Comment on Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University by Wendell Slatterry.
There may also be evidence in the Bible for the big bang. Consider this verse:
Isa 42:5 “Thus says God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out;….”
He stretched out the heavens. Is that describing the expansion of space itself? It seems reasonable to me that this is talking about that.
Table of Contents
Wendell Slatterry Also Commented
Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University
If evolution as taught by geologists is the full and complete answer to origins, then there is absolutely no point in being a Christian. If God does NOT have the power to create us as he says he did in the Bible, then there is no way he can recreate you again. Therefore, if evolution is the correct answer, then there is no resurrection, no heaven, and no hell and no consequences in eternity for what you and I do. Further, God is a liar for he told us a fairy tale in the creation story. Hitler and many others like him in history will get away with killing millions of people with no justice coming to them.
If the things that Louie Bishop represents are true (and I am inclined to believe him), then what I have just said above is the message that every thinking LSU student will get out of their science and religion classes. Is this the message parents send their students to LSU to learn and pay good money for? Is this the message that the church wants sent to students at LSU?
It is one thing to teach evolution so that students understand how the world thinks and at the same time, presenting the Bible as the true answer to life’s origins. With the real facts presented from science, students can study these issues and make up their own minds with the facts presented. I will support teachers in doing this.
But its an entirely different thing to teach that evolution is the true origin of life and the Bible is to be regarded as full of fairy tales. I will never support teachers in teaching that evolution is the true answer on the question of origins. Teachers who do this make a serious mistake. God is real, he is all-powerful, evolution is not the correct answer to origins, and the judgment day is coming for all. The cost of such teaching will be fearfully high. And it is coming much sooner than most SDAs think it is. The church needs to turn this thing around, and the sooner the better.
Recent Comments by Wendell Slatterry
The Rise of Theistic Evolutionism – The Salvation of Christianity?
To Admin and Ken,
Yes, we have probably gone about as far as we want, so will stop. However, I appreciate the offer because if we were not finished with it, I would not mind exchanging e-mails.
Hey, I am still chuckling over your comments about the brain waves. Well, I’ll see what I can do. Mine are not that strong either, so maybe with enough power hey, we could change the past! That’ll be wonderful if it actually worked. But my guess is that it probably won’t. It seems to me that if brain waves could go back in time, then why can we not go back in time too? There are a whole lot of stupid mistakes I have done in my life that I would sure like to reverse!
Seriously, though, lets turn to your question about the prophecy discovery I made. I’ll be as brief here as I can because the whole explanation of everything behind this is rather long, which you can find on my web site on the home page (which needs revised to shorten it, but I have not had the time yet to do so).
It works like this. The first beast in Revelation 13 shows a pattern after the life of Jesus. Jesus had a ministry that spanned about 3.5 years (about 1260 literal days). The beast has a time of power of 3.5 symbolic years (representing literally 1260 years). Jesus was baptized and came up out of water. The beast comes up out of water. The beast received a wound as to death, and yet lives. Jesus received a wound as to death, and yet was resurrected, so lived. Jesus has a ministry in the sanctuary in heaven, and the beast commits blasphemy against the sanctuary (which means the sanctuary in heaven because there is no earthly sanctuary now), meaning that it claims the same position as Christ, thereby saying indirectly that it is claiming the sanctuary services for its own and it replaces Christ in the services of the sanctuary. This also implies that it claims the power to forgive sins because that is what one goes to the sanctuary for, to obtain forgiveness of sins, and is what Jesus obtains for us in the sanctuary. It also is given power over the people of God, the power of life and death over them. This is the same power that Christ, as God, has over the people of God, only he uses it for good rather than evil, unlike the beast.
There are several other similarities, but what this all points to is that the first beast in Revelation 13 is an imitation of Christ, meaning it is the Antichrist.
There is only one power that fits all of these things, and that is the Catholic Church. It alone among Christian denominations of any size claims the power to forgive sins against God’s laws. And its popes have claimed to actually be Christ.
Now, this beast has blasphemy written all over it. This blasphemy points to its claim to be able to forgive sins against God’s laws and to actually be God because it is the Antichrist and Jesus was accused of speaking blasphemy by claiming to forgive sins against God’s laws and to actually be God himself. The same pattern is followed here.
In Revelation 17, there is blasphemy all over the beast. This tells me that the beast is Papal, both the body and its heads are Papal, just like the beast in Revelation 13. The horns, however, are different because Revelation 17:13 says that these hand their power and authority to the beast someday, which indicates that they are not Papal (it cannot hand power to itself, so they have to be different). Because the beast in Revelation 13 is Papal and the beast in Revelation 17 is Papal, then both beasts represent the same power even though they look very different. The horns of the first beast in Revelation 13 does not have, nor does it speak blasphemy, so these horns are not Papal, which tells us that the horns in Revelation 17 are not Papal either. They are the Protestant Religions that came out of Catholicism.
Now, the pattern in Daniel is that for a beast with multiple heads and multiple horns, the body represents the first stage of the history of that power, the heads represent the second stage of its history, and the horns represent the last stage of its history. This same pattern applies in Revelation 13 and 17.
Now, the 7 heads of the beast in Revelation 17 represents the 7 lines of popes by name since 1798. In Daniel, beasts are defined as kings (Daniel 7:17) and these “kings” in Daniel are also symbolic, in that they represent lines of individual kings, each of whose lines is named for their founder (something that you can learn in Daniel 2 from the statue). In the Papal system, since 1798 there have been 7 lines of popes by name, which are such as the lines of John Paul and Benedict.
Now, here is where this comes together to explain what I found. In Revelation 17:11, it says this:
Rev 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
The beast that was is the Papacy when it had the power to persecute people in other nations outside of Italy, a power that was largely eliminated in 1798. Right now it has little or no such power, but according to Revelation 13 and 17, this “beast”, the Catholic Church combined with the nations outside of Italy in Europe which give the church the power to persecute people, will return someday very soon.
Now, it says that this beast is the 8th. This means that the one called the 8th is the returned beast, or in other words, the 8th is its leader – pope. But note that it never calls him a “king” (remember that the kings of Revelation 17 are the same type of kings as those of Daniel 7, they are lines of kings always), unlike the 7 heads which are also 7 kings and 7 mountains. A king is a line of kings and a mountain represents a groups of gods (a mountain is a large pile of rocks, see Deuteronomy 32:37 which equates a rock to a group of gods). Since he is not a “king” as defined in Daniel 7, then he is a single individual. Also, he is not a head and he is not a mountain, meaning he is not a line of kings and he is not a GROUP of gods, but he can be one invididual “god.”
Now, what it says is that the 8th IS the beast and is of the seven. This phrase, that he is of the seven has puzzled people for centuries. But on April 19, 2005, the day that Benedict XVI was announced as pope, I was the first to discover that he would change his name. Here is how this phrase explain that detail. The “seven” are 7 lines of Papal kings by name which occur after 1798, which points to the names such as Benedict and John Paul. It says that the 8th is “of the seven”. The original Greek for the word “of” in that phrase means “to come out of or from a time or place”, and can also mean “after”, though that is much less commonly used. I suddenly realized on that day that what it is saying is that the 8th comes OUT OF the 7, meaning that the 8th, the pope who will be the leader of the returned beast, will come out of the 7 names previously used. But to be the 8th is to have a name never used before in Papal history. If it had a previously used name, it would not be called the 8th and would also be said to be a king because then there would be more than one pope in the line. This pope name will not be a line, but will have just one name in it.
Anyway, what I finally figured out is that this 8th with the new name will come out of the seven names, so I realized that the logical explanation of that is that he will first start as one of the seven names (he chose Benedict), and will someday change it to the 8th name, a name never used before in Papal history. It says that the beast is the 8th, and we know that the beast is the persecuting power of the state and church combined as happened before 1798, so this is telling you that when this man gets the power to persecute people, THEN he will change his name to a new name never used before in Papal history.
Now, I know that this is very brief and rather complicated, but other information related to this in our study fits Papal history exactly so far in what has happened. Whether this name change will do so remains to be proven by him actually doing it.
But there is more.
It turns out that there is a connection between Revelation 13:18 and Revelation 17:9 because it deals with the same power and says that there is wisdom in figuring out those two verses. There are several ways to figure 666, and people argue about that a lot. But here is what Revelation 13:18 tells us to do. It says to count the number of the beast. But beasts are kings, so count the numbers of the kings (it does not say to count the number of a title). But kings are lines of kings. Now, if you look at the list of popes that the Catholic Church has, you will find that there are 36 “kings” of the Papacy, that is, there are 36 lines of popes with more than one name to them. The last of those was made certain at the moment of the death of John Paul II. His death made certain that there was a “king” (a line of popes with more than one individual in it by the same name) by the name of John Paul. You could not know that until he died. Here is what is interesting. His was the 36th line.
Now, make a list of these “kings” and then place count numbers by them (1, 2, 3 and so on, all the way to 36) with John Paul being the last on that list, the 36th. Now, add the numbers 1 to 36, and what do you get? 666. This means that at the moment of the death of John Paul, the number 666 came into being for the man who would next succeed him, Benedict XVI. This man Benedict XVI will become the 8th and it is he who will change his name to a name never used before in Papal history when he receives the power to persecute people through the law.
Revelation 17:11 goes on to say that the 8th goes to perdition (which means he goes to destruction), which, because he is the head of the Catholic Church, matches up with what is described to happen in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 to the head of the Catholic Church. This man will die when Jesus comes again. And with his death, there will be no more popes after him.
There is another way to count 666 and inidicate the same thing, but at present is less certain. The 7 lines of popes can also be counted if you count the individual popes within each line, and as of the death of John Paul II, the count stood at 665. Benedict XVI is the 15th Benedict (they skipped Benedict X), so he now brings the total to 680. But when he changes the name, the Benedict name will not count (it is at death that their line is apparently determined in the Bible) and the new name he chooses will have a count of 1, to complete the count to 666.
I know this is rather complicated and longer than I want, but more detailed explanation is found on my web site at 666man.net on the home page. Down towards the bottom of the home page you can find tables that show how the count towards 666 is done. Both methods are shown.
I hope this makes sense to you.
Yes, what has happened to me is a very difficult thing to explain. Consider that there is more that I forgot to include.
My friend did not know me when he had the dream in 1967, and did not meet me until 1971. Thus, this is interesting because there is a 4 year gap between when he had the dream and when I met him. So, if this is some type of brain wave transmission, its isn’t just across space, but also across time as well.
I know that I was in grade school when this happened. My friend is 5 years older than I, so I should not have met him at all, but because of a mutual friend, we were introduced and became good friends anyway. Oh, and by the way, the fellow who introduced us is one of the brothers of the guy who went on the mountain top and yelled at God to strike him dead with lightning – if he is there.
My friend lived in eastern Kansas when he had the dream and I was living at Loveland, Colorado, in 1967. I met him at Union College in Lincoln, Nebraska. In 1967 I was planning to attend a different Adventist college when I reached college age, but just before I met my friend in 1971, my parents suddenly decided that they wanted to move to Lincoln, so off we went. It was a sudden change of plans that brought this about. Of course, with the college just down the street, I ended up attending Union rather than another SDA college when I reached that stage of life.
If transmission of brain waves is possible, then assuming that it can also be done over time, then why can we not change the past at will? Why not will Adolf Hitler to be accidentally killed, or something like that and really change history? The trouble with this is that for every action that I might undo by such methods, someone else will not like it and will find a way to “undo” whatever it is that I have done in order to change the past. Now, that is important because if I am right about what the pope is going to do, then according to this prorphecy, when he changes his name, it will be done because he once again receives the power to prosecute people for heresy as he had until 1798. If I am right, this will alter the course of history and what I know about this will also help alter the course of the Adventist Church. This will result in things happening that the authorities will not like. So, why can they not just use brain waves and somehow or another alter events of the past so that I do not make this discovery at all, and that way save themselves a heap of trouble?
Do you see where this leads? If one can do what you suggested as an explanation, then there is no restriction on someone else finding a way to do it also and that makes history so that it is forever unsettled. Is that the actual state of affairs in this world?
I agree with you that there are many different interpretations of prophecy. But the prophecies are there and can be understood. Unfortunately, many do not understand them correctly. One reason for this is that many do not have the guidance of God to help them understand the Bible. A second reason is that each person is raised in a certain environment, which does make some diffirence in their ability to comprehend things of the Bible. A third reason is that because of this background and learning they do from their teachers, they cannot help but “hear” the commentary in their head when they read the Bible. They read the Bible, sure, but do not really read it. Instead, they read the commentary in their head and that is really all they hear. They don’t let the Bible speak for itself to them but rather they let their preconceived ideas that are in their head tell them what to think when they read it, ideas that are usually planted there by their teachers, who got their ideas from their teachers and so on up the line. But a principle reason for this failure to agree is that in many instances, they don’t want to know the real truth. They want a “convenient truth”, one that seems to support a theory they have, and will not go any further.
A prime example of this is found in Daniel 9 where the angel told Daniel that 70 weeks were cut off for his people. Now, the word used there means to cut off or amputate, meaning it is taken off a larger time period. What many do is take the 70th week and apply it to the end of time. But that is a mistake because the 70th week is part of the larger whole, which began in 457 BC and can run no longer than 1844. Thus, any 70th week that is placed long after that is a false idea because the time period is gone and dead past history.
In the prophecies of Daniel 2, 7 and 8, people claim that these were written after the fact. But not so. Daniel has some Aramaic writing in it, the style of which was written only at the time of the Babylonian kingdom and was forgotten afterwards. Nobody afterwards could have created that because they did not know the style later, in say 164 BC. Also, Belshazzar was the coregent of Babylon when it fell. That knowledge was lost within a few generations because he and his father were disliked. In later generations historians tell us that Belshazzar’s place was assigned to an Assyrian woman. Belshazzar was restored to his rightful place as the coregent of Babylon only in the discoveries made in the last century and a half. Thus, whoever wrote Daniel had knowledge that did not exist in 164 BC.
But there is more. The four kingdoms of Daniel 2 are well documented. Even if you assume that they were written after the fact, there is the state of the divided kingdoms afterwards, the iron and clay. Now, I know that SDAs claim that these represent the strong and weak political kingdoms, but I have to differ with them on this issue. They define the clay as the weak political kingdoms because of some Bible verses that show that clay can represent political kingdoms. But they forget that just as the metals define a political kingdom, so the clay defines a religious kingdom. Clay is rock, and there is a rock which strikes the image and destroys it at the end, a rock which represents not a political kingdom, but rather represents a religious kingdom.
Then it moves much later in time. The prophecy of Daniel 2 says that “they shall mingled themselves with the seed of men” which is an explanation that the state will go to the church and get together with it, which is exactly what Constantine did in 321 and later. And it then moves a thousand years later because it says that the clay and iron would not cleave together, meaning that the church and state would separate. This began to take place in the Protestant Reformation. These events are more than 1500 years after 164 BC. The Bible defines the symbols for you very clearly and need to be misunderstood by anyone. Daniel 7 clearly points to the Papal power with the horn that talked on the fourth dreadful beast. Revelation 13 reveals exactly the same power and described it with characteristics that mimic the life of Jesus, thus pointing to it as the Antichrist. It said that it would have the power of life and death over them and would have that power in all the earth, meaning the territory of the former Roman Empire. That did happen during the dark ages when the church burned a lot of people at the stake. How is it that this is misunderstood?
Well. the Catholic Church sure does not want you to know this. So, they have come up with alternative theories to confuse people about this. Given their history, do you really want to believe their version of things?
Well, I should stop on this and go to your point #3.
I think there is a lot of room for more research into this area. But one thing I know from my own experience with science: things change. There is little that is really genuinely settled in science because it is changing all the time. Truth today is false tomorrow. More than one theory has bit the dust over the years. I would not bet on the theories that science has as the real answer. They know only what they know today. They don’t know what they don’t know. Tomorrow their theories will change in some way or another. I have seen this over and over again not only in science history, but in my own experience with science even since I got my degree in biology years ago.
I know that I have sene that the prophecies are true. I know that if God is true, then the creation story is true. I cannot explain the creation story in light of the current evidence, but that does not mean it will remain that way forever. I know that the Bible says there was an eyewitness who I know does not lie. I’ll take the word of a truthful witness that has real objectivity over circumstantial evidence or that of witnesses who are not truly objective.
There are a lot of odd things that happen in this world. I have had an experience that is very strange that I’ll share with you. I would like your explanation for it.
Here is what happened. I have been studying Revelation 17 for about 12 years now. A friend of mine found a new way to figure out the number 666 (since then I have found an even better way to do it). This involves Revelation 17.
But what is interesting is that on April 19, 2005, I discovered a prophecy in Revelation 17 that tells me that the current pope is the last pope ever and that he will die when Jesus comes again the second time. Also, this prophecy indicates that he will change his Papal name to a new name never used before.
Now, I made this discovery on that day at about 7:30 or maybe 7:45 in the evening. About 4 hours later I was going to write out an e-mail to a group telling them about my discovery. Just as I did so, something said to me that I should check my e-mail. So, I checked my e-mail and found among my e-mail a letter from a friend that I first met in 1971. This friend’s e-mail had only 2 sentences in it, but those 2 sentences told me that the pope will change his name someday and that I should make a note of it. I did not understand who he was talking about because of the way he worded it AND he had not been a part of the conversation earlier that evening in which I made that first discovery. So, in my mind, my friend did not know about the prediction of the name change. I did not know who he was talking about. Anyway, I wrote out my e-mail to friends telling them about my discovery. I went to sleep that night thinking about my discovery.
The next day I got an e-mail from my friend again, but this time he detailed a dream he had 38 years before in which he was told that someday a pope would change his name and he was to tell people about it when the time came. He had forgotten all about it within a few days, but on the day that Benedict was announced in 2005, part of it came back to him and he was very strongly impressed to send that short message to me that I had received the night before. I learned from him later that something inside him really pressured him to send that e-mail to me the previous night, that waiting till the next day would be too late. He finally clicked on the send button and then instantly the remaining portions of the dream opened up to him, bringing back details that he had not thought of in 38 years.
At the time my friend sent me his e-mail detailing this dream, he did not know that I had discovered in Revelation 17 that the current pope will change his name someday. Yet he was given that information 38 years ahead of time.
One more strange detail. He said that when this dream occurred, he was actually in the process of having another ordinary dream, when he suddenly came half awake and this new dream started up. When it finished, the previous dream resumed right where it left off just as if it had never been interrupted. He said that the next day he sat on the edge of his bed and said to himself, “a pope changing his name! That does NOT make any sense?” So, within a few days, he forgot all about it. But the voice that spoke to him at the beginning of the dream said that he was being shown this so that someday he could tell people about it when it happened. It has not yet happened, but I think it will.
But tell me, I have never heard from anyone else telling me of such a dream detailing this same thing. He knew what I had discovered in the Bible that night without being told anything by me. He knew it from a dream 38 years ahead of time and knew to send me that short message to notify me that he know. Yet he did not know of my discovery when he sent his message. He learned of my discovery AFTER he sent out his message.
Now, how is this possible? Can you please explain this to me? It is a very strange thing that happened to me. Several people have tried to explain this, but nothing makes any sense of it except one: there is a God and he did this.
Thanks for your comments. It appears to me that your basic requirement for knowing for sure that God exists is for him to personally appear to you, and appear as he is so that you would know it is God. Am I understanding you correctly?
The only problem with this is that were he to do that, according to the Bible, you would cease to exist. I doubt that is what you really want.
This reminds me of an acquaintance of many years ago. this fellow decided to test whether there was a God or not, so, using his brain to put together a test and taking advantage of the fact that he lived in Colorado, he went up to the top of a high mountain in the middle of a strong thunderstorm with lots of lightning. He shouted at God, “If there is a God, then strike me dead with lightning.” Well, he did feel lots of electricity in his body, and the hair on his head stood up (a good sign that you are about to get zapped by lightning), but in the end, nothing happened. He was still very much alive and well and obviously not dead. So, he concluded that there must not be a God after all.
But if you think about that test of his, how is God to answer such a demand? If he did strike him dead, then he would not know that he was dead and would not know that God indeed existed. And if God then resurrected him, it would be j ust as if he were asleep and would not know he had been dead, according to the Bible as I understand it. So, if God answered his challenge, there would be no way for this guy to know the answer. But by failing to answer his challenge, it does leave him alive in the hope that someday he would find a more rational way to figure out the answer to this question.
As to why God wants to communicate with us, the Bible says that it is because there is a war going on and we are caught in the middle of it. God wants to save us from the results of that war, if possible. But he cannot do so by directly appearing to us because that would kill us. As to why he would involve himself with us at all, besides the war issue, the only reason the Bible gives for it is that God made us in the first place, and as a result, he loves his creation, including the creatures he made and wants to save them if possible. Man his the ability to communicate his thoughts to a far higher degree than any other creature on this world and has the highest brain structure of all. The dolphin is the next smartest animal, but it has not the ability to understand and communicate the ideas of God so far as we know.
I don’t know why God chooses only certain people to speak for him. He is the sovereign of the universe and has the right to decide that. I cannot do that and demanding a more democratic way of doing it isn’t going to change it, though I don’t understand why. But he chooses things based on what he sees as best, given that he can see the end from the beginning, which I cannot do.
Now, if the Bible is correct, then it does indeed rule out the prophets of other religions. That does not mean that their prophets taught no truth, for many of them did. But they have not the light from God because God is not the author of their works. You can go back and read the Babylonian books of wisdom and see some definite wisdom in their thinking, but that does not mean that God is the direct source of it.
Are you willing to accept any other form of evidence other than God appearing directly to you to prove for sure that he exists? If so, what?
The Bible does say that God wants us to reason with him. I think he is wanting us to use our heads to figure these things out for ourselves. That isn’t always easy! He gave us a brain to use, but we have to use it wisely. We have only so much time on this earth and then its over, so we have to use the time wisely.
But let me pose something else to you. You seem to require that God appear to you. You say that you have only qusetions left and no observations to prove that God actually exists. Yet there are lots of things that you have never seen which you know exist. You have never seen an electron, but you know that it exists by the manifestations of its power. You have very likely never seen your own brain, but somehow or another, you do seem to know that you exist also. Now, God has told us that he exists, but that you cannot see him or you will die. So, it is not reasonable that you need to find another test other than requiring that he appear to you? What type of test would you propose? Stand on a mountain top and scream at God to strike you dead with lightning? I hope that you find some better way. But God has already proposed a test for you. He says that he has foretold the future far in advance. Nobody else can do that with accuracy. I can guess that the United States will still be here 10 years from now and have a reasonable chance that I will be right. But predict that it will be here 1,000 years from now? No way that I would likely be right. But if this type of test is not suitable, then what do you propose?