Have you read Hank's new book?
Have you read Hank's new book?
I recently read The Apocalypse Code and was simultaneously very impressed and very disappointed. On the whole, the book is an excellent guide for how to let the Bible interpret itself. Hank is very strong on the "Typological Principle" which is one of the most important principles of real Biblical hermeneutics, too often ignored in modern seminaries.
The disappointment arose from Hank's extremely biased view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As everyone knows, the current conflict has been going on for over 50 years, and both sides have committed all kinds of atrocities. People can argue which side bears the greater guilt - some see the Israeli oppression as justified because they are fighting for survival against barbaric enemies who use their own children as bombs, while others see the Palestinian suicide tactics as justified given the extreme oppression of the Jews.
But there is nothing in Hank's book that even suggests there are two sides to the story. In his roughly 300 page book, he repeatedly refers to the Israeli massacre at Deir Yassin (1948), and does not mention a single crime from the other side. On the contrary, in a seeming attempt to win the sympathy of his Christian audience, Hank portrays the typical Palestinian as a meek, peace-loving Christian suffering under Jewish brutality! His portrait of the conflict is sureal. But it gets worse. Hank used inflated figures to make the massacre appear worse than it was! On page xxiv, Hank states:
Two hundred fifty? Is that an accurate number? Not according to the Palestinians! They themselves declare that the figure was inflated by the perpetrators to instill fear in those who remained. Here is the truth from the Palestinian website created as a memorial to those who died at Deir Yassin:Originally Posted by The Apocalypse Code
They say that the actual number was roughly 100 - 120. That doesn't make it any less of a crime, but it does make one wonder what Hank's motives really are. Why did he present only one side of the conflict? And why did he publish a false fact that is so easy to disprove?
Well, that's the downside of the book. My hope for this thread is that we can discuss both its positive and the negative aspects. As stated above, I am very impressed with how he teaches hermeneutics. It truly is a very valuable book that corrects a lot of the errors in pop "end-time" literature. But I can not recommend his book without a warning that he is completely unbalanced with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I have not read this book but I used to listen to Hank's radio program, "The Bible Answer Man," and although I learned a great deal from listening to him talk with his guest speakers and answer callers' questions, I frequently disagreed with him.
Your review of his book is enough for me to know that I would not spend money for it, and I hate thinking that other people will be influenced by it in the wrong way.
Thank you, Richard, for presenting this information.
It makes me wonder if they are bribed to do that (favoring Israel).
I don't agree the suicide bombers (why bomb the innocent civilians? They are not responsible. Rather it's the political leaders that are responsible for the conflict.)
Here's a thought. In the book of Joshua God sided with Israel. THere were more that were killed by God's brimstones from heaven than Israel's bows and arrows. But now Israel is heavily armed by the US. Can we say that God favors Israel today?
The reason of the Arab and Israeli conflict comes from the doubt that most world Jewry is descended by blood from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (so are today's Jews Semites to begin with?):
It didn't take long for me to find the answer. For example, God used Assyria as the Rod of His Anger to judge Israel (Bible Wheel book, Spoke 12 - Lamed = Rod).
And there are promises like "the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee" (Isaiah 60:5) and so forth.
So is God using the USA to support Israel, or is the USA supporting Israel because we need a foot-hold in the oil rich middle east?
Hank's take on the modern state of Israel is that it has absolutely nothing to do with fulfillment of any biblical prophecies whatsoever. He supports his case by noting that all the land promises were actually fulfilled in the book of Joshua:
Likewise, he notes that God warned them the land would spue them out if they defiled it, so the promises were conditional:Originally Posted by Joshua 23:14
Then he notes that all the promises were ultimately fulfilled in CHRIST, and so going back to the idea of Israel having a theocracy in the middle east would be like going back to types and shadows, which would be an abomination in light of the finished work of Christ, who is the fulfillment of all prophecy.Originally Posted by Leviticus 18:26-28
In general, I think Hank is correct ... except that its hard to believe that God doesn't have something planned for the modern state of Israel. But I really don't think there will be a "Third Temple" and sacrifices, because 1) there is no verse that speaks of a Third Temple, and 2) it would be an abomination given the fact that Christ is the True Temple (John 2 = Bet/House).
That's a lot of grist for a number of theads!
I don't trust those prophecy teachers anymore. I think it was CI Scoffield who was the father of "modern Israel in prophecy". Israel was in existence back then because of the coming of Christ. God promised Israel to bring Christ from among them.
THe same example can be found in Rachel in Genesis 30-35. She gave birth to Joseph. She called him by that name because God had promised her another (Joseph means "adding").But because she stole her father's idols and Jacob uttered death to whoever stole Laban's idols, she was the one to die exactly after bearing Benoni (son of sorrows) renamed by Jacob as Benjamin (son of the right hand). Again Benjamin points to Christ.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)