User talk:67.135.235.10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Truthroom.com

Please stop posting links to Truthroom.com, which contains highly-speculative information concerning the Hashemite lineage or Jordan's King Abdullah. Wikipedia is a place for facts rather than conjecture. Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia. - Cybjorg 04:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


This information is well researched, it is valid, and it deserves to be considered. It is factual not speculative. Please support your accusation of speculation. People should have access to all available information on the subject. Stop acting as a censor.67.121.230.51 19:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I beg to differ. The phrase "believed to be King Abdullah of Jordan" (in relation to the peacemaker) refers to speculation about biblical prophecy. Prophecy, in and of itself, is a prediction of the future. It can't be proved until the event transpires. - Cybjorg 09:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Cybjorg, the link is not of relevance to this article. Wikipedia is a huge resource, I suggest you try and find a more appropriate place for the link, or alternatively develop a balanced and rigourously researched article exploring the topic yourself. Nick Fraser 15:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Truthroom web site is a brief read of an immensly complex subject. The information is presented clearly and completely foot noted. The Hashemite King is referenced on the site as a prophetic player in the end times. Currently King Abdullah II is the Hashemite King and therefore the statement "believed to be King Abdullah of Jordan" is made. This is not a speculative statement but factual. The information at truthroom.com is some of the most interesting I have read regarding the Hashemite Kingdom and should be given its place as a link. Without interesting information Wikipedia will be no more than another encyclopedia Britannica and we can all do with out that. The link should stay.67.121.230.51 19:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

speculation: n. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.  Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.
fact: n. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences; a real occurrence; an event.
I argue again that the information contained on the site is not factual until it has happened. The Truthroom Team is speculating on who they think will the major players in the biblical prophecy of the end times, including the libel accusations that King Abdullah is the Antichrist. There is no proof, because it hasn't happened; thus I throw out the "speculative" word again. Again, please stop posting this link. - Cybjorg 04:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

hey cyborg-Copy and pasting from a web site without footnoting is PLAGIARISM, even if it comes from a dictionary.67.121.230.51 19:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


You say speculation since you lack knowledge on the subject. Many understand the information and dissagree with you. You are allowing your ignorance on this particular subject to CENSOR information, stopping your own learning process. But whats worse is that you are attempting to CENSOR and block the learning process of many others. Either follow thru with your threat of arbitration, or go away.67.121.230.51 19:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


As stated in the wikipedia external links rules page.

Is it OK to link to other sites, as long as the material is not copied onto Wikipedia?

External links are certainly allowed. Properly used, they increase the usability of Wikipedia. Keep in mind, however, that Wikipedia is not a web directory; external links should support the content of the article, not replace it. An article should be more than a container for external links, and the content should not require the reader to leave the site to understand the subject. Please do not place advertising links in Wikipedia. Commercial sites are obvious, but this prohibition usually includes links to fansites and discussion forums as well unless the site is a notable one in the field. As a general rule of thumb: if you wish to place the link in Wikipedia in order to drive traffic to a site, it probably doesn't belong here. The current convention is to place external links in a separate "External links" section at the bottom of the article. Sites used as references for the article should be listed under a "References" section, or sometimes placed within the article as a footnote. See Wikipedia:How does one edit a page for different ways to create external links.


Defamation: Libel and Slander Law posted from expertlaw.com Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

As you well noted, my definitions were, in fact, taken from a dictionary. In case there was any question as to the origin of the definitions, I apologize for not citing my source.
Concerning arbitration, I have requested it and, as you can see, have received several responses, both here and on my talk page. I also recognize that I am not the only one reverting your posts; others agree that the information is biased, accusatory, and a complete shot in the dark. The information you are linking to cannot be proven. It accuses someone of being the future Antichrist, which is what I would consider a speculative statement "issued...with reckless disregard as to its truth" (source of quote: your post).
According to Wikipedia:External links, an external link should contain "multiple Points of View", which yours definately does. External links should also contain "contain neutral and accurate material", which yours definately does not.
I am not here to indulge in a flame war with you, so I would appreciate it if you would not make assumptions about my knowledge of the subject or what I am or am not ignorant about. - Cybjorg 20:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Please refer to the following additional reading: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Libel, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (see especially Wikipedia is not a chrystal ball), and also this BBC article on what defamation and libel is and how to avoid it. - Cybjorg 21:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Cyborg-I have changed the link to a very revelant article on the truthroom web site. If you know about King Abdullah you know that peace is what he is about. This is a revelant article about his diligence on making peace. Please stop removing important content about this important man.67.121.230.51 19:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't see this as a matter of changing the wording of the link or linking to an inner page of the website. In fact, the referrenced page refers to "the Peacemaker" (a term not found in Daniel, chapter 9) and attributes the title to Jordan's King Abdullah. While I can't argue that Adbullah claims to seek peace for the Middle East (as do many World leaders), the article in question makes this claim in an attempt to portray him as the future Antichrist. According to the BBC article (listed above), material that "damages the reputation of an individual", "discredits them in their trade, business or profession", or "generally lowers them in the eyes of right thinking members of society" is considered defamation of character and can potentially lead to unwanted retribution. - Cybjorg 22:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

After reading the truthroom article again I would like to make a point. They are not saying that King Abdullah II is the Antichrist. They are saying that whomever it is that fulfills the role of the peacemaker between the Arab people and the Jewish people, who splits the mount and causes the Jewish Rabbis to begin sacrificing on the Temple Mount is first in line for the position.67.121.230.51 19:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Cyborg, I disagree with you completely. In turning to Wikipedia for information on King Abdullah II, I find it extremely important and timely to know how he has positioned himself in the intriguing world of todays Middle East politics. In my research projects, I find the external links of Wikipedia an excellent place to gather additional information and insights to enhance my thinking outside the box. To me, this is the strength of Wikipedia and you seem to be coming from a very limited viewpoint. One would almost suspect some biased allegiance on your part toward this man, King Abdullah. I can see by your numerous photos of his kingdom of Jordan, that you have visited there. Please understand that users of Wikipedia are capable of deciphering speculation from facts on the ground.

I believe there are ways of pointing to links concerning King Abdullah's political positioning without accusing the man of being the Antichrist or speculatively aligning him with biblical tribulational views. As an online encyclopedia, Wikipedia users shouldn't have to wade through speculations or personal opinions in order to get to the facts. There's plenty of that sort of thing in The National Enquirer. And please sign your commas by typing 4 tildes (~) afterward. - Cybjorg 17:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have put tildas after my comments as you requested. The last comment before yours is not mine, but is in agreement with me. I just read an article about Wikipedia and Britannica showing that both resources have errors of fact in science BBC article. But as the previous poster stated, "Please understand that users of Wikipedia are capable of deciphering speculation from facts on the ground." and I agree with this point of view. I have a great deal of respect for the Hashemite Kingdom and for King Abdullah II and his father. This is why I have spent time studying them. You seem to think that the role that the King is playing is a negative thing, I do not see it that way any more than the King is also fulfilling the role as the Mahdi or Imam. However if you are able to show me specifically how the King is not fulfilling the role as the peacemaker, Mahdi and Imam I will give your opinion total credibility. I hope you find my trivia post interesting. 67.121.230.51 19:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely think that accusing someone of being the Antichrist by insisting that this person is the so-called biblical "Peacemaker" is a negative thing. As for those in agreement, I see that your links to Truthroom.com are causing Point-of-View waves elsewhere, as well. - Cybjorg 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

restated point-After reading the truthroom article again I would like to make a point. They are not saying that King Abdullah II is the Antichrist. They are saying that whomever it is that fulfills the role of the peacemaker between the Arab people and the Jewish people, who splits the mount and causes the Jewish Rabbis to begin sacrificing on the Temple Mount is first in line for the position. You say this is a bad thing. 67.121.230.51 19:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI Regarding the Washington Agreement, one of the shrines discussed is the Al Asque Mosque on temple mount where the Rabbi's want to rebuild the Jewish temple in order to start the sacrifice for sins. We know that during the "tribulation period" the sacrificing is stopped, the Jews are not sacrificing yet, so some time between now and then it must start.67.121.230.51 04:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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.

King Abdullah has the authority to split the mount between Israel and the Arabs. We know that a splitting takes place since we are told the outer court is left for the non Jews.

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty [and] two months.

A fatwa cannot be called on King Abdullah since he is a direct descendent of Mohammed. The Washington Declaration gives special consideration to Jordan in determining the outcome of the mount.

printed from the Washington Declaration 3. Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines. In addition the two sides have agreed to act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions.

You have been to Jordan do you see these things happening...67.121.230.51 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I know that biblical prophecy rarely turns out the way we think. This is evidenced by the biblical record of the people's misconceptions surround the life of Christ. To make assumtions concerning the end times by using prophetic texts found in the books of Daniel and Revelation is a Point-of-View issue. It is speculative based on personal beliefs; as it hasn't yet happened, it can't be classified as fact. - Cybjorg 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
It is true that people have misunderstood prophecy, I would suggest that they were taught incorrectly Some people do see the prophecy ahead of time correctly and then act on it, this is evdenced by the magi or wise men that brought gifts to Jesus. Are you suggesting that we throw the baby out with the bath water and forever close our eyes to all things prophetic ? this is not what is suggested by God.

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.67.121.230.51 04:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel 9:24-27 Daniel tells of the comming of the messiah Jesus. This was a prophecy and the Magi or wise men read the prophecy and identified the Mesiah well in advance. This proves that for men of faith prophecy is fact not mere speculation. Jesus told Thomas, "more blessed is he that belives without first seeing". I have posted an article by Pastor David Bay for you to read which explains in detail the prophecy of Jesus's comming.

THE UNPARALLELED PRECISE PROPHECY

Daniel 9:24-26, "Seventy weeks of years, or 490 years are decreed upon your people and upon your holy city Jerusalem, to finish and put an end to transgression, to seal up and make full the measure of sin, to purge away and make expiation and reconciliation for sin, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint a holy of holies. Know, therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem until the coming of the anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks of years, and sixty-two weeks of years; it shall be built again with city square and moat, but in troublous times. And after the 62 weeks of years, shall the anointed one be cut off (killed) and shall have nothing and no one belonging to and defending Him..."

The remaining one week is found in verse 27, and refers to the last seven years of earth's history, the period which we know as the "Great Tribulation".

The term "Weeks of Years" was a common Jewish term. It meant literally seven (7) years. The term comes from God's commandment in Leviticus 25:3-4 to farm a piece of land for only six years, allowing it to lie fallow for the seventh. This seven-year period came to be known as a "week of years". Therefore, Seventy Weeks of Years was 490 Hebrew years.

Note this prophecy contains three parts:

   1. 7 Weeks of Years (49 Hebrew Years)

   2. 62 Weeks of Years (434 Hebrew Years)

   3. 1 Week of Years (7 Hebrew Years)

At the precise point in history when the 7 + 62 Weeks of Years occurred, Israel could expect Messiah to announce Himself as Messiah. What great news! This means that Israel could not miss Messiah. All they had to do was to count, be cognizant of current events in Israel as they unfolded, and be aware of this prophecy.

This study will show us several things:

   1. Why the Wise Men knew the time for Messiah was close.

   2. Why Israel missed Messiah.

   3. How this applies to us today.

Let us now consider the meaning of the prophecy.

I. The Duration of the Prophecy

This prophecy stipulated that Messiah would be presented to Israel and would be killed after 69 weeks of years had elapsed from the specified starting point. When we multiply 69 times 7, we understand that the time involved here equals 483 Jewish years. Since the Jewish calendar contains 360 days, we can easily see that God is talking about 173,880 days. Therefore, we can expect that 173,880 days after the prophecy started, the Messiah would present Himself to Israel as Messiah-King.

II. The Starting Point of the Prophecy (Daniel 9:25a)

In this verse , God said the prophecy would begin "from the going forth (the issuing) of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem..." At the time God gave Daniel this prophecy, Israel was a slave nation under Babylon; however, God had foretold that this slavery would last only 70 years. This 70-year period was rapidly coming to a close; indeed, non-Jewish history records that the Medo-Persian emperor Artaxerxes issued such a decree on March 14, 445 B.C. Therefore, precisely 173,880 days from this day should bring us to some significant event in Jesus' life which presented Him to the nation Israel as Messiah.

III. The Mathematics Of The Prophecy

A. The First Seven Weeks (49 Jewish Years)

If you study the book of Nehemiah, you will find the account of the Jewish pilgrimage to rebuild Jerusalem following King Artaxerxes' decree. The prophet Nehemiah assumed charge of this rebuilding effort, which was carried out in such extreme hardship and danger that the builders carried swords with them as they were building the walls. Thus was fulfilled precisely the prophecy in verse 25b,"...it shall be built again with city square and moat, but in troublous times."

This effort began in 445 B.C. and culminated in 396 B.C., exactly 49 years, just as foretold.

B. The Second Period (62 Weeks of Years, 434 years)

Daniel 9:26 foretells that the "anointed One" would come after this period and would then be killed. This wording is understood by most conservative scholars to refer to Jesus Christ, not at His birth, but at His presentation as the Messiah-Prince. (2) "There were only two events in the life of Christ when He was officially set apart. One was His baptism and the other was His triumphal entry into Jerusalem." (3) This latter event has become known as Palm Sunday. When did Palm Sunday occur? "The Messiah (Jesus) came to Jerusalem on Passover in the year A.D. 32, which was April 6." (4)

C. The two periods combined (7 + 62 = 69 Weeks of Years, or 483 Jewish years, or 173,880 days).

  • When we count from March 14, 445 B.C. to April 6, 32 A.D., we have 477 years, 24 days. However, we must deduct one year because only one year lapses between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. This gives us 476 years, 24 days or 173,764 days.
  • Then, we must add 119 days to account for the 119 leap years during these 476 years (476 divided by 4). Now, we have 173,883 days.
  • However, there is a slight inaccuracy in the Julian calendar when compared to the solar year. The Royal Observatory in London calculates that a Julian year is 1/128th of a day longer than the Jewish solar year. When we multiply 476 years times 1/128, we get three days. Subtracting three from our figure above, we arrive at the 173,880 days. (5)

Therefore, there are exactly 69 Weeks of Years (173,880 days) between the decree of King Artaxerxes in 445 B.C to rebuild Jerusalem to Palm Sunday, April 6, 32 A.D.!! God foretold to the day when Messiah would present Himself to Israel as their Messiah-King. We see this event recorded in Matthew 21:1-11.

Now we come to the next point: God had so wonderfully foretold to Daniel the exact day on which Messiah was to announce Himself as King. The learned Magi surely knew of Daniel's prophecy and of his reputation of reliability in such matters. Therefore, just prior to Jesus' birth, they had to have been buzzing with anticipation, because they knew they were living within the life-time (approximately 30-40 years) of this date. If one was to announce Himself as Messiah in just 30 years, he would have to be born now. Thus were the Magi looking for a sign. The Holy Spirit was also not leaving anything to chance, and was prompting their minds to anticipation and to understanding of what they were about to observe in the Heavens.

Even the gifts which the Magi brought to Jesus suggests that they were being prompted by Daniel's prophecy. Consider these gifts:

1. Gold--Daniel said in 9:25 that the coming Messiah was to be a "prince". This term denotes royalty, a king. Gold was the perfect gift for a king.

2. Frankincense--God stipulated in Exodus 30:34-36 that frankincense was to be prepared for the "purpose of sacrificial fumigation". (6) Jesus Christ was killed on Calvary as the Perfect Sacrifice which would be acceptable to God to take away the sins of all who would accept it. Did Daniel's prophecy reveal this sacrificial aspect? Yes!! In 9:26, God revealed that Messiah would be "cut off" (sacrificially killed).

Interestingly, frankincense was also used by the priests during the sacrificial service. Therefore, this frankincense gift could also point to Jesus Christ as the ultimate High Priestly, an office which He assumed after His ascension into Heaven.

3. Myrrh--The Jews used Myrrh for embalming bodies for burial preparation. (7) Again, the verse quoted above would have prepared the Magi to bring this gift.

It is extremely interesting that two of the three gifts which the Magi presented to baby Jesus related to His death and burial. The Daniel prophecy contained all the information which the Magi needed to know to bring these gifts.

MISSING THE "TIME OF THEIR VISITATION"

The second question is why Israel's spiritual leaders missed this prophecy, when the pagan Magi did not. The answer is really quite simple. Several hundred years before Christ was born, Jewish leaders began to believe and propagate two grievously erroneous teachings. First, they taught that the sacred Scriptures could not be taken literally because they were not totally inspired by God, and thus contained errors. Secondly, they taught that prophecies were not to be taken literally, but spiritually. Prophetic books such as Daniel were not even taught anymore because they contained so much prophecy. After several generations had come and gone, each believing this nonsense, spiritual leaders of Jesus' day were completely unaware of this prophecy. Thus, they were unaware of the "time of their visitation".

The significance of this study to today is both simple and obvious. The same wrong teaching concerning inspiration of the Bible and its inerrancy is occurring throughout this nation. Most people today are unaware that all 300+ prophecies concerning Jesus' Second Coming are coming to pass or have already occurred. These people are unaware that this has never occurred before. Therefore, many people will miss Jesus' Second Visitation, to their eternal peril.

Jesus said emphatically that we who are familiar with Second Coming prophecy would be able to know that He is close to arriving (Matthew 24:33). Jesus also told us what kind of attitude we Christians are to have as we see His Second Coming approaching; in Mark 13:37, He said, "What I say to you, I say to everybody: Give strict attention, be cautious, active, alert, and watch!" This means that each of us should be actively witnessing to our co-workers and friends, we should be very alert to world events as they are occurring, and we should watch our Scriptures daily so the Holy Spirit can keep us true to Jesus Christ as we enter this deceiving time.

But, we need to apply yet another teaching from this prophecy: God is precise concerning the fulfillment of all His prophecies. God told us, "Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them." [Isaiah 34:16] Not one of God's prophecies shall fail, so He has commanded us to "seek out" the applicable prophecies so we will be aware of them, thus not being surprised when they are fulfilled.

Further, God will fulfill all His End Time prophecies with as much precision as He demonstrated in this prophecy above; however, God has decided, in His great Sovereignty, not to reveal to mankind the precise schedule of the appearance of Antichrist. Jesus has only told us that we will know the approximate season when we see all End Time prophecies coming to pass, altogether. We are to leave the exact timing to God at this End of the Age.

Jesus' own disciples missed the point many times, and they walked with him for three years. They interpreted the scriptures literally (as you say) and believed that Jesus was on earth to set up his eternal kingdom at that moment.
I'm afraid we're veering off topic, however. The topic is not whether one should or should not study prophecy. The topic is that Truthroom.com takes factual data (past and current events in the form of news articles) and blends it together with speculation in order to bolster a personal belief or opinion. On top of claiming that future events are fact (as if they have already happened), the Truthroom team insinuates that King Abdullah is the Antichrist. This is a pretty heavy accusation (see my comments on slander and libel above).
The bottom line is this: there are large portions of the site that are not factual. Many of these non-factual portions are blatent Point of View. Thus, according to the guidelines set forth in Wikipedia, and especially considering the recent accusations of character assasination in Wikipedia, I think it is wise to not include referrences to Truthroom.com. - Cybjorg 10:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A challenge was made to cyborg to show specifically how the king was not fulfilling the role above. Thus putting the speculation idea to rest. I notice that cyborg has not attempted to answer this yet. Is this cyborgs admission that he cannot dispute the truthroom statements ? Support your accusations with your own statements of fact otherwise you are just presenting your own opinion, your own point of view POV.

The information in question is interesting and provides insight that most people will learn from. This is a place of learning and for that reason I think the information should stay on the site. Louie216.207.38.102 15:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Fact: Truthroom.com is speculating that King Abdullah will fulfill a grevious future roll in historical world events.
  • Fact: Truthroom.com's states accusations that King Abdullah is the future Antichrist, which implies that he is destined to break an oath with Israel, shall desecrate the (future) newly rebuilt temple, and will murder millions in the process of setting up his kingdom on earth.
  • Fact: Truthroom.com's accusations about the future roles of this current world leader are akin to character assasination and slander.
  • Fact: Truthroom.com's claims can not be supported, as they are future events which can not be proven (statements concerning the future can never be fact). Thus, the information on the site is extreme Point of View.
  • Fact: Simply stating that King Abdullah is accurately fulfilling the future "role of the (so-called) Peacemaker" does not dispose him to the end result that Truthroom.com is insinuating. In fact, his father, the late King Hussein, just as easily fit the bill.
  • Fact: I have stated all of this several times above. All implied stress on the word "future" is intentional.

- Cybjorg 06:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite apart from the question of the appropriateness of the link - I think that User:67.135.23.10 should register for a wikipedia user account if he/she wants to continue making edits that link to a site which contains negative information/speculation about a specific individual (e.g. speculating that they are to become the 'Antichrist'!). I don't know the specifics of Wikipedia policy here but I think there is an accountability question that has to be addressed. I see from the IP that it is in the USA and not the Middle East (given the nature of the link I could understand the need for anonymity if the user were in Jordan or other Middle East state but that doesn't seem to be the case here). User:67.135.23.10 - would you be prepared to register and stand by your edits? Nick Fraser 19:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Copied from the AMA Request for Assistance page... And Cybjorg this isn't a place to carry the debate from the page to another forum, if you would like an advocate please make a separate request but don't continue the debate here.