Amplify’d from www.wired.com

Google Unveils ‘Personalized Channels’ to Bridge TV Attention Gap

By John C Abell

Some 35 hours of video are now uploaded to YouTube every minute, but the numbers Google are most interested in are “5″ and “15.” The former is the number of hours the average person watches TV every day. The latter is the number of minutes the average person stays on YouTube per session — yes, I thought that was low too. So Google is pressing its advantage — a seemingly limitless supply of content on what would seem to be every topic imaginable, and a pretty good idea already of what you like to watch — in a bid to bridge that attention gap. The search giant is calling its new feature “Personalized Channels” and rolling it out as part of YouTube’s “Leanback” service, a quasi-TV experience complete with pre-curated channels like “comedy” and “gaming,” and a “remote control” via Android smart phones. With the personalization, you will be able to create a never-ending video stream based on keywords that you provide, and on your viewing history. Your channels get better over time, the company promises. Users of Pandora and similar cloud-based music services will be familiar with the concept: You name an artist and you get a “station” playing that act’s tracks as well as those which the algorithm deems is in a similar genre. And, like streaming audio stations, you can vote up and down specific video streams to try to exclude types of content from bubbling up downstream. The music metaphor isn’t lost on Google. A spokesman brought it up spontaneously in a briefing with Wired.com in advance of the announcement. But there are big differences. It’s easy to create a station based on, say, Rick Astley. But there are lots of possible ways to describe things that aren’t household words. “On YouTube it is hard to know what to call ‘keyboard cat’ videos,” said Shiva Rajaraman, Group Product Manager. “So the challenge was, ‘How do we create a vocabulary?’” This is where user history comes in handy as a starting point. Creating online video channels around behavior seems way overdue — after all, TiVo tagged you as gay nearly a decade ago. It’s been long possible on YouTube to subscribe to individual feeds, and to do ad hoc searches which play one clip and suggest others when that one ends. “Personalized Channels” leverages YouTube as a vast library rather than as a subscription service, introducing a more refined means of discovery that could prove quite sticky. The irony is that YouTube is battling to become more like TV even as Google TV tries to make television more like the internet. The main paradigm of television is to sit back and do nothing. So this new effort to limit interaction, and the need for limiting it, ironically emphasize YouTube not as a mere repository, visited for a specific reason and for a short period of time, but as a genuine lean-back experience — rivaling the boob tube for your attention, loyalty and disposable, time-wasting minutes. Wait — that’s a good thing?

See Also:

YouTube’s ‘Leanback’ Wants to Friend Your Television Remote 5-Year-Old YouTube Tops Networks’ Primetime With 2 Billion Views YouTube Redesigned With Films, User Uploads in Mind YouTube Plans Mainstream Film Rentals … Again Google TV Revealed: One Screen to Rule Them All Read more at www.wired.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h6m9

Amplify’d from www.spectrummagazine.org

Fellowship and Forbidden Fruit

Commentary on lesson 10, ‘The man of God: obedience is not optional”, for discussion on Sabbath December 4, 2010

Sabbath School background characters false prophets Old Testament prophets temptation

By Karl. G. Wilcox

Karl G. Wilcox, Ph.D, is Associate Professor of English at Southwestern Adventist University, in Keene, Texas.

Image of Biblical Lions by Nicki Anderson (http://media.photobucket.com/image/lions%20bible/nikianderson/lions.jpg)

The tragic case of the “Man of God” (1st Kings 13) bears special relevance to Adventist belief. For starters, Jeroboam does two things that mark him as a shadowy precursor of the Anti-Christ: he makes the Hebrew religion “easier” and he also messes about with the Hebrew calendar. On both counts he anticipates, quite neatly, Ellen White’s warning of an emerging “Apostate Protestantism”, fully enamored with both false revivals and false sabbaths.

Jeroboam's political anxiety fastens upon the notion that, because the temple that served both nations lay within the territory of Judah, his people might, over time, begin to dream of reunification. In order to preempt this, the king indulges in some revisionist theology. The facts of the Exodus remain, but their allegiances shift. The two golden calves find new meaning, not as idols, but as gods of deliverance (idols now get the credit for delivering Israel from idolatry). And the Feast of Booths (arguably, Israel's most celebratory sabbath) gratuitously moves to a new date on the calendar, exactly one month after its proper time. These modifications all find their ostensible rationale in Jeroboam's argument that it is just “too hard” to have to travel all the way to Jerusalem to worship at the Temple. The arguments for convenient religion promise a blithe return to Edenic bliss, but they always forget that grim and sword-bearing angel at the gate.

Into the middle of this ersatz celebration (Jeroboam ignores Moses’ warning to not employ images during the Feast of Booths) strides the lean figure of patient integrity. The Man of God’s dire prediction, the shattered altar, and Jeroboam’s withered hand find a natural corollary in the Man of God’s refusal to eat anything. By not eating, he witnesses against false enjoyment or the idolatrous celebration of life. He stands against the idea that religion requires no discrimination; that it should never entail guilt, shame, or strict accountability, or that one can slide into Heaven on a diet of celebratory pastry.

Jeroboam’s invitation to the Man of God to share a meal with him seems gracious enough, but in this context, a meal signified a lot more than just eating. If the Man of God had eaten with the king, that act would have allied him to the king’s brassy worship style. This is in the nature of a shared meal. To eat merely is to survive, but to share a meal with another person implies commonality. Eve did not eat the forbidden fruit because she needed food, she ate because she wanted to join what C.S. Lewis calls the ‘inner circle’ — she wanted to be a “god” among gods. By not eating, the Man of God eschews common cause with the dominant culture of false satiety. The state of being hungry, in this context, marks true religion as sometimes depriving itself of one of God’s seminal gifts in order to draw a severe line between true satisfaction and the illusory fullness of sin. How can a hungry Man of God demonstrate the fullness of God? Well, the paradoxes of faith will persist, but I would suggest a hungry man is less likely to settle for something that is not food than a man who insists upon his right to never miss a meal.

When the “Old Prophet” hears of what the “Man of God” has done, he responds with uncanny speed. The Bible does not reveal his motives — and that's a good thing. Also, instead of the Bible telling us that the Old Prophet was envious, or an “agent of Satan” (the Bible rarely moralizes), we get only a stark narration of his acts. Contrary to what we expect, nearly everything the Old Prophet says and does tokens a modicum of good will towards the Man of God. No doubt, the Old Prophet had converted to Jeroboam’s facile new faith; this could explain why God did not send the Old Prophet to confront the king. As a probable advocate of an easier Judaism, the Old Prophet’s mendacity could have been justified on rhetorical grounds (the end justifies the means). Does he lie to the Man of God in a sincere attempt to win him over to a progressive faith? At the same time, the Old Prophet appears eager to win recognition as a fellow prophet. Does he harbor some nostalgia for his own lost integrity, or does the lying prophet simply want to bring a good man down? We cannot elucidate precise motive here, but we ought to note that, in working out this range of possibilities, we inevitably get schooled in the base entendre of our own dark hearts.

It would be easy to think that the temptation under the oak tree only concerned food. But the real hook must have been the promise of renewed fellowship (or maybe even the prospect of winning a convert). When the text identifies the Man of God as both “deceived” and guilty of an act of “rebellion”, it tells us more than we want to know (about ourselves). We don’t like to bring those two words together. We think of the deceived as harmless victims and the rebellious as wicked perpetrators, but the text refuses this distinction. When the Old Prophet exclaims, “I am also a prophet like you” the Man of God must choose between what he knows to be true, and his now quite beleaguered need to be liked. The prospect of mundane acceptance, good-will among fellows, and the security of shared beliefs in a hostile place all converge like so many welcome blessings upon the Man of God.

Oh, it’s easy enough for the stalwart Adventist to vow that he would never violate the Sabbath even at the cost of not being able to “buy or sell”. But rarely do we contemplate how little fortitude we can muster for enduring the status of the social pariah. Loneliness and the prospect of painful anonymity terribly haunts the bold reformer as he realizes, perhaps too late, that nobody might join him after all. Jeremiah’s painful isolation, Peter’s denial of Jesus, and Jerome’s recantation: these figures best know the true severity of that leafy seduction. To deny ourselves (at testing time) our fundamental need for human society (or human recognition) seems counter to the very nature of our being — and it is. But from our very creation this has been a dangerous world of seeming friends and benefactors where shady groves harbor asps and grinning publicans poison our food.

When the old prophet unexpectedly finds himself the voice of God, he must bear witness not only to the rebellion of the Man of God, but also to the wickedness of his own heart. Thus, the Man of God’s doom becomes the Old Prophet’s gut wrenching “second chance”.

We might remember Moses’ earthly fate and wring some hope (and fear) from it — he too died for a single act of rebellion and forfeited his temporal life with its promised land. It seems unfair that Moses should die for a single rebellious act while the children of Israel lived on to sin another day. Yet, we should recall that Moses’ earthly fate did not prevent him from going to Heaven, and it may help others get there too.

The Man of God, like Moses, could perhaps be punished more severely than his wicked counterpart on the simple grounds that he was ready to die — an axiom that can be applied throughout the Bible to both the irreversibly righteous and wicked. We may, perhaps, take from this that the Man of God will be in heaven, and the Old Prophet may well be there too.

The Old Prophet’s confession that, indeed, the Man of God was truly a “Man of God” (and not just another false prophet like himself) creates space for a curious end of life request that offers still further hope. The Old Prophet’s request, “bury my bones with his bones”, holds out a more honest invitation to fellowship than the original promise of a shared meal ever did, and, as we discover later, that morbid pairing of dead men's bones produced a remarkably durable (and fire-resistant) union. Read more at www.spectrummagazine.org

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h6m3

Mercury serves up a nuclear surprise: a new type of fission

The discovery of a new type of fission turns a tenet of nuclear theory on its head.

Amplify’d from www.scientificamerican.com

Mercury serves up a nuclear surprise: a new type of fission

The discovery of a new type of fission turns a tenet of nuclear theory on its head.

By Eugenie Samuel Reich The observation of an unexpected nuclear reaction by an unstable isotope of the element mercury has thrown up a rare puzzle. The enigma is helping theorists to tackle one of the trickiest problems in physics: developing a more complete model of the atomic nucleus. Nuclear fission, the process in which a nucleus heavier than that of iron breaks into pieces, is generally observed to be symmetric, with the resulting fragments being roughly equal in size. Although instances of asymmetric fission are known, they are usually attributed to the preferential formation of 'magic' nuclei, in which shells in the nuclear structure are filled to capacity. So when researchers on the ISOLDE experiment at CERN, Europe's particle-physics laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland, set out to study the decay of mercury-180 -- containing 80 protons and 100 neutrons -- they expected it to break into two nuclei of zirconium-90, each containing 40 protons and 50 neutrons. They assumed that outcome would be particularly favoured because 40 and 50 are magic numbers for which shells would be exactly filled. But the mercury dealt a surprise, splitting instead into ruthenium-100 and krypton-80. "A symmetric split should be dominant and we show that it doesn't happen," says ISOLDE member Andrei Andreyev, presently of the University of the West of Scotland in Paisley. The result is in press at Physical Review Letters. Pure beam ISOLDE is unique in being able to create pure beams of unstable heavy elements, the reaction products of which can be collected and studied. Andreyev and his colleagues started with a beam of thallium-180. This mostly decayed by capturing an electron, turning one of its 81 protons into a neutron to form mercury-180, which then performed the unexpected feat of splitting into two pieces of unequal size. Theorist Peter Möller of Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, thinks that he has an explanation. He has used a nuclear model that he and his colleagues developed in 20011, and says that the key was to consider not only the stability of the end fragments, but also the stability of the differently shaped nuclei that occur as mercury-180 divides. Möller had previously explored in detail only the fission of nuclei heavier than mercury, which tend to split symmetrically. But after the ISOLDE result, he applied his model to lighter isotopes and was surprised to find that it predicts asymmetric splits for mercury-180 as well as for a range of other unstable nuclei. Comparing the masses of the thallium and mercury nuclei predicts that capturing an electron would leave the mercury nucleus with 9.5 mega-electronvolts of excess energy. Möller's calculations show that to split symmetrically, it would have to travel over an energy barrier of 10.5 mega-electronvolts. An asymmetric split, by contrast, requires far less energy. "Exactly why it's asymmetric we cannot say, but it is a rather delicate balance between surface tension, electrostatic charge and nuclear forces," says Möller. He is now improving and automating his model to be able to predict the splits of nuclei lighter than mercury. Firming up fission Nuclear theorist Witold Nazarewicz of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville says that the study demonstrates the extent to which, more than 70 years after the discovery of nuclear fission, we are still learning about the process. "This is very important information for any model of the nucleus," he says. Nazarewicz says that although engineers' practical knowledge of fission has progressed far enough for us to build nuclear bombs and reactors, "I don't think we have a firm understanding of fission rooted in the interactions of the proton and neutron building blocks." The nuclei that form in a typical reactor core are generally understood, but models are not at the point at which they can be extrapolated to more exotic and unstable isotopes, he says. A better fundamental understanding of the theory may help the design of future generations of reactors. Experimental facilities scheduled to come online over the next decade should enable further studies of unstable nuclei. Those facilities include the €1-billion (US$1.3 billion) Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany, and the $600-million Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan State University in East Lansing. Read more at www.scientificamerican.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h6lq

Bond set at $500,000 for veteran seen following Westboro Baptist Church members

Amplify’d from www.ydr.com

Bond set at $500,000 for veteran seen following Westboro members

By TIM POTTER McClatchy Newspapers

WICHITA, Kan. - A veteran who was severely wounded in Afghanistan remained in the Sedgwick County, Kan., jail Wednesday on a $500,000 bond, suspected of stalking members of a Topeka church known for protesting at soldiers' funerals. The protests by Westboro Baptist Church have been widely condemned, and in the past 5½ years, the church has received lots of threatening e-mails and phone calls, a Westboro official said Wednesday. But the reaction is "taking on a different dimension lately," said church spokeswoman Shirley Phelps-Roper. Increasingly, Westboro members are being followed or harassed as they leave protests, she said. Phelps-Roper, 53, said she couldn't think of another incident like the one that culminated Tuesday in the Wichita City Hall parking lot. Authorities say an Army veteran followed a vehicle carrying five Westboro members - Phelps-Roper and four of her siblings - to City Hall. What made it different, she said, is that the man had guns and abundant ammunition with him in his vehicle - backed into a parking spot outside the building where they were meeting with police officials about safety concerns at protests. Authorities found two handguns, a rifle and more than 90 rounds of ammunition in the man's vehicle, sources said. The man, who had been severely wounded while on duty in Afghanistan, was arrested and remained in jail Wednesday on suspicion of stalking, driving on a revoked license and false impersonation. The man, in his 20s, lives in another county. On Wednesday, federal agents were in the man's town asking questions about him, an official there said. Sedgwick County sheriff's investigators plan to present their investigation of the incident to prosecutors Thursday morning, Sheriff Robert Hinshaw said. It will be up to prosecutors whether to charge the man. The Wichita Eagle generally does not name suspects unless they have been charged. The man is a decorated Army veteran who was wounded in Afghanistan in an improvised bomb explosion, sources say. On Wednesday, another veteran offered to help pay for the man's defense. Gregory Noller, a 57-year-old retired Army sergeant major who lives in Wichita, said he would be willing to give to a legal defense fund for the man. "I think he has a right to legal counsel, and I don't know that he can afford it," said Noller, whose 21-year-old son is serving in the Army and could be going to war. "One of the things that has drawn me ... to make this offer," Noller said, is that the man is a decorated veteran. At protests across the nation, Westboro members claim that soldiers' deaths are God's way of punishing the United States for immorality and tolerance of abortion and homosexuality. The message has caused outrage. The church doesn't hire security staff, Phelps-Roper said. "We have the best security. It is the Lord our God," she said. On Wednesday, Phelps-Roper gave this account of the incidents Tuesday: She and the other four church members, ages 42 to 54, were riding in nondescript van on their way from Mulvane High School to Wichita City Hall. Earlier Tuesday morning, they had held a protest at the school against what she described as immoral behavior by youths. On the south side of downtown Wichita, a sheriff's detective stopped the church van. Earlier, the detective had observed the Mulvane protest, and on his way back to downtown Wichita, he noticed a vehicle following the church van. He stopped and questioned the driver, who said he was with the church group. But when the detective stopped the church members, they told him that the vehicle was not part of their group. The detective then pulled over the white SUV that seemed to be following the church members. The church group lost sight of the SUV as they proceeded on to City Hall. During the meeting with Wichita police, the church members learned of the arrest outside in the parking lot. Later, sheriff's investigators questioned the members separately. They didn't recognize the name of the man arrested. They learned from investigators that two handguns, a rifle and "a lot" of ammunition were in the man's vehicle, Phelps-Roper said. "(Investigators) said, 'This is the question we have: What was he going to do? And we're going to try to learn something from him when we talk to him,' " she said. Read more at www.ydr.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h6lj

A SUPERB REFUTATION OF THE HERESY OF PRETERISM/HISTORICISM BY BROTHER ERIC JON PHELPS…

Amplify’d from marcoponce.com

EJP’s Refutation Of Preterism/Historicism

A SUPERB REFUTATION OF THE HERESY OF PRETERISM/HISTORICISM BY BROTHER ERIC JON PHELPS…

Remember: Hermeneutics > Ecclesiology > Eschatology

Your eschatology (doctrine of “last things”) is derived from your ecclesiology (doctrine of “the church”) and ultimately comes from your hermeneutics (how seriously you take the Biblical text).

GOD SAYS WHAT HE MEANS AND MEANS WHAT HE SAYS

Taken From: http://www.vaticanassassins.org/2010/12/daniel-927-antecedent-he-messiah-the-prince-or-the-prince-that-shall-come/

King of Rome: Papal Throne in the Vatican, 2010

The epic Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks of Years as given to the Prophet Daniel by the Angel Gabriel (Daniel 9:24-27) has been a bone of contention between Historicists and Futurists for centuries.  That contention devolves upon one singular question: do we read the prophecy literally or do we not read it literally.  Indeed, to be literal or not to be literal, that is the question. Now, the great hermeneutic of Bible-reading is to understand the passage before you in its literal, natural meaning.  This is how the Lord Jesus Christ—the incarnate Word of God—understood the Scriptures (the written Word of God); so should we.  Neither the student nor the scholar are ever permitted to redefine any word or phrase thereby departing from its historical, natural meaning unless addressing figurative language, such as a parable or a vision.  Yet, such figurative language is explained or defined in the immediate text or by a parallel passage in the Word of God further preventing the Bible-reader from inventing his own “private interpretation” of the word, phrase of passage under study.  In keeping to this rule of literal reading (for what is to keep in check the minds of men if all are permitted to redefine the very words of God!), we shall address this all-important prophecy.  As to its specific importance, the Angel Gabriel’s words compose a prophecy cited by the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:15); a prophecy partially fulfilled by Himself in his open declaration as “Messiah the Prince” (Matthew 21:1-9) in accordance with Zechariah 9:9; a prophecy serving as the key foundation for understanding the literal fulfillment of Revelation 6 through 19. The two camps (to the exclusion of the Jesuitical Preterists) attempting to explain this Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks of Years are the futurist camp and the historicist camp.  The futurist camp is the oldest dating back to the First Century Church; the historicist camp is of recent development generally championed by the Protestant Reformers during the 16th Century.  This point does not validate either position as the “oldest and therefore the best” argument is used by Satan as the foundation for his design of overthrowing the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures translated into the series of English Bibles born out of the Protestant Reformation.  For, the “oldest and therefore the best” argument is employed by the Jesuits and their agents to seduce the Child of God away from the Scriptures of the Reformation into accepting “the oldest and therefore the best Greek manuscripts,” which manuscripts are pro-Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, thereby returning the “heretics” (“separated brethren” as of Vatican II) to the fold of Rome.  Rather, we are confined to the rule of the great hermeneutic when somberly addressing this keystone of Old Testament prophecies “given by inspiration of God,” preserved down to this day, and translated into our epic English Reformation Bible, the AV1611 in its present edition of 1769. Now to specifics: the futurist position maintains the 70th Week of Daniel—the last seven-year period of the prophecy—is yet future, yet to culminate in the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The historicist position claims the last seven-year period of the prophecy has been fulfilled by Christ at his First Coming.  Futurists believe there is a gap of time between the 69th and 70th Week of Years, a gap of time that began the day after Christ declared himself “Messiah the Prince” on 10 Nisan (April 6), 32 AD, which gap of time continues to this day.  Historicists believe there is no gap of time between the 69th and 70th Weeks of Years, that the prophecy has been entirely fulfilled in its six specifics given in Daniel 9:24. It is the position of your Editor that the historicist position is untenable for one most important reason: it denies the literal reading of the prophecy!  It violates our first great hermeneutic—the literal reading of the Word of God as taught to us by the living Word of God Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ!  Our first example illustrating the departure from our paramount rule of understanding the Scriptures is the date on which historicists assign the issuing the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem as foretold in Daniel 9:25: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto 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.” There is only one commandment given to restore and to build Jerusalem (not the commandment to rebuild the Temple as first decreed by Cyrus) subsequent to the giving of this prophecy.  That command is found in Nehemiah 2:1-6, and in no other place in the Old Testament.  That command was given on the first day of the Hebrew New Year, the first of Nisan, in the 20th year of the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia.  That date, as proven by Sir Robert Anderson in his epic work, The Coming Prince, was March 14, 445 BC.  But to simplify the matter for this discussion, the command to rebuild the city of Jerusalem—not the Temple—was given in 445 BC.  There is no other year any such commandment was issued according to the testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures. On the other hand, historicists believe the commandment for the restoration of Jerusalem was given in 457 BC and cite Ezra 7:12-26.  In this lengthy decree of King Artaxerxes, given in the seventh year of his reign that began in 465 BC, only the building of “the house of God” is addressed.  See Ezra 7:16, 17, 19, 20, 23 and 24.  Ezra then praises God for this decree and concludes in verse 27: “Blessed be the LORD God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king’s heart, to beautify the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem.” No mention throughout the entire text is made of the building of the city of Jerusalem—None!  But the historicist, in his attempt to prove his preconceived notion that the prophet’s Seventy Weeks of Years—490 years—has been fulfilled, Suggests that there was a coordinate, implied command to rebuild the city.  (Satan’s doctrine of implied powers has not only destroyed the intent of the writers of the U.S. Constitution, but has also, in this instance, rendered the Word of God of none effect!)  The historicist has departed from the literal reading of the Scripture (even as the American Supreme Court has departed from the literal reading and intent of the Constitution!), especially when we have one singular, clear commandment to rebuild Jerusalem recorded in the second chapter of Nehemiah.  Without a solid date for the issuing of that all-important commandment to rebuild Jerusalem, our understanding of Daniel’s prophecy is incomprehendable! Such is the first and foremost dilemma the historicist must address, but only if he violates our first great hermeneutic—the literal reading of the Bible.  Sadly, this is exactly what the historicist has done: he has assigned a date for the rebuilding of Jerusalem that is premised upon a lie—his lie—that Ezra was given that commandment, not Nehemiah! The second dilemma, nearly as significant as the first, in which the historicist is trapped is found in Daniel 9:27: “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.” The historicist maintains that, according to English grammar, the “he” of verse 27 refers to “Messiah” and not “the prince that shall come” of verse 26 which reads: “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.” In light of other coordinate Scriptures the “he” of verse 27 cannot refer to “Messiah,” the Hebrew/Jewish/Israelite seed of David.  Daniel goes on to further speak of this same “he” in Daniel 12:11-12: “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.  Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.” How are we to understand this time when the abomination that maketh desolate is set up in the Hebrew Temple as foretold by Daniel in two specific places, Daniel 9:27 and 12:11?  How are we to comprehend this event that precedes national blessing to the Jew who survives the subsequent 1290 plus 45 days after this event?  The Lord Jesus Christ gives us His answer.  We read in Matthew 24:15, 21-22, 29-30; “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand: . . . “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no nor ever shall be.  And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened. . . . “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” According to Christ there is only one “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Daniel the Prophet.  Thus, this singular event, this “abomination of desolation” of Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 12:11, is the same event perpetrated by the same man, the “he” of Daniel 9:27 (who, by the way, is the same “he” of Daniel 11:45, the same “he” of Daniel 12:7). Further, how can “he” of verse 27 refer to “Messiah” when Messiah has been “cut off,” killed?  There is no mention of the resurrection of Messiah in this text.  Thus, if the “he” of verse 27 is referring to the slain Messiah, how can the slain Messiah confirm a covenant for seven years? Further, according to Christ, as He answers the question of his Jewish disciples as to the sign of his Second coming to earth and the end of the world (or rather “age” and not the physical destruction of the world), in the days of this singular “abomination of desolation” as foretold by Daniel: 1. There shall be great tribulation to the extent that there has never been such a time in the history of the world, and that if not shortened, no flesh—man, beast, bird or fowl— would survive (Matthew 24:21-22). 2. After that terrible tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, the moon shall not give her light, the stars shall fall from heaven and subsequently the Son of man comes back to earth in “the clouds of heaven” in great power and glory in fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14, Christ referring to this very verse when put under oath by the High Priest (Matthew 26:64). Image of the Roman Papal Caesar, Similar to the Future Statue of the Slain and Risen Pope to be Placed Inside the Third Hebrew Temple by the Jewish False Prophet of the Man-Beast If we are to read the Bible literally and examine general recorded history, NONE of these events have occurred.  And it is during the days of these events that the “abomination of desolation” is set up as stated by Daniel the Prophet. Further, since these two events listed above are yet future, the setting up of “the abomination of desolation” is also yet future, for it is in the days of this desolation of the future Holy Place–-the Third Hebrew Temple in Jerusalem (which, if Daniel 9:27 is to be literally fulfilled, must be erected since the Second Temple has been destroyed as per Daniel 9:26)—that the Lord Jesus Christ returns at His Second Coming in answer to the questions of His Jewish Apostles (Matthew 24:3)! Therefore, the individual, the “he” of Daniel 9:27, that sets up “the abomination of desolation” in the Third Hebrew Temple, causing the temple sacrifices to cease, is yet to come.  This same man, the “he” who confirms an existing covenant for seven years, breaks this covenant, and sets up the “abomination of desolation” in the holy place.  In all the gospel records, did Jesus Christ confirm an existing covenant with many nations, including Israel, for seven years?  Did Christ then break that covenant, and then desolate the Hebrew Temple?  Would Christ even do such things, thereby becoming a covenant-breaker and another Antiochus Epiphanes IV who erected an image of himself in the Second Temple?  Did Jesus the Christ, who openly claimed via a public event to be the Messiah of Israel according to Zechariah 9:9, ever cause the temple sacrifices to cease?  They continued for another 38 years until Titus’ Roman Legions destroyed not only the Temple but the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD!  Clearly, Jesus the Messiah never confirmed an existing covenant with Israel and the nations for seven years, nor did He break that covenant, nor did he cause the Temple sacrifices to cease, nor did he erect an idol in the Hebrew Temple, this idol being the “abomination of desolation.” Clearly, the “he” of Daniel 9:27 is not the “Messiah” of verse 26.  Rather, the “he” (in light of the verses given above) is referring to its nearest antecedent, “the prince that shall come,” within the same verse.  The people of this prince who destroyed the city of Jerusalem and its sanctuary (the Temple) were Roman legions.  Thus, this “prince that shall come” is Roman, whom your Editor declares to be the final Papal Roman Caesar—the Pope of Rome—who confirms this preexisting, international covenant for seven years in fulfillment of Daniel 9:27. As to this ongoing controversy as to which antecedent noun the pronoun “he” is referring to—the Hebrew “Messiah” or the Roman “prince that shall come”—, a noted theologian, Dr. H. C. Thiessen writes: “If the sixty-nine weeks take us to the Cross of Christ [actually, Christ's declaration of his Messiah-ship on Palm Sunday---EJP], then the seventieth week must come after the Cross.  But here we note first of all that there is an interval between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth weeks.  Tregelles says: ‘At the cutting off of Messiah, the recognition ends; then comes the interval, and the time is again taken up for one week at the close’ (Remarks on the Book of Daniel, p. 10). “During this interval ‘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 even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined’ (Dan. 9:26). “This points definitely to the coming of the Romans under Titus and their destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which occurred in A.D. 70.  Concerning the words, ‘the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined,’ Ironside says: ‘These words briefly describe the history of Palestine from the coming of the Roman armies under Titus to the present time.  Jerusalem, and Palestine as a whole, have been trodden down of all nations, and shall be, “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”‘ (Lectures on the Book of Daniel, p. 167). “Then we note that the city and the sanctuary shall be destroyed by the people of the prince that shall come, not by the prince himself.  As we have seen, these people are the Romans, who fulfilled this prophecy in A.D. 70.  The prince comes to the fore in v. 27.  The verse reads as follows: ‘And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.’ “There is, however, considerable difference of opinion as to what is the antecedent of the pronoun ‘he.’ Most commentators think it is ‘the Anointed One,’ in the first part of v. 26; some, taking the pronoun as a neuter, ‘it,’ think it is the ‘week,’ as if the ‘week’ would confirm the covenant with the many.  But how, we would ask, can the reference be to Christ when we have just been introduced to the Roman prince? It seems necessary to make the pronoun refer to him [which conclusion sustains the established rule of English grammar, a pronoun referring to its nearest antecedent---EJP]. “Furthermore, when did Christ make a firm covenant with many Jews for one week; and how can it be said of Him that ‘in the midst of the week’ He caused ‘the sacrifices and oblations to cease,’ when the temple sacrifices continued for about forty years after Christ’s death on the Cross?  It would seem absurd to refer the pronoun to the ‘week.’  How can a ‘week’ make firm a covenant and then break it in the midst of itself?  It is more natural to refer the pronoun ‘he’ to the prince mentioned in the last part of v. 26, namely, the Roman prince; however not to Vespasian, Roman emperor from A.D. 69-79, nor to his son and successor, Titus, who ruled from A.D. 79-81.  Neither of these made and broke such a covenant with the Jews; and Titus lived only two years after his accession to the throne.  The reference is to a Roman prince who shall come after the long interval of the last half of verse 26, which has already lasted 1,900 years; and the last week is still future.  Tregelles takes the pronoun ‘he’ of v. 27 to refer to the ‘prince that shall come’ of v. 26, and says: ‘The prince who shall come is the last head of the Roman power, the person concerning whom Daniel had received so much previous instruction’ (op. cit., 105).—Bibliotheca Sacra, 1935, XCII, 48-50* [Emphasis added] *Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, (Dallas, Texas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), Vol. IV of VIII, pp. 348-349. Daniel in the Lions’ Den, 580 BC In conclusion, the pronoun “he” of Daniel 9:27 is none other than “the prince that shall come” of verse 26. This coming prince, during whose reign the Lord Jesus Christ will physically return to Jerusalem, is Roman.  For his Roman legions (though composed of foreigners, specifically the 10th Legion) destroyed both Jerusalem and the Second Temple in A.D. 70.  This coming Roman prince will be as much of a Roman Caesar as were his predecessors.  And since the title of “Pontifex Maximus”–that name of blasphemy—was transferred from Roman Emperor Gratian to Bishop of Rome Damasus I, EVERY POPE OF ROME has been a Roman Emperor, a Roman Caesar, the King of Rome and foremost Prince of the Roman Papacy ruling an international, geopolitical empire since no later than A.D. 606. Therefore, according to this wonderful prophecy, there is a coming Roman Papal Caesar who will be the last and final Pope of Rome.  He will confirm a preexisting, international covenant that will bring a temporary peace to Israel.  This peace will protect the Third Hebrew temple and its priests, they offering sacrifices and oblations according to the law of Moses.  This final King of Rome will be slain and rise from the dead to be the Man-Beast of Revelation 13:1-10, 18.  Upon rising from the dead, the risen Pope, possessed by Satan to be the Antichrist/Man-Beast, will go to Jerusalem, break the covenant he previously confirmed, and there demand to be worshipped as God, his Jewish False Prophet erecting an image of the risen, Roman Man-Beast inside the Hebrew Temple.  At this time he ends all Hebrew worship and service at the Third Hebrew Temple, the erecting of the image of himself being “the abomination of desolation” as warned by the Lord Jesus Christ, He referring to the same abomination of desolation as spoken of by Daniel the Prophet.  At this time, mid-week of the seven-year period, the risen Roman Pope turned Satan-possessed, Antichrist/ Man-Beast will rule the world for 42 literal months.  Indeed, the “he” of Daniel 9:27 is “the prince that shall come,” the final Roman Papal Caesar turned Antichrist/Man-Beast, to be cast alive into the Lake of Fire by the risen and returning Lord Jesus Christ at his glorious Second Coming (Revelation 19:20)! Praise God! Kingdom of Christ, Stone Cut out Without Hands Smashes Final Roman Empire of Antichrist

See Also: Eric Jon Phelps Replies To My Question On “the Appearing” of Christ The Satanic Trinity My Address To The “Other Side” Christ Is Lord, Islam is False How Does It All End? Read more at marcoponce.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h6l9

City Man to Serve Ten Years in Prison for Possession of Child Porn

Amplify’d from oklahomacity.fbi.gov

City Man to Serve Ten Years in Prison for Possession of Child Porn

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK—Today, GEORGE BYRAN WALTERS, 62, of Oklahoma City, was sentenced by United States District Judge Robin Cauthron to serve 120 months in federal prison following his conviction for possession of child pornography, announced Sanford C. Coats, United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma. Walters was originally charged with possession of child pornography on August 4, 2010, and pled guilty on August 18, 2010. Judge Cauthron also ordered Walters to serve five years of supervised release upon his release from prison, and he will be required to register as a sex offender.

This case was brought as part of the United States Department of Justice Project Safe Childhood initiative designed to protect children from online exploitation and abuse. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.projectsafechildhood.gov .

This case is a result of an investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Brandon Hale. Read more at oklahomacity.fbi.gov

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h6km

Former NOPD Officer Sentenced in Connection with Shootings on Danziger Bridge

Amplify’d from neworleans.fbi.gov

Former NOPD Officer Sentenced in Connection with Shootings on Danziger Bridge

WASHINGTON—A former officer with the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD), was sentenced today to eight years in prison for conspiracy to obstruct justice and for misprision of a felony (for concealing a known crime), in connection with a federal investigation of two police-involved shootings that left two civilians dead and four others seriously wounded in the area of the Danziger Bridge in the days after Hurricane Katrina. In addition, Michael Hunter was ordered to pay a $2,500 fine and serve three years supervised release. On April 7, 2010, Hunter, 33, entered a guilty plea in federal court in New Orleans before U.S. District Court Judge Sarah S. Vance. According to court documents, Hunter drove to the Danziger Bridge on Sept. 4, 2005, in a large Budget rental truck carrying officers in response to a radio call that said officers on the nearby I-10 bridge had come under fire. Hunter has admitted that officers on the east side of the Danziger Bridge fired at civilians even though the civilians did not appear to have any weapons. According to Hunter, one officer (Sergeant A) leaned over a concrete barrier, held out an assault rifle and, in a sweeping motion, fired repeatedly at the civilians, who were at that point lying wounded and apparently unarmed on the ground. Hunter also has admitted that he fired his weapon repeatedly at civilians who were running away over the bridge. In addition, Hunter has acknowledged that he did not see any weapons on these civilians, and that the civilians did not appear to pose a threat to officers as they ran up the bridge. Hunter further admitted that he was present on the west side of the Danziger Bridge when an officer, identified as Officer A, shot and killed Ronald Madison, a civilian who was running away from officers with his hands in view, and did not have a weapon or pose a threat. Without warning, Officer A fired a shotgun at Madison's back as Madison ran toward a motel at the bottom of bridge. Hunter also has described watching Sergeant A physically abuse Ronald Madison as he lay on the ground injured, but still alive. Hunter has admitted that, in the wake of the shootings on the Danziger Bridge, he participated in a conspiracy to cover up the truth about what happened on the bridge. Specifically, he admitted, among other things, that he and other officers provided false statements about what happened on the Danziger Bridge; that before giving formal statements on tape, he and other officers met in a gutted-out police station and discussed their false stories; and that he lied to a state grand jury about what happened on the Danziger Bridge. This case, which is ongoing, is being investigated by the New Orleans Field Office of the FBI, and is being prosecuted by Deputy Chief Bobbi Bernstein and Trial Attorney Forrest Christian of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, along with Assistant U.S. Attorneys Julia K. Evans and Theodore Carter of the Eastern District of Louisiana. Read more at neworleans.fbi.gov

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h6jm

Zahra Baker Case: Warrant's Grim Details on Body Disposal - ABC News

URL:  http://abcnews.go.com/US/zahra-baker-case-warrants-grim...

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h5of

Zachary Garcia Google Search: Florida Student Googles Himself, Mistakenly Charged With Murder - ABC News

URL:  http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/florida-student-zachar...

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h6iv

Ronni Chasen Murder: Man Sought in Publicist Slaying Fatally Shoots Himself - ABC News

URL:  http://abcnews.go.com/US/ronni-chasen-murder-person-int...

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h6il