At minute 3;35, Dr V. makes an unsubstantiated statement when he says that God has already given us the man of sin's identity. If that were true, why then just 60 seconds before at minute 2:00, Dr V. presented a long list of persons thought to be the man of sin.
This is what I don't like about so many of these "prophecy teachers" - they go overboard in trying to capture the audience.
If you listen carefully, at minute 4:00 Dr V. doesn't even read Daniel 9 right because he says the "prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary". When in the text, it says
the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary. The verse doesn't say that the prince shall destroy the city and sanctuary.
Then Dr V makes a dogmatic statement that the man of sin must carry the title of king of Babylon, because in Isaiah 14, that taunt is to be delivered to the king of Babylon. If it were necessary for the man of sin to carry that title king of Babylon, then in Ezekiel 28, likewise, does Satan have to carry the title King of Tyrus? No, that's not what it implies. And Isaiah 14 doesn't imply that the man of sin have to carry the title king of Babylon. But Dr V is intent on leading his audience to a muslim Antichrist.
Then he goes off on Daniel 11:36 trying to discredit that the king has no regard for the God of his Fathers - as not meaning that he is Jew. Because Dr V is advocating a muslim Antichrist.
What Dr Vankoevering doesn't understand is Daniel 11:36, that king is the Antichrist
in the final stage of his career, after he has been kicked out of the grave (Isaiah 14) - because of God's disdain for him because he is a Jew, compared to an abominable branch (Jesus is the righteous branch) and because he destroys his land and his people in the text - he is a Jew.
The king in Daniel 11:36 claims to be God (not the true God of the Bible) which the Antichrist-beast does during that last 42 months. Daniel 11:36-45 is about what takes place in those last 42 months. It is not about the Antichrist's first rise on the world scene.
Also Dr. Vankoevering doesn't understand that the covenant in Daniel 9, that will be confirmed for 7 years, is not a peace treaty, but the Mt. Sinai covenant - because none of the well known "experts" are aware that the requirement for the 7 year confirmation period is already in the bible - Deuteronomy 31:10-11.
The title of the video is the unveiling of the man of sin. But that doesn't happen until midway through the 7 years because it is associated with the Antichrist's action of going into the temple and declaring that he is God.
In order to be the 'Antichrist, the person must be a Jew, because he is a false Christ, messiah, which in the bible the concept of the messiah is the great king of Israel, descended from King David, who would lead the Jews into the age of peace and safety. His religion cannot be Islam.''
Mainly what I don't like is the approach he is using. He jumps right into the middle of the Antichrist's career at the man of sin stage and tries to build an identity of him as though that is how he is going to first come on the scene.
Doug
. This is more like a sick unbiblical joke and does not even conjure into speculation just nationalist racism.
