I have really got to give it up to the people of the United States, including it's politicians and enforcers (police, military). Even though the War in Iraq may be more than we bargained for, we are making a positive difference. It was the snare of Osama Bin Laden to put us into a position where we either just lost on 9-11, or whether we retaliated and then made ourselves out to be just what they 'believe' we are, or retaliate and then pull out like a dog with it's tail between it's legs. The way that the Vietnam War ended began to put the US into the position of leaving like a dog with it's tail between it's legs. Some say that the War in Iraq is going to have the same kind of outcome. And some say that we shouldn't even be over there. In one context, more than just saying that if there was no problem in the first place, we wouldn't be over there, is that the Middle East Crisis right now is all about the Arab's versus the Jews, despite the rest of the world's interests. And that battle is as Isaac fighting Ishmael. And so no matter what it is as if anyone who gets in the middle of things is going to end up on the bad side of somebody, just as God also blessed Ishmael. And to be quite honest, the blessing to Ishmael was that he was going to be a great nation or nations. Right now, without Israel completely accepting Christ as the Messiah, I believe that the Christian standpoint is one that can not fully get in the middle of the present fight. We may read about the Crusades and not want to do the same thing, which I believe is right, but just as the false prophet is more than likely the Pope, the true Christian standpoint needs to be concerned with Jesus and not so much with His enemies. It is even written in the Catechisms of the Catholic Church that the people who are next in line to go to heaven, besides the Catholic church, according to their writings, are the Muslims, as they say that Muslims are the ones worshiping the "Creator" the most. And this standpoint must be the Catholic church's moonwalk and justification for the Crusades. I have already spoken before, showing how one Pope said that the Catholics and the Muslims serve the same God. The entire doctrine which is called the 'replacement theory' came from the Roman Catholic church as they say that the Jews are not going to be saved, and this is something that many people believe, even outside of the Catholic church. Going on from this, those who believe in this say that the people who have 'replacement theology' are those who say that the Jews as a nation will be saved after the 'rapture.' And this whole theory revolves around how people interpret what Paul said regarding there no longer being Jew or Gentile in Christ. And this is the pivot point regarding end times beliefs. The truth of the Word of God, however, shows that the remnant, who is the Jews as a nation, mourns when He comes in the clouds, and that it takes actually being in Christ to no longer be a Jew or Gentile; even though Paul said we are Jews inwardly, and God Promises to write the Law on our hearts and minds. Jesus also said that when He comes it will be as fast as lightning, and so it is not possible that His 'coming in the clouds' is just symbol, as He also said that people would say "Here He is" and "There He is" when He hadn't come yet. I have gone through prophecy already in this book, but to further structure everything, I am going to repeat a few things that were in question before, as I also spoke about 'Joseph E. Mahabir' and all of that and whatever. The Day of God is different than the Day of the LORD, in one context, in regards to what 2 Peter says. The Day of God in this way ocurs after the physical 1,000 year reign, while the Day of the LORD is at Christ's Second Coming, just as a day is as a 1,000 years to the LORD, and a 1,000 years as one day, even physically. It is impossible for the 1,000 year reign to only be symbolic, because Zechariah 14 clearly says that after His return, and the Antichrist and false prophet are cast into the pit (reference and in context with Revelation 19) that people would sacrifice again, and that there would be rain, determined on this. This obviously can not just be symbolic or what happens after the earth and heavens are physically destroyed. The theory that says there is no 1,000 year reign that is physical, and that the rain and sacrifices are symbolic and after the full physical destruction of the present earth and heavens desires to say that the sacrificing is in the context of the parable of the goats and the sheep, and that the rain is in context symbolically concerning people being thrown into the lake of fire or not. However, Zechariah 14 shows that people will be eating food from cups that are filled with the sacrifice, and there is no further example in the Bible, for anyone to still say that this is after the full physical destruction of the present earth and heavens, and that it is fulfilled symbolically as I just showed in the previous statement; and this is where circular reasoning comes in, as not EVERY point is backed up. That sacrifice, which is put into cups, is the one sacrifice that will still occur after Christ's Second Coming that involves animals, as Christ shall truly sit on His throne on earth in Jerusalem in the physical 1,000 year reign before the present earth and heavens are fully destroyed. We can look at the Scriptures and also know that after the new heavens and earth come, that there will be no more death, and thus no more sacrifice. In this way, worship and the use of altars will be completely encompassed in life, just as an egg receives a seed. People were deceived about a great number of things because they were running ahead and trusting in simplicity, even though confusion is still not right. The destruction, as shown in Revelation, that shall occur at Christ's Second Coming, is going to be spiritual, while the destruction that shall occur at the end of the physical 1,000 year reign will be physical. At Christ's Coming, the church, which is neither Jew nor Gentile, shall be raptured, while out of the people who are left on the earth, the remnant of the nation of the Jews shall mourn. The church is raptured while Christ comes in the clouds, meeting Him in the air, while the remnant of the nation of the Jews mourn. When the remnant of the nation of the Jews mourn, then Christ sets foot on the Mount of Olives, as shown in Zechariah 14, and this is when Michael stands up as shown in Daniel 12. Another true interpretation of Revelation 12 gives the woman to be the church, who is raptured, while the male child is the remnant of the nation of the Jews who mourn, and Satan gets forever kicked out of the third heaven, being unable to even sneak in there again, as he has done, as shown in Job, this also again corresponding to Michael standing up in Daniel 12. The problem that people have, in wrongly interpreting things, and yet still seeming right, and falsely teaching things, and then also falsely accusing others who are against them, is that they don't get into the specifics, but let simplicity water everything down, and make everything sound the same; and through this they don't rightly divide the word of truth, just as we are to put precept upon precept. And in this, they do not dissect the word of God, which contains many things, and even contains time between verses, just as Isaiah 61 shows, Jesus reading it at the beginning of His ministry, but stopping at that time, before saying "and the year of vengeance."

There was actually an incident in which a lion in Africa stopped eating for a while, because of social problems, and be-friended a calf. And this may sound as if it fulfills the Promise in Isaiah concerning the calf and lion, this also to then supposedly prove that the 1,000 year reign is not physical, but is symbolic. And obviously if the 1,000 year reign is even physically happening right now, then when did it begin, and when it will end, specifically? One thing that was not fulfilled in what happened, is that the lion did not eat straw, it wasn't eating anything, and then after a while, it killed something and ate it.

Isaiah clearly says that God did not create the earth in vain, but that He created it to be inhabited. And it also says that He did not say to the seed of Jacob to seek Him in vain. These verses do further prove the truth of eternal monogamous marriage in heaven for created beings. And they also give light into what God says in Isaiah 65 concerning no longer bringing the former earth and heavens into mind, but to be glad with what He creates. Firstly, people who say there is no eternal monogamous marriage in heaven between created beings believe that this verse proves that we only receive Christ, and that our marriage with Him is symbolic, and that we should just be glad with that. But this is a watered down, gracefully condemning belief. Next, when God goes on to explaining what He is going to do in the next verses, He mentions things that can only happen in the context of marriage, and so people have to identify when this is taking place, as it brings up the topic of eternal marriage for created beings. What is actually being promised in truth, is that the remnant of the nation of the Jews is going to have these promises, in which a person will live to be 100 years old and so on, and within this, we may also grasp that eternal monogamous marriage in heaven for created beings is going to be given to that remnant who mourns at His Second Coming, as promises for them as well. One thing of importance, is that the passage still shows that people are going to be dying, and so to try and disprove eternal marriage between created beings, and to try to give a doctrine of graceful condemnation saying that we should 'just be glad with what we have..."having only Christ"' is out of context. Another thing of importance, is that as Isaiah 45 speaks about the seed of Jacob, and God not saying "Seek Me in vain," is that Jacob was one the first men of God that had multiple wives, and the people against eternal monogamous marriage between created beings use problems such as this to back up their points, and then refer back to their 'only Christ' belief, which is actually, in truth, only graceful condemnation, and shamefully glorying, as through sin’s limitations, not looking into God’s possibilities. And these people honor God with the lips, and not their whole heart, and fall into a great number of other categories, concerning people and things that God hates, rebukes, and is against. Another argument that people who don't believe in eternal monogamous marriage between created beings may use, is to ask if it is vain to attempt to 'only' receive Christ. But this is just another thing that only honors God with the lips, and doesn't WHOLLY seek Him with the heart.

The destruction in Revelation may even be referring to something as drastic as a nuclear war, in it's fulfillment. But we can know that it is for the destruction of the remnant of the nation of the Jews, who will mourn at His Second Coming, that He comes back to defend, hence then casting the Antichrist and false prophet into the lake of fire, as also shown in Zechariah 14. What comfort can this give us? If we believe in Christ, and are worried about this, we can know that our salvation is assured in Him. And then we can take consolation in believing that if a nuclear war is unstoppable, then it doesn't really matter what we fail in, in trying to stop it from happening, kind of like the movie "Terminator 3," and that we are still right with God. Furthermore, fire coming down out of heaven from God at the end of the 1,000 year physical reign of Christ, is the fulfillment of Christ’s Promise, as the Bible says that when He was suffering He was asking God to save Him, and so with this, there is the physical fulfillment of the Promise, while the spiritual has already taken place (refer to Hebrews).