Is It Plausible That Joel Richardson (not his real name) is a Jesuit Plant To Divert The Attention Off Of Rome?

This is a review I read from one of his books I bought


1.0 out of 5 stars
 Beware – falling masonry OR Prep School: it’s all greekReviewed in the United States on January 5, 2014The main target of this review is Joel Richardson’s attempt to twist the translation of revelation 13:7 to support his thesis of a limited mideast beast.

Here is the ESV:-Rev 13:7 Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation,

A lot of this review is rather ramshacle but if you concentrate on this first section and the EPIC section you will have gained the main point.

Update 11 jan 2014:-

The “epi”c error

Author says on page 45 of kindle edition:-
Another important factor worthy of consideration is the phrase “authority was given him over …” The word for “over” in Greek is epi. Besides “over” it can also mean “in,” “on,” or “upon.” As such, the English translation could just as easily read, “And authority was given him in [or among] every tribe, tongue, and nation.”

Richardson, Joel (2012-06-08). Mideast Beast: The Scriptural Case for an Islamic Antichrist (p. 45). Joel Richardson. Kindle Edition.

Well, no it cannot “just as easily read” as I demonstrate below. What we have here is a case of ignoring the greek rules of grammar and that is a dangerous road with the revelation as the book itself warns about tampering with what it says.
Now, the translation of “epi” is governed by the tense of the noun to which it refers.

Companion bible appendix 104 says

9.
epi governs three cases (the Genitive, Dative, and Accusative), and denotes superposition.
1.
With the Genitive it denotes upon, as proceeding or springing from, and answers to the question “Where? ” (e.g. Mat 9:2; 10:27. Mar 8:4. Luk 22:30. Joh 6:21).
With the idea of locality it conveys the sense, in the presence of (e.g. Mat 28:14. Mar 13:9. Act 24:19. 1Co 6:1).
With the idea of time, it looks backward and upward, e.g. “in the days of” (Mat 1:11. Heb 1:2).
With the idea of place, it denotes dignity and power (e.g. Mat 23:2. Act 12:21. Rom 9:5. Rev 2:26).
2.
With the Dative it implies actual superposition, as one thing resting upon another, as upon a foundation or basis which may be actual (e.g. Mar 6:25, 28, 39), or moral (e.g. Mat 18:13. Mar 3:5). Both senses occur in 1Th 3:7.
Hence it is used of the moving principle or motive suggesting the purpose or object (e.g. Eph 2:16), and sometimes including the result (e.g. 2Ti 2:14).
3.
With the Accusative it implies the downward pressure on that upon which a thing rests; active motion being suggested (e.g. 2Co 3:15. 1Ti 5:5).
Hence, it denotes any extended motion downward (Mat 13:2; 18:12; 19:28; 27:45) from heaven to earth (Mar 4:20. Act 11:15. 2Co 12:9).
Compared with pros (No. xv, below), pros marks the motion, the direction to be taken, while epi (with Acc.) marks the point to be reached.
This downward pressure may be that of the mind, or feeling (e.g. Mat 25:21; 27:43. Heb 6:1. 1Pe 1:13).
For the difference between eis (No. vi, above) and epi (with the Acc.) see Rom 9:21, “one vessel unto (eis) honour”, and v. 23, “riches of glory on (epi) the vessels of mercy”.

end of quote.

“Epi” here in 13:7 is in the accusative:-

Quote from companion bible appendix 104,note 9,accusative:-With the Accusative it implies the downward pressure on that upon which a thing rests; active motion being suggested (e.g. 2Co 3:15. 1Ti 5:5).
Hence, it denotes any extended motion downward

It does not therefore mean “in” or “among”.

“epi” is in the accusative case in revelation 13:7 as governed by the 4 nouns people, tribe, language and nation, all of which are in the accusative. I strongly encourage the reader to look up rev 13:7 on the blueletterbible website. There you can parse a word to discover it’s tense (Interlinear tab). See the “EPIC” section further down the page for the full piece on “epi”.

Richardson is deliberately twisting the scripture to imply that the beast in revelation might have power “in” or “amongst” nations but not actually over all of them. However, the only translation possible is that the beast has power “over” the nations.

I have a name for that. You may have a more polite term for it. Whatever it is called, this means Richardson’s central thesis looks a lot like the statue in Daniel Chapter 2 after the stone had hit it on its feet. “Look out below!”

While we are on topic, we are talking about power over “every….nation”. The nations in Rev 2:26 are not different to those in 13:7, are they?

Rev 13:7 Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation,
Rev 2:26 The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations,
Rev 2:27 and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father.

“Look out below!”

You can skip what follows if you wish, just head on down to the EPIC section which contains some more examples.
…………………………………………………………………

Update 7 jan 2014:-

Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Kiel & Delitsch note this about proverbs 30:6:-
The words of God are the announcements of His holy will, measured by His wisdom; they are then to be accepted as they are, and to be recognised and obeyed. He who adds anything to them, either by an overstraining of them or by repressing them, will not escape the righteous judgment of God: God will convict him of falsifying His word (הוכיח, Psa 50:21; only here with ב of the obj.), and expose him as a liar – viz. by the dispensations which unmask the falsifier as such, and make manifest the falsehood of his doctrines as dangerous to souls and destructive to society.

…………………………………………….

Update:-05 jan 2014. I did buy the book in the end but it’s not worth the asking price. It is based on fundamental errors where the author just hacks his way through the Word of God in that he either ignores the grammar (that I demonstrate below) so that his thesis holds up or he is unaware of the grammar (which is worse?), all the while parading his work as some kind of prophecy enlightenment. I find it difficult to believe that someone would write these errors even on a free blog but to then sell such material – well, it staggers me. I must confess that I have stopped reading the book now so this review is of the errors that appear in the first 60 pages or so. It’s difficult to carry on reading when you know where the author is coming from and you know it’s wrong. (This review may get book size by the time I actually summon the will to continue reading the drivel). In the case of the “epi”c error detailed in this review, what we have here is an outright lie – there is only one source of lies about the Word of God and that is the Devil. So now you know what you are dealing with in this book – it is the Devil’s usual formula, state something that sounds very similar to what God has said, gain the confidence of the hearer, then introduce the lie (ask Eve). “Study to be approved” we are admonished by scripture. I have studied, even though it be but cursory in my own opinion. One reviewer says ” an eye opener” etc when reviewing this book – that’s what the serpent said to Eve!

Search the Scripture. Test all things. This book fails the test “epi”cally! (see below).

Please take the time to read my review. I hope you find it edifying. It can be a little dry in places but it is based on what the Word of God ACTUALLY says. If you like what you are reading, you can always try my own blog ( alphaomega37 blogger blogspot on a google search ) for real, in depth, totally original material on the book of Daniel – it’s free!

……………….

Original review starts here:-

I am probably going to buy this but I am concerned from the preview that the book does not recognize that Luke 21:20-24 is about Titus in A.D 70. This scripture is used in the book to support an event still to come. Now, you have to be very careful when reading the temple discourse versus the olivet discourses in Matthew and Mark. They are not the same. They have a different target audience

Look at this:-

The past-
Luk 21:24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

The future-
Luk 21:25 “And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves,

A gap of over 2000 years between verses! The Lord does this elsewhere in the gospels when he opens the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He reads up to the point where the day of the Lord’s vengeance is mentioned and stops there, not mentioning it or going any further. A gap of at least 2000 years in mid sentence sanctioned by the Lord Himself!

So, I think there may well be some rather heavy handed treatment of scripture in this book mixed with some very good material too. A pity, it puts me off purchasing it.

Luke does not mention the abomination of desolation. His target audience is the gentiles.
Matthew does mention it. This was directed to the Lord’s Jewish apostles in a private discourse. The target audience is, I believe, those in Jerusalem at the time of the end.

………………………………………………….

EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC EPIC

Ok, let’s move on to:-

The “epi”c error

Author says on page 45 of kindle edition:-
Another important factor worthy of consideration is the phrase “authority was given him over …” The word for “over” in Greek is epi. Besides “over” it can also mean “in,” “on,” or “upon.” As such, the English translation could just as easily read, “And authority was given him in [or among] every tribe, tongue, and nation.”

Richardson, Joel (2012-06-08). Mideast Beast: The Scriptural Case for an Islamic Antichrist (p. 45). Joel Richardson. Kindle Edition.

Well, no it cannot “just as easily read” as I demonstrate below. What we have here is a case of ignoring the greek rules of grammar and that is a dangerous road with the revelation as the book itself warns about tampering with what it says.
Now, the translation of “epi” is governed by the tense of the noun to which it refers.

Companion bible appendix 104 says

9.
epi governs three cases (the Genitive, Dative, and Accusative), and denotes superposition.
1.
With the Genitive it denotes upon, as proceeding or springing from, and answers to the question “Where? ” (e.g. Mat 9:2; 10:27. Mar 8:4. Luk 22:30. Joh 6:21).
With the idea of locality it conveys the sense, in the presence of (e.g. Mat 28:14. Mar 13:9. Act 24:19. 1Co 6:1).
With the idea of time, it looks backward and upward, e.g. “in the days of” (Mat 1:11. Heb 1:2).
With the idea of place, it denotes dignity and power (e.g. Mat 23:2. Act 12:21. Rom 9:5. Rev 2:26).
2.
With the Dative it implies actual superposition, as one thing resting upon another, as upon a foundation or basis which may be actual (e.g. Mar 6:25, 28, 39), or moral (e.g. Mat 18:13. Mar 3:5). Both senses occur in 1Th 3:7.
Hence it is used of the moving principle or motive suggesting the purpose or object (e.g. Eph 2:16), and sometimes including the result (e.g. 2Ti 2:14).
3.
With the Accusative it implies the downward pressure on that upon which a thing rests; active motion being suggested (e.g. 2Co 3:15. 1Ti 5:5).
Hence, it denotes any extended motion downward (Mat 13:2; 18:12; 19:28; 27:45) from heaven to earth (Mar 4:20. Act 11:15. 2Co 12:9).
Compared with pros (No. xv, below), pros marks the motion, the direction to be taken, while epi (with Acc.) marks the point to be reached.
This downward pressure may be that of the mind, or feeling (e.g. Mat 25:21; 27:43. Heb 6:1. 1Pe 1:13).
For the difference between eis (No. vi, above) and epi (with the Acc.) see Rom 9:21, “one vessel unto (eis) honour”, and v. 23, “riches of glory on (epi) the vessels of mercy”.

end of quote.

“Epi” here in 13:7 is in the accusative:-

Quote from companion bible appendix 104,note 9,accusative:-With the Accusative it implies the downward pressure on that upon which a thing rests; active motion being suggested (e.g. 2Co 3:15. 1Ti 5:5).
Hence, it denotes any extended motion downward

It does not therefore mean “in” or “among”.

Here are some more examples, along with 13:7, of “epi” with the accusative governing noun :-

Luk 9:1 And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases,
(here, demons are in the accusative plural neuter. In fact, diseases is in the accusative plural feminine and in the greek comes before “cure/heal”, implying power and authority over diseases as well to my very limited greek understanding).

Rev 6:8 And I looked, and behold, a pale horse! And its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth.
(here, fourth is in the accusative singular neuter)

Rev 13:7 Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation,

Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
(here, both “to” and the phrase “to the tree” are both in the accusative singular neuter)

“epi is translated as “over” 3 times and once as “to”, as in “the right to”. It is all about unfettered rights and power over the subject noun. No “ins or “amongs” here.

Every translation uses “over” for “epi” in rev 13:7 and there is no hint anywhere of another possible meaning to be found except in this book to support the author’s argument. hmmmm

Here is strongs:-
G1909
ἐπί
epi
ep-ee’
A primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], that is, over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.: – about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-]) fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of) over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

Se we see that Richardson’s attempt to play down the authority of the beast is just wrong. His attempt to suggest the beast’s authority might be limited to be just power “in” or “among” the nations is not what the scripture says.

Now consider this:-

Rev 2:26 The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations,
Rev 2:27 and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father.

How many nations. Is it just a few or is it all. Likewise, in revelation 13:7, it must logically be ALL nations that the beast has authority over. To the one who conquers , the Lord is not going to give authority over just a few select middle eastern nations, is He? When He rules with a rod of iron, will that just be the middle east only?

Selah

Rev22:18, … I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any one shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev22:19, And if any one shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the tree of life, and out of the holy city, … which are written in this book.

……………………………………………………………………

More problems

The author makes a big deal out of the word “crush” in daniel 2;40.
ok, so try another translation such as the companion bible

39, And after thee shall stand up another kingdom [Medo- Persia] inferior to thee [as silver is inferior to gold], and another third kingdom of brass [again inferior], which shall bear rule over all the earth.
40, And the fourth kingdom [Rome] shall be hard as iron: forasmuch as iron beateth small and crusheth all things: and as iron that bringeth to ruin all these, shall it beat small and bring to ruin.

Rome certainly did “beat small” and “bring to ruin”. . Remember ‘divide and conquer’, one of Caesar’s maxims ? However, the extremities of the empire, like the feet and toes being the extremities of the statue, were a mixture of iron and clay. Thus we see some authority of Rome in persia but not complete.

The fourth power, then, is Rome.

The fifth power is Rome and Islam. Iron AND Clay. Remember, the crusaders (rome,iron) held Jerusalem for part of this fifth power’s tenure.

41, And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes [the fifth power], part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the hardness of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with muddy clay.
42, And as the toes of the feet were some of them of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be at the end strong, and part of it shall be fragile, and easily broken.
43, And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with muddy clay, the toes shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron mingleth not with clay.
44, And in the days of these kings represented by the ten toes [That is the moment of the great stone, and the coming of Messiah] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall beat small in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand to the ages.

What the author fails to recognize is that the statue of daniel chapter 2 is all about the powers having authority over Jerusalem, the city of the Great King. In particular, the temple mount.

In support,Consider Daniel 2:41-43
41, And whereas thou sawestH2370 H8754 the feetH7271 and toesH677, partH4481 of pottersH6353′ clayH2635, and partH4481 of ironH6523, the kingdomH4437 shall beH1934 H8748 dividedH6386 H8752; butH4481 there shall beH1934 H8748 in it ofH4481 the strengthH5326 of the ironH6523, forasmuch asH3606 H6903 thou sawestH2370 H8754 the ironH6523 mixedH6151 H8743 with miryH2917 clayH2635.
42, And as the toesH677 of the feetH7271 were partH4481 of ironH6523, and partH4481 of clayH2635, so the kingdomH4437 shall beH1934 H8748 partlyH4481 H7118 strongH8624, and partlyH4481 H7118 brokenH8406 H8750.
43, And whereasH1768 thou sawestH2370 H8754 ironH6523 mixedH6151 H8743 with miryH2917 clayH2635, they shall mingle themselvesH1934 H8748 H6151 H8723 with the seedH2234 of menH606: but they shallH1934 H8748 notH3809 cleaveH1693 H8751 oneH1836 toH5974 anotherH1836, evenH1888 as ironH6523 is notH3809 mixedH6151 H8723 with clayH2635.

Look at the word for “mixed” (in 41 and 43)

ערב
‛ărab
ar-ab’
(Chaldee); corresponding to H6148; to commingle: – mingle (self), mix.

The word for mixed is ARAB!!!

Point of interest here:- the “people of the prince to come” in Daniel chapter 9 are NOT Romans but Arabs! Under Titus, the army that destroyed the temple was made up of syrian/arab conscripts. Their hatred towards the temple was so great that Titus tried to restrain their intensity – to no avail.
Note also that the lateinos, ie the etruscans, came from Resen, part of the Nineveh complex of cities. So the italian essence is not Japhetic (european) but closely tied to Syria. That explains a lot about Roman Catholicism.

Then there is this problem of consistency:-

39, And after thee shall stand up another kingdom [Medo- Persia] inferior to thee [as silver is inferior to gold], and another third kingdom of brass [again inferior], which shall bear rule over all the earth.

According to the author, this does not actually mean “all the earth”, just what was relevant to the prophecy.

However, in the very next verse

40, And the fourth kingdom [Rome] shall be hard as iron: forasmuch as iron beateth small and crusheth all things: and as iron that bringeth to ruin all these, shall it beat small and bring to ruin.

the author asserts that this refers to every last town and outpost of the greeks, medo-persians and babylonians.

Cake and eat it? What is the difference between “all the earth” and “all things”.

You can’t have it both ways.

In one instance,” all the earth” is a limited area.
In the next, “all things” is again an area but it is defined by the author’s point of view. It is just whatever suits selling books on amazon.
Just big enough to exclude the roman empire but small enough to be the Islamic caliphate. Really!

Anyway, the feet of iron and clay explain the lack of complete dominion in the outermost extremes of the roman empire.

Ok, lets add some thoughts from kiel and delitsch

Finally, the expressions in Dan 7:7, Dan 7:19 are not analogous to those before us. The words in question cannot indeed be so understood as if the fourth kingdom would find the three previous kingdoms existing together, and would dash them one against another; for, according to the text, the first kingdom is destroyed by the second, and the second by the third; but the materials of the first two kingdoms were comprehended in the third. “The elements out of which the Babylonian world-kingdom was constituted, the countries, people, and civilisation comprehended in it, as its external form, would be destroyed by the Medo-Persia kingdom, and carried forward with it, so as to be constituted into a new external form. Such, too, was the relation between the Medo-Persian and the Macedonian world-kingdom, that the latter assumed the elements and component parts not only of the Medo-Persian, but also therewith at the same time of the Babylonian kingdom” (Klief.). In such a way shall the fourth world-kingdom crush “all these” past kingdoms as iron, i.e., will not assume the nations and civilisations comprehended in the earlier world-kingdoms as organized formations, but will destroy and break them to atoms with iron strength. Yet will this world-kingdom not throughout possess and manifest the iron hardness. Only the legs of the image are of iron (Dan 2:41), but the feet and toes which grow out of the legs are partly of clay and partly of iron.
Regarding מנהון, see under Dan 2:33. חסף means clay, a piece of clay, then an earthly vessel, 2Sa 5:20. פּחר in the Targums means potter, also potter’s earth, potsherds. The פּחר דּי serves to strengthen the חסף, as in the following the addition of טינא, clay, in order the more to heighten the idea of brittleness. This twofold material denotes that it will be a divided or severed kingdom, not because it separates into several (two to ten) kingdoms, for this is denoted by the duality of the feet and by the number of the toes of the feet, but inwardly divided; for פּלג always in Hebr., and often in Chald., signifies the unnatural or violent division arising from inner disharmony or discord; cf. Gen 10:25; Psa 55:10; Job 38:25; and Levy, chald. Worterb. s. v. Notwithstanding this inner division, there will yet be in it the firmness of iron. נצבּא, firmness, related to יצב, Pa. to make fast, but in Chald. generally plantatio, properly a slip, a plant.

Summing up then:-
Thinking along these lines, the core (legs) of the roman empire was like unto iron but the extremities, the feet and the toes , were iron and clay. This explains the lack of absolute iron roman rule in the extremities like persia, both in time and space, whereby persia was ruled both by Rome and the Arabs according to area. Rome was weakened by the Islamic clay but Rome never went away. From Charlemagne to the Crusades to Napoleaon to Two world wars to the British Mandate for Palestine to the European Union, the Iron still exists.
With this thought in mind, I propose what I have always thought – that the iron stands for rome and the clay for the arabs. SOOOO Simple.

The author of Mideast beastie gets daniel 2:40 twisted
40, And the fourth kingdom [Rome] shall be hard as iron: forasmuch as iron beateth small and crusheth all things: and as iron that bringeth to ruin all these, shall it beat small and bring to ruin.

It is the nature of iron to crush “forasmuch as iron beateth small and crusheth all things”.
How this worked out in practice was ” shall it beat small and bring to ruin”.
A subtle but profound difference between the nature of iron and how it was actually used.

Again
40, And the fourthH7244 kingdomH4437 shall beH1934 H8748 strongH8624 as ironH6523: forasmuch as ironH6523 breaketh in piecesH1855 H8683 and subduethH2827 H8751 allH3606 things : and asH6903 ironH6523 that breakethH7490 H8750 allH3606 theseH459, shall it break in piecesH1855 H8681 and bruiseH7490 H8748.

subduethH2827 means crush
חשׁל
chăshal
khash-al’
(Chaldee) a root corresponding to H2826; to weaken, that is, crush: – subdue.

It is only mentioned once in verse 40 and refers to the NATURE of iron, not to the actual actions of Rome.

The actual actions of Rome are
1.breakethH7490 / bruiseH7490
breaking
רעע
re‛a‛
reh-ah’
(Chaldee); corresponding to H7489: – break, bruise.

2. break in piecesH1855
Crumbling/ breaking to pieces
דּקק
deqaq
dek-ak’
(Chaldee); corresponding to H1854; to crumble or (transitively) crush: – break to pieces.

break in piecesH1855/deqaq here is in the intransitive, hence – crumble.

Rome broke everything it touched but it didn’t necessarily completely crush everything it touched.

Something that is broken or broken to pieces is not the same as something completely crushed.

2:40 says therefore that Rome broke/crumbled things and Broke/bruised things

“and asH6903 ironH6523 that breakethH7490 H8750 allH3606 theseH459, shall it break in piecesH1855 H8681 and bruiseH7490 H8748.”

So, once again, the author of mideast beastie has not done his homework.

AS I stated at the beginning, you could try my blog ( alphaomega37 blogger blogspot on a google search ) for some real eye opening original material on the book of Daniel and , of course, it’s free as well!
Anyway, got to stop here as I’m running out of space.

The full text is on my blog at:- alphaomega37 blogspot co uk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s