I found this on a website and this is what the person told me how he knew that the world would end in 2007 [This was in response to my answer at Will the world end in 2007?]... Just wondering what you think since you seemed to be very knowledgeable about this.
[The questioner sent me a portion of www.hightruth.com/faq/10end.html. What the questioner sent was the section under the heading “Three Major Prophecies Signaling the End.”]
So, does this mean anything, or are people just over analyzing things.
This will necessarily be a long answer.
Before looking at what the author had to say, I want to make two observations. The first is that even this author admits that the Bible does not say when the world will end. There is nothing in what you showed me to indicate that anyone could know even the year of the end. The second is that the writer never gives any scripture to back up his/her assertions. It is like we are expected to believe that this person knows what they are talking about, even if they don’t.
The author gives three “major prophecies signaling the end.” I will look at each one separately. If any one of these “prophecies” can be shown to be in error, then the whole argument must fall. It is like a three-legged stool. If you take away even one leg, the whole stool is worthless.
Sign 1—the recovery of the nation of Israel. While it is true that the Bible prophesied that the nation of Israel would be formed again (Jeremiah 23:-8; Ezekiel 11:14-17, and others) all of these prophecies were fulfilled about 500 years before Christ. They were all prophecies about the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity. Nowhere can you find a prophecy in the New Testament about the return of Israel after the Roman conquest. Perhaps that is because Israel was God’s chosen nation through whom to bring the Messiah. Now that he has come, Jesus the Christ, there is no reason to restore the nation of Israel. Even if there were a reason for, and prophecies about, the restoration of Israel to the land, one could question whether that has happened yet. The nation of Israel that we now know is hardly the nation that was prophesied by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. They prophesied a nation of God’s people; the current nation of Israel is headed by a secular government that is often embarrassed by the religious Jews in their midst. He refers to Israel as “the fig tree,” although they are never called that in the Bible, and even if they were there is no prophecy talking about a symbolic fig tree budding again.
Sign 2—the return of Jerusalem to Israel. The author asserts (again with no proof) that the Bible prophesied that Jerusalem would be “trampled under the feet of the nations” until near the end of the world. Again, I find no such prophecy. I looked, using the words “Jerusalem,” “nations,” and “trampled.” I found nothing that even closely resembled such a prophecy. I would certainly like to see the prophecy that he bases this sign on. Because I don’t know where he is coming from, this is the one leg of the stool that I can not refute directly, because he makes a claim without showing where he gets it.
Sign 3—“the signing of a treaty between the Antichrist and Israel.” This is the easiest of his points to refute. Since the Bible never, ever, uses the term “THE Antichrist,” there can be no prophecies about such a person. (See my answer at www.minuteswithmessiah.com/question/lucifer2) John, the only writer who uses the term antichrist, says, “even now are there many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time.” (1 John 2:18) If there were antichrists 2,000 years ago, and if John said that even then it was the “last time,” then this author’s analysis of “the Antichrist” is obviously wrong. He says we don’t know who will be the Antichrist, but John identifies who is antichrist. “He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22) John knew who was antichrist; how can this writer not know?
He says this person (who is not mentioned in the Bible as a single person) would sign a treaty with Israel. I don’t know where he gets this prophecy, either. Because he says “he will be the ruler over ten nations situated in Europe” and that afterward there will be seven years left until the end of the world, it is possible that he is referring to a clear misunderstanding of the book of Revelation. (Also, if the world is to end in 2007, then this treaty with Israel would have had to take place in the year 2000. No such treaty between Israel and a ruler over ten nations of Europe was made in 2000.) The Revelation mentions a beast (or beasts) having seven heads and ten horns. Some people take this to be symbolic of some European union yet to come (or currently here). There are two problems with that. First, John was told at the beginning of the Revelation that he was being shown “things which must shortly [soon] come to pass.” Thus, the prophecies in the book were fulfilled around 1,900 years ago. Second, the beast with seven heads and ten horns is specifically identified with the Roman Empire. “And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.” (Revelation 7:9-13) Rome has long been called the city built on seven hills. John is told that this beast was at that time reigning; five kings had already died. This is clearly a picture of the Roman Empire, which didn’t have long to continue because the power of Christ’s church would destroy it. To say that the ten kings which were yet to come (and remember, the start of the book said it would be soon) represent some alliance that we are only now seeing violates every rule of interpretation of prophecy. When the prophet clearly points out what a symbol means, it can not be given another meaning without good reason. So, for this to be a prophecy of our times, the Roman Empire would have to be reestablished in our day. We certainly haven’t seen that, nor are we likely to.
Therefore, the third sign this author points to has someone who doesn’t exist in the Bible ruling over a reestablished Roman Empire and making a treaty that is never mentioned in the Bible with a nation that is only in name related to the nation of Israel that was destroyed by the Roman Empire around 70 AD.
Of the three legs of his stool, let us see which are still standing. Leg one lies shattered, because the prophecies of Israel’s return to the land were fulfilled 2,500 years ago. Leg three just never existed, because he talks about “the Antichrist” which the Bible never mentions, and a reestablished Roman Empire. Leg two might still be standing, but only because he doesn’t say where the prophecy he refers to might be found. If I could find it in the Bible, then I could answer it, but I can’t find it. His arguments just don’t hold up. Try to sit on that stool and you will fall to the floor.
Are people overanalyzing things? Perhaps. But they are doing so in ways that directly contradict what the Bible says.
Note added in 2009: Since the world did not end in 2007, it is clear that the person who pointed out this article was a false prophet. That is true of just about anybody who claims to know when the world will end, or knows of signs of the end.