In Hebrew, it renders phonetically "Barak Obama".
This is simply not true. First of all, we don't know exactly what words Jesus used when he said that, since it is recorded in Greek; there are many different words for "lightning" preserved in the Masoretic text. He might well have said it in Aramaic rather than Hebrew as well, so that would have to be taken into account. But besides that, the word for "lightning" this theory appeals to is bārāq
, which might sound similar to "Barack" to an English-speaker, but would certainly not to a Semitic speaker. The word bārāq
comes from the root brq
, which in Hebrew and Aramaic means "to shine"; the name "Barack" (براك
) is a Swahili form of the common Semitic brk
, which means "to bless." The q
sound is very distinct from k
, and would not be confused in the biblical period in any Semitic language. Besides the consonantal difference, the vowel pattern is different, and would obviate any possible play on words.
أ١... dangit... left the Arabic keyboard on. Anyway, #1 this is exactly the point I was making, as I was discrediting the idea that this had any significance or even real pertinence, the same as the strict 666/616 postulation, particularly as related to Hebrew, or any need for wisdom to calculate if its spelled the heck out plainly, because it requires: stretching the concept across multiple languages where the whole thing becomes a real PITA, and totally illogical by the end of it; it (in this case the barack obama/lightning heaven) also calls for an improper transliteration based on an understanding of how things are pronounced correctly, spelled, and mispronounced- even by Barack Obama (hint, he doesn't pronounce it correctly per the Arabic, which is related to Aramaic, and the Swahili is of no importance... I'll expand on that).
I'd like to actually write an entire thread on the Barack Obama/Lightning Heaven claim, as it also goes into the issue with Walid Shoebat's claim that the 666 is indeed Greek, but means something else entirely. He says St. John actually saw Arabic characters or words, and muslim symbols which he would have had no familiarity with at all, thus rendering a sort of coded, futuristic message only obvious to a "trained eye".
Because explaining both will require a basic 101 on Arabic and Hebrew, as well as Greek and the history of very early Saints confirming it is gematria, I'll have to actually do a full thread.
I'll link back here.
In the meanwhile, check out these links for a primer: http://www.wnd.com/2009/08/105792/
Also, please quote me in context, because I mean what I say and say what I mean in the context I say it. Cherry-picking what I've said as an example of similar-falsity, and misdirection of linguistic understanding, is not me claiming that thing I am countering, particularly with the example of wrongness I am using.
Sheesh. Read it again:
I didn't ask for only the doctrine, I'm quite familiar with the doctrine itself which you preach. I want to know who/where you're drawing it from as anything official in such a strict interpretation. I can fully see and agree with amillenialism, to a point. But Amillenialism fails in this very strict and historical-only view you're espousing, as you even admit to contradict your statement that it has no future application. Which is it? If it's both, then certainly we can look back while looking forward.
Your 666/616 game is the same concept, outside of gematria, as what Christians sometimes use to call Obama the antichrist.
Because Jesus says He saw satan fall as lighting from heaven. In Hebrew, it renders phonetically "Barak Obama". Or rather, Jesus saw satan as barack obama. It's got a cool ring, right? panders to the emotions of the individual in that era and place.
There are many antichrists, but there is one Anti-Christ to come. Was Nero THE AntiChrist? NO NO NO. But he was a type, and that fits, sure. But he was not the one. It's not the end of time and Nero is dead.
So where/who are you drawing your strict interpretation from? I don't disagree with the doctrine but how you're applying it so strictly, which just doesn't work in so many ways.
* same concept of jumping languages and understandings
*outside of gematria, is the exception between these two methods
* written in Greek, claim it related to Hebrew; no real knowledge of what language this was spoken in, nor does it even use the correct rendering of heaven. However, the word used, bama, can mean a similar thing, but suffers without a thorough understanding of word use.
*panders to a time and place, in the individual hearing it.
*can be true in a sense of being one of many antichrists (for ol' Barry sure ain't for Him, nor was Nero!)
*There is still one AntiChrist, just as there is one Christ
*There are many antichrists before the revealing of the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, AntiChrist.
*Even if that era's ultimate PITA was Nero, and this was written with that in mind, it can still be more related to a future event. God could have just inspired St. John to use that to placate a particular time for a particular reason, but also intending the mystery of identity to the future one.
*There's also the corollary of the Anti-Trinity: 6 represents man in the minds of many who claim this, and so they see a "unity" in 3: false prophet, antichrist person and Satan possessing.
* They also hang out on forums like the following link, and conspiracy theory themselves into a panic by spreading this stupidity: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message513426/pg1