are superstitious myths, or the work of pure fiction with no basis in reality. If this is what some of my readers think, they couldn’t be further from the truth.

So, in my defense, let me explain what the gospels are, and what they are not.

1) I believe that the Gospels were verbally inspired by God (known as “Verbal Plenary Inspiration”). This means that every word of the gospels is God-given (“Plenary” means that the gospels are therefore fully authoritative). A side note: This means that it's not just the gospels, but scripture as a whole is authoritative over tradition or dogma. It means that all church tradition must be subordinated to the authority of Scripture. One of those dogmas that we inherited from the church was that the story of Christ happened in history (presumably from their literal interpretation of the gospels). But unless we check it against scripture, we will never know the validity of this dogma.

2) I also believe that in order to form valid conclusions, we must cross-reference between the gospels and the epistles to make sure that the account of Jesus is the same in all these texts and does not vary or present any major problems, especially with regard to chronology (i.e. the timing of his coming). A side note: When we engage in this type of study, certain things become immediately evident:

a) the authors of the Epistles do not mention a lot of the gospel material. For instance, they never once mention the birth narrative of Jesus, the virgin birth, the Flight into Egypt, the Star of Bethlehem, the magi, or even the city of Bethlehem as Jesus’ birth place. Now, that should raise some red flags.

b) In some cases, the authors of the Epistles seemingly contradict the gospels (I say “seemingly” because they don’t really contradict them, it only appears as such from our particular viewpoint) because they allude to Christ’s revelation as occurring “once at the consummation of the ages” (Heb.9:26), or in the “last days” (Heb. 1:1-2), so that the correct timing of Christ’s coming suddenly becomes an open question!

3) Even within the gospel texts themselves, we find language that seems more consistent with the epistles than with the church’s dogma (remember that in all of this, our dispute is not with the gospels per se, but rather with the “interpretation” of the gospels as put forth by church tradition). In the gospel of Luke, there is some indication that the suffering and rejection of Christ is ascribed not to the present, but to a future generation:

“Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He [Jesus] answered them and said, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; … The days shall come [centuries will pass] when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man and you will not see it. … For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day. BUT FIRST HE MUST SUFFER MANY THINGS AND BE REJECTED BY THIS [implied, future] GENERATION. And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it shall be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, … until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all’” (17:20-27, emphasis added).

During his discourse on the end of days, Jesus promulgates a prophecy which most scholars attribute to his second coming: “For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day” (Luke 17:24). What is surprising, however, is that this prophecy is then expanded by a most intriguing appendage to the previous verse: “But first He must suffer many things” (17:25). In other words, while “the literary Jesus” is predicting his supposed second coming, according to the common view, this terse statement shockingly reveals that his incarnation must necessarily precede his coming from the sky! And since the entire prophecy is set in the future, the sentence pertaining to Christ’s suffering and rejection “by this [chronologically implied] generation” cannot possibly be understood in any other context except as a reference to a future event. Otherwise we would be dislocating this sentence from the end times setting of the prophecy, thus creating a bizarre anachronism. After all, Jesus prophesies that a long time will pass before we behold “the Son of Man” (Luke 17:22), an idiomatic phrase that is deeply tied to his incarnation (Ps. 8:4; Matt. 9:6; 17:9; 24:44; Gal. 4:4). In fact, Luke goes on to say that Jesus will be initially revealed ("ἀποκαλύπτεται" in Greek) in the last days:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. ... It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed" (Luke 17:26-30).

Now, let’s compare that passage with one from the epistles. Notice that 1 Peter 1:7 exhorts us to have faith so that we are ready “at the revelation of Jesus Christ,” which is “revealed in the last days” (1 Peter 1:5), and then Peter declares categorically and unequivocally that “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories” that would follow are really prophecies or “predictions”:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he PREDICTED the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.” (1 Peter 1:10-11, emphasis added, ESV).

4) To shed some light to this apparent controversy, we must also consult the Old Testament. But wherever we look there, we find one prophecy after another that seems to support the epistolary view of Jesus rather than the historical view of the gospels. Zephaniah 1:7, Daniel 12:1-2, Zechariah 12:9-10, and Isaiah 2:19 all place the death and resurrection of the Messiah at “the end of time” (Dan. 12:4). It is not a coincidence that Rabbinical scholars, steeped in Hebrew Scripture, also conclude that, according to their writings, the Messiah will appear once in the last days!

5) There are also literary and historical considerations. We now know that the gospels were written approximately 40-70 years after the purported events, which would indicate that they do not contain eyewitness reports, something the early church was not privy to during the formation of their dogma. Therefore, most of the evidence seems to confirm the epistolary view of Jesus, and the only thing standing in its way from being unanimous is the church’s dogma, which is a thorn in its side because it also creates all of the apparent biblical confusion that is expressed through various diametrically opposed views, such as Preterism versus Futurism, and the like.

Conclusion

Therefore, based on these findings, we must rightly conclude that although the gospels are the word of God, nevertheless, their purpose and function within the New Testament cannot be to give us a literal interpretation of history. After all, the Bible is not a book on science or history, but a book of faith! And if the gospels are the word of God—giving us an outline of the life of Christ within the context of the entire history of mankind, not just past history—then they must be theological documents that give us a glimpse of Jesus’ future history through theological language that imparts instruction into the meanings of salvation, the Messiah, and the nature of God. In other words, the gospels are a mixed bag of theology, history (history written in advance; cf. Isa. 46:10), and prophecy!