I disagree with many of the Bible interpretations on this thread.
Daniel 9:24-27
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
There is no moving the 70th week into the future unless you support the interpretation first proposed by Francisco Ribera, a Jesuit, as part of the Counter Reformation.
70 weeks, or 490 years, were determined on the Jewish people.
You will notice if you read the Book of Acts that the Apostles didn't preach the Gospel to anyone other than the Jews at first. When the Jews chose to stone Stephen rather than accept the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ raised up Paul and made him an Apostle to the Gentiles.
The stoning of Steven clearly marks the end of the 490 years. The last year of this prophecy wasn't moved into the future unless you deny the Bible is the literal Word of God.
Here's some history to verify this-
"At the Council of Trent, the Jesuits were commissioned by the Pope to develop a new interpretation of Scripture that would counteract the Protestant application of the Bible’s Antichrist prophecies to the Roman Catholic Church. Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), a brilliant Jesuit priest and doctor of theology from Spain, basically said, “Here am I, send me.” Like Martin Luther, Francisco Ribera also read by candlelight the prophecies about the Antichrist, the little horn, that man of sin, and the Beast. But because of his dedication and allegiance to the Pope, he came to conclusions vastly different from those of the Protestants. “Why, these prophecies don’t apply to the Catholic Church at all!” Ribera said. Then to whom do they apply? Ribera proclaimed, “To only one sinister man who will rise up at the end of time!” “Fantastic!” was the reply from Rome, and this viewpoint was quickly adopted as the official Roman Catholic position on the Antichrist.
“In 1590, Ribera published a commentary on the Revelation as a counter-interpretation to the prevailing view among Protestants which identified the Papacy with the Antichrist. Ribera applied all of Revelation but the earliest chapters to the end time rather than to the history of the Church. Antichrist would be a single evil person who would be received by the Jews and would rebuild Jerusalem.”5 “Ribera denied the Protestant Scriptural Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2) as seated in the church of God—asserted by Augustine, Jerome, Luther and many reformers. He set on an infidel Antichrist, outside the church of God.”6 “The result of his work [Ribera’s] was a twisting and maligning of prophetic truth.”7
Following close behind Francisco Ribera was another brilliant Jesuit scholar, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) of Rome. Between 1581 and 1593, Cardinal Bellarmine published his “Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time.” In these lectures, he agreed with Ribera. “The futurist teachings of Ribera were further popularized by an Italian cardinal and the most renowned of all Jesuit controversialists. His writings claimed that Paul, Daniel, and John had nothing whatsoever to say about the Papal power. The futurists’ school won general acceptance among Catholics. They were taught that Antichrist was a single individual who would not rule until the very end of time.”8 Through the work of these two tricky Jesuit scholars, we might say that a brand new baby was born into the world. Protestant historians have given this baby a name—Jesuit Futurism. In fact, Francisco Ribera has been called the Father of Futurism."
Source- http://www.lmn.org/magazine/170/Jesuits.html
As far as the whole race issue, I don't think it's Biblical to preach racial separation.
Here's why-
Exodus 34:10-16
10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.
12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
Here we see God forbids the intermarriage with the other nations surrounding the Promised Land.
Did this command have anything to do with skin color, or everything to do with preventing false worship? I'll let the reader make this choice for themselves.
Deuteronomy 7:1-4
1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
Again, we see God forbidding the Israelites from intermarrying. Was it due to their skin color, or their being greater and mightier than Israel, or was the reason the prevention of false worship?
Exodus 12:48-49
48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
Here we see that the stranger, or a member of another race, can become "as one that is born in the land" if he will agree to keep the Passover and circumcise himself and his sons.
Would God forbid these former strangers from marrying Israelities once they've become part of the nation?
Do you notice a theme here? Does God's problem with other races have anything to do with skin color, or does it seem to involve false worship?
Deuteronomy 7:7-8
7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
and
Deuteronomy 9:4-6
4 Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee.
5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
6 Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people.
Were the Israelites God's Chosen People because they were genetically superior and more civilized than the other nations? I don't think this is an honest interpretation of this passage, but you might.
Acts 10:34-40
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Maybe instead of using the term "Majority Savage Blacks", there could be a category that better reflects their religious beliefs.
I don't disagree that there are many ignorant people in this country who happen to be black. What I disagree with is that the reason for their ignorance has anything to do with skin color or genetics (as a group, not individually) and everything to do with poor parenting, educational systems in place, and brainwashing by the corporate controlled media.
Acts 17:24-28
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
We're all one blood, and we're all God's creation. Should we believe there's anything Biblical about racial miscegnation?
2 Corinthians 6:14
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
Don't you think God would have told us not to be unequally yoked with other races if this was an issue? It appears once again that worship is what God is concerned with.
I forgot to mention one thing. Intermarriage wouldn't result in a merging of the various nations if we followed Biblical conventions. If an Englishman marries a Kenyan, their children should be considered English according to the Bible. Obama would be considered Kenyan if his father was Kenyan. This is how it was done in ancient times. Your father determined your nationality, not your afro or lack thereof.
I understand God split us into different tongues and nations at Babel and I understand he doesn't want us to mix back into one nation united under a One World Order opposed to his rule and worship. I just think the miscegnation thing is taking the concept a bit too far.
We're told to be separate, but that applies to religion and not race. The elites definitely want us to do anything to come together under Lucifer, and they do support mixed marriages (for everyone but themselves!) for the same reason they oppose true Protestantism.
My nation is the United States of America. I don't oppose lawful immigration (only illegal) but I expect the laws to be followed by all where they don't conflict God's law. I expect the immigrants to be devoted to the US and not their former nation (if they're here to live and not just to study). I think English should be the official language and the only language taught in schools on a mandatory basis. I believe non-native speakers should be immersed in intensive English programs before they are taught anything else by our public schools.
-Scar
