dad2

The important thing about the abomination of desolation, is that when we see that, there is only 3 1/2 years left. That means it never happened in history Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Except you made that up. The bible did not say that Actually it says this Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. That means all the material in the image. So yes He does destroy and break it into pieces no less. False. The ten toes are the last powers in the image. It all got broken up by Jesus in the end and He rules. That did not happen the first coming. The times of the Gentiles also is only over when He returns. You are not even close on any of this, we have nothing to fine tune here. Stick to the topic. The AOD spoken of by Daniel and referred to by Jesus involves the end time actually Again, you should stick to the topic, the babblings about general prophesy are not worthy of further time.

The iron and clay in the feet are kingdoms just as the rest of the statue. When Jesus the rock returns to smash it at the feet, it is a violent overthrow of the kingdoms of the world. Not some non military attack on Israel! The only time the kingdoms of the world (that the statue represented) will be dashed to pieces by Jesus is in the end. Anyone thinking ancient Rome fulfilled that was out to lunch. Whether there will be a full temple or not doesn't matter. There will be animals sacrifices and a holy place though. Not sure why you brought up the word desolate. Hopefully not to try and relate to the abomination that makes desolate. Unbelieving Jews, naturally, would love to have a temple if they could get away with it.

The next time God gathers them is the second time when they get saved in the end. Looking at some commentaries (example: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bbc/ezekiel-20.html#verse-27) I see that this is about the first time. Since God makes it clear the SECOND time is when He returns and after they are saved, we know that has to be the case.

Both.

God needs nothing but informed us Israel would be around in the end, being killed and under the wrath of God etc in the end. Since God, speaking in the first Person said the second time He will gather them is after He returns in the end, we know as far as He is concerned there were the two times. One is over the other is yet to come. Whatever one we look at it will change nothing. Sorry 1948 is not prominent in the bible. The next time GOD returns them to the land is yet to come. That neither means to unbelieving children nor that they would get that land right away forever. They only get it after they are saved and He is here and gives it to those saved folks. Obviously they were booted out by God from that land after Abraham, so we know the only time they will get it forever (the saved ones) will be in the very end. God has finished the church when the tribulation starts. That is not an issue for after the tribulation when the remnant in Israel get saved. Not true. He is not for terrorists at all. He will only be for them and protect and restore them after they are saved in the end. They have no connection to God in their evil rebellious sinful actions today.

Isaiah 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. Isaiah 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. So the next gathering by God will be after He returns and Israel is saved.

The first time was the captivity in Babylon. This seems to make it clear that any other gatherings are not of God. For example they are gathered there today. Isa 11:11 The verse tells of a second time God will gather Jewish people.

That is light seen here inside this solar system. It tells us nothing about what time is like out there. So we can say that info in light seen and interpreted here seems to make sense here. It does not mean that light takes great time to get here. Therefore it has nothing to do with any deep time past. Belief foisted on all evidence makes the evidences look old to the died on the wool true believers in the same nature in the past religion. Of course. The rapid expansion is a pipe dream by the way, totally faith based and foolish. I kid you not.

No, He told us a lot about the past. The trick is believing it. As for so called science on origin issues, yes, they are well and truly hooped. Not able to know. Their stories are based on lies and not just unreliable, but reliably wrong. Bank on it.

God changes things properly. A bit like how forces act on everything. So everything changes when nature changes. It is no surprise that if God changes nature that everything is affected. Men's lifespans, plant growth etc. To look at ratios as if they got here because of this present nature exclusively will result in looking at every aspect and material that changed as if it did not, and imagining separate miracles were needed. (rather than a change across the board) So every time to look at a ratio you are shocked that some other rock isotope ration could be the same, or work the same. As if that were some fluke or prearranged deception. You also have no basis to your claim. If something has a ratio of isotopes that woulda coulda shoulda taken a million years if formed by decay in this nature, it simply tells us how much of this was here at the onset of our present state. You imagine that it is some weird coincidence because daughter isotopes are now being made. That does not look like something made by billions of years of present nature decay at all! Only to firm died in the wool believers that this present nature was always around. Everything was affected. So the pattern of creation, then the former state, then this present nature has to exist in all those things. The issue in not how many things (millions not thousands of things) were affected! The issue is your belief set used when interpreting those patterns. Nothing else. Precisely what is happening. You did not believe the Genesis account of God and embraced the lie of Satan that God did not reaaallly do what He said. Like the serpent told Eve in the garden, that God was lying. She should have believed God instead. The way it looks to you is the way you chose to believe. Yes, even me for a long time. I assumed what we were taught must be true. Comparing that with God's word, and what is actually known it became clear that it is solely a matter of two beliefs to choose from. No. They actually do not even know what time is if you dig into it. They have theories about what space time is. Those theories have no relevance outside of the solar system and area that we know. No one has rode a spaceship a hundred million light years away in space and passed someone riding one the other way for example. They may have put a clock on a plane on earth and noticed that here our time changes a bit. That is actually false as well. The things that may shift light in deep space need not be the same things that shift light here near earth. Period. One possible example, for the sake of illustration (as opposed to some precise claim of what is happening) could be that time itself affect light. The space and time and whatever else is unseen out there could affect how much time is involved in light moving and indeed might cause a shift. As usual, all we have is fishbowl philosophy here where you try to impose realities from the fishbowl of earth and the solar system area out onto the UNKNOWN. I guess that is evidence you do not read posts or that you do not comprehend what you read due to heavy beliefs. I already explained that. Parallax measure involves on measure here in the area of this earth and solar system. So one line of that triangle represents time and space here, not just distance when you draw other lines from it to deep space. In other words IF time and space were the same all the way to the star out there, THEN the measure would be accurate for distance as well. Additionally, unless time existed as we know it all the way to the star, even if the distance were correct, it could take almost no time for light from there to get here! No matter how we look at it you are talking from ignorance and belief alone. It does not look like a decay chain (unless one were submerged in a belief system that thought it was) Not at all! It looks like ratios of stuff that are now in a relationship based on the laws that now exist. Any other set of forces that used to exist obviously would have also resulted in a relationship between those same materials. One example is man. We used too live well over nine centuries. Suddenly around the time of Peleg (where the change happened probably) life spans plummeted to something like 230 years or whatever. So yes, men still walked and had bones and looked like they used to in large measure. But things had changed inside due to new forces acting on their bodies and minds. From that new standard of living only about 230 years, it then dropped over a fairly short time even further till it reached today's life spans. Abraham lived for example I think it was 175 years. Moses 120 years. David probably closer to 70 years. They say Abraham and Noah lived at the same time when Abraham was young. So you do not get to look at how a human body operates now, and is affected by radioactivity etc and claim it was the same since creation. Nor do you get to claim it is some 'massive coincidence' that man still has blood and bones and eyes etc. Like the ratios, we existed before the nature change. One exception to the sudden change in life spans was people born before Peleg's time. Noah for example and Shem. Their lives were somewhat longer than normal for the time after the change. The fact that some substances exist that are not reactive in this nature should be no surprise. What you should have said is 'there is no reason now, in this present nature, for it to exist'! Why should there be for all things? Not all things are a product of this nature! Therefore they need no have a reason to exist here. Looking at the example of man again, there are even a few things that some claim have no great reason to exist in us! Ever consider that they did have a reason in the former nature?? Also, it is bogus to apply the term Gnostic to knowing about the former state and nature of earth, since no one knows what it was! That is the point, we don't know. Science presumes it was the one way! ? https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Chicxulub/images/thumb/ChicxulubZoneOfCenotes.jpg Explain how we know the direction of impact here exactly? If you are correct, fine. We can look at the other explanation of how it did fall as debris. In either case, no one needs your particular belief. But since you made a claim, I wait to see your specs and evidence.

There is no 'just so happens' There are forces of nature God puts in place to make reactions happen. If those forces are changed, then the forces then act on already existing materials that were acted upon in another way by other laws and forces. Of course if you look at it from the present, ant attribute all the ratios to this present state, it will look a certain way to you. If a rock already contained parent and daughter material when decay as we know it today started, then only to YOU would it look as if a long period in this nature happened. That is because of your chosen belief set that you plaster and paint all you see with. For someone claiming to comprehend here, you miss just about everything by a country mile. Time is not physics by the way. Relativity is a way to try and explain time here in our time and space. Looking at light, or 'debris' moving in deep space does not look like millions of years at all. It looks like something moving. How fast that is we can not know. ALL our experience and measures are based here inside our little fishbowl of the area of the solar system. Here, light must move at a certain speed. God made it look beautiful and wondrous. When you strain at a little light speck moving in deep space, the ONLY thing that makes it seem inside your own mind that it is moving at a certain speed for a certain time is beliefs! If time and indeed space did not exist as we know it here exactly in that far universe, then your concept of how much time is involved out there in the movement is a joke. So what we would accurately say here is not that God tricked you, but that Satan deceived by trying to make it look a certain way in your mind. False. There was no decay chain if nature was different in the past. There was a reaction chain of some sort. You want to attribute all reactions (while at the same time ignoring creation as well) to this temporary present nature. It does not matter what 'HAS this quality' now. Or that things WERE 'highly reactive'. If something exists then it got here somehow. We can rule out present nature decay for most of it. So who are you to ignorantly assume that a former nature would not have different processes that resulted in argon. How something reacts today is not an indication that it reacted that way in a DIFFERENT nature! Even the idea of being inert might not apply in a different past. Things are inert NOW, they react a certain way NOW etc. So what? That tells us little or nothing about how they would react under different forces and laws. The only 'coincidence' in in your head and a result of your beliefs that present nature explains all things. Looking at a bit of an explanation in a study involving radiation 'damage' I saw this "The transformation of an initially crystalline material into an amorphous state due to corpuscular irradiation is commonly referred to as “amorphisation” or “metamictisation” [1,2,3]. In nature, the accumulation of self-irradiation induced structural damage is created mainly during α-decay events in the 232Th, 235U, and 238U decay chains" https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/10/1/83 The question arises, in the different former nature, was all of the material in question indeed 'crystalline'? If so, how do you know? Hopefully not by looking at nature now! Look above and see that when they say 'in nature' they refer to 'in present nature'. False. Only in your belief system and mind would it look that way. What we actually see is that light in an explosive event in far away space is that light takes so much time as we mark time on earth. It takes, say, 9 earth months to get to the edges of the ring or etc. You take that to mean that because light in this solar system and area takes so much time to move here, that it must also take the same time to move out there. Prove it! The fountains of the deep opened up in the flood, bringing waters up (many assume violently and quickly) to flood the planet. In this case we might say it was an 'impact' from down TO up! It also may have shocked quartz. So to start with here prove the direction of the impact was from above? The flood waters came from two sources. From the heavens above (windows of heaven) as well as below the planet. Science tells us iridium comes from where? The exact same two places! So having iridium is nothing that helps your belief system! The extinction also...obviously! There are a few scenarios for a crater in the true past/bible/flood construct. It may be a remnant of a large fount of the deep. Perhaps a lot of debris shot high into the air and some fell back. Who knows? Your scenario is weak and anti bible.

That is what I surmise, but remember, not things dated 2300 BC by science. The methods of dating whether tree rings or radioactivity all cease to be accurate even before we reach that time. For example, if trees used to grow, in some cases, for example, in weeks to maturity then all rings they contained would not be rings on a yearly cycle. Therefore if a tree already had, say, 1400 rings when nature changed, and it died, say, 400 years after a change in natural forces and laws, it would have died with 1800 rings. Yet the tree was only about 401 years old. Etc In other words, across the board, the principle that the present is the key to the past would be invalid. That is my guess, yes. OK No problem. The chain is real, but would not have been a decay chain before there was decay as we know it! Better to just say a pattern or chain that became one engaged in radioactive decay in this present nature. No! There was also a chain and reactions and changes happening in the former nature. What it was and how it worked we could not know now. All we know is how it now works. So there was the initial creation and that resulted is stuff with a certain ratio of isotopes etc. Then there was the time of Adam before the fall. Heaven knows what that was like and how reactions happened. Then there was the world after the fall, and presumably up too around the time of Peleg (when the earth was divided). There were reactions and things happening in that nature as well. Then along comes the current nature God set up. We could not say that at that moment, all the isotopes and ratios that existed were 'created' to have exact ratios they then had. The issue is not the ratios but the relationship each isotope THEN had to each other in the former nature. That is unknown. All that is known is the relationship they now have in accordance with the current forces and laws acting upon them. It did not all start at the nature change. There already was rocks, and isotopes in some sort of interaction and balance with each other according to the forces that then existed! The question becomes, do we know what laws and forces existed then? The answer is no. Yes there is a perfect reason. As explained reactions were still going on based on the forces acting upon the materials at that time. ALL your methods make the same mistake. There is no weird differences in ratios expected. The difference is in the meaning of the ratios and what they were doing THEN. We don't know, but they were doing something! Therefore all that changed is what they were doing. You still read all ratios as if they represent the present nature. You forget creation, the pre fall world, and the different nature of the pre flood and shortly post flood world. Totally false. The only thing that makes them look old to people is the belief that the presentnaturedunnit. That would be the delusion Satan went to great lengths to try to make it all look old. Don't blame God, we should have believed Him all along. No. Why could argon not have been a part of the former processes? You assume that because it now is formed a certain way, that must be how it got there. Who says that K-40 was not involved with argon in the former nature? How would we know what used to produce what? We assume that because something is NOW produced a certain way False. They do not look that way at all to me. Only by adopting the 'all things continue as they were' belief would they look that way to you. The trickster part comes in with the belief you accepted in how you look at creation. I consider that you look at it in a religious way, and therefore you can't really learn or come to a knowledge of the truth. There was no scar. Trying to portray a little white spot Adam got from kneeling to hug Eve as a scar would be the deception. Trying to say he was created with it. Likewise, trying to say that materials produced by another process (as a result of other forces acting on them) were produced by decay would be the deception. God never told us that radioactive decay chains existed pre flood! He told us He created it all. Reading patterns as if He did not is the deception and lie. You cannot chart anything in the universe that involves time unless time out there existed as we know it here! You neither observed anything for millions of years, nor anything out of the area of the solar system. The furthest probe is less than a light day away. What you could say, is something like. 'we see a little light out there we call a star, that takes so many years as measured by our time and space here to move in space out there' Ha No no no. It only looks to man in his tiny fishbowl looking out that things take so much time to move in deep space. That is projecting once again, our realities onto the unknown. It does not look out it looks wondrous. The only way it could look old is IF we adopted the belief set that deluded so called science uses. Yes, an event happened. How far away it was is not known. (man uses earth time and space as if it represents the universe) You cannot claim light traveled millions of years out there. Even parallax measuring is useless. That involves time as well. WE take one line of the three based on this solar system area. (for example how far the earth moves in six months around the sun) then we use that as a line and add two other lines as if they all equate in time and space! The absolute most I could grant you as known is less than a light day away! Those are your firm limits. Even that is being generous, because of the anomalies the Voyageur encountered but I will grant it to you for the sake of argument for now.

No. That is probably true as well. I am talking about after the fall. The days of Adam and Noah etc. Right on up till after the flood of Noah and to the time or Peleg and Babel. As explained above I see no reason to think that our nature existed at all as we know it until about the time of Babel, when a big change happened. It affected men's minds and therefore language. It affected lifespans drastically and suddenly. It affected laws such as thermodynamics and how much heat gets produced by moving whole continents fast. It affected basically everything. There obviously was still some processes and laws at work on the same materials that existed. But what that process was exactly and how it worked and precisely what forces caused it, we don't know. All we know is how it NOW works. Therefore, unless someone proved there also was some radioactive decay back then, why would I assume there was? Yes we do. If there was foe example (using silly numbers for easy understanding) a ratio of isotopes in a rock of 200 parent and 100 daughter isotopes when the change happened, then after the nature was changed there would still be that ratio. The thing is that it would not have been BECAUSE of radioactive decay. Then, after the nature was different, more daughter isotopes were added to the total because there now was radioactive decay. So, let's say there are now 107 daughter isotopes in the total. That would mean 7 of those daughter isotopes WERE produced by radioactive decay in this present nature! So the total might look like say, 200 parent isotopes and 107 daughter isotopes. Looking at this you would assume that all daughter isotopes were produced by radioactive decay because they ARE NOW being produced that way. That also means that all dating methods based on that assumption are ridiculously wrong. Exactly and it is THAT assumption I challenge. (since as in the example I gave, the vast majority of isotopes in the ratio got there by other means or were there when radioactive decay started) As explained above, some of the isotopes would be because of the decay that has existed since things changed. So it is not really an age or apparent age. It is a misunderstanding.

That doesn't matter! How matter 'forms' is not the question. How matter formed would be more relevant. You simply assume it was always the same. What was the charge like in Noah's day? The nuclear strong force...etc? We don't know. We use how it now is to base it all on, including dates. Who cares what an atom "HAS"? Or what forces exist to act on it NOW? It matters not at all what 'a nucleus IS' What matters is proving that nucleus' worked the same way in the nature of the far past. Under TODAY'S laws a nucleus could not exist if such and such changed. Irrelevant to the different nature of the past How forces ARE does not matter at all. How forces WERE matters. The idea is not to change OUR present nature and laws. The idea is that God changed the nature that WAS into what we now have. We are the change. It is like saying 'man could not live a thousand years in this nature. So what? Man DID live nearly 1000 years (and will again in the future) in the past nature! Why would a nucleus existing in a different nature under different forces be unstable?? You are talking about a sudden change WITHIN OUR nature. It was NOT our nature that would have changed. Since radioactive decay is a feature of THIS present nature, why imagine a CHANGE IN radioactive decay?? I know, you can't imagine a different nature where there was no radioactive decay as we know it. There were still changes happening, but probably not because of radioactive decay. Since we look at things decaying now and making certain isotopes we imagine all such isotopes and ratios came to exist only as a result of radioactive decay. What if radioactivity came to exist, as we know it, after the nature changed? As explained nothing was unstable. A so called decay chain was not a decay chain before decay existed! You look at how the chain NOW works and operates and exists. In some cases, for example, we had both the (what we now consider) parent isotopes AND the (what we now consider) daughter isotopes existing together already in some other relationship than present state decay. You see that NOW, daughter isotopes are produced from parent isotopes and leap to the conclusion all the isotopes came to exist that way! No. Only those daughter isotopes that were produced in this nature were produced that way. When you have a bunch of daughter and parent isotopes now in a ration, you assume all daughter isotopes were produced by radioactive decay (because they are now being made that away) Very short sighted. So why would God change nature? For the sake of mankind I would guess, largely. Why did He change things at Babel affecting men's minds/language? For our sake, Why would He have changed nature so that men lived 1/10 of what they once did? For our sake of course. Imagine Hitler if he lived 950 years! Why would God change how laws like thermodynamics work? For our sake! If, for example He wanted Pangaea to separate fast, and not produce killing heat from friction etc! He wanted man separate. But we can surmise that the nature change happened around the same time, because we know a lot of heat was produced. So, if for example, the nature changed just before the rapid separation of lands was complete, we then would get a lot of heat even at the tail end. (like the ring of fire etc) It does not matter what radioactivity does since it is a feature of THIS present nature. No. No one has been down there. All models are based on indirect evidence such as interpreting sound waves. There are other interpretations! For example if laws in the core were not the same as here, then what we thought had to be a hot liquid could be a cool liquid etc etc etc How they now work does not matter to the past. Or the future I might add! I suspect that God will change laws again in the final few years of the world before He returns. There are a few reasons from the bible to suspect this, but that is another thread. There is no alteration in today's nature! If there was a different nature in the past, then whatever changed would not have been OUR laws. The universe will cease to exist one day. It is made for man. There were no stars and sun when the earth first was created. Man has not been even one lousy light day away yet. We see all light from the universe HERE. We interpret based on nature and laws here. We can't even say what the laws are in the distant universe. We can't say how distant any star is! ALL distances are faith based. I kid you not. Therefore all sizes of things in far space and a lot of other basics are not known after all. Why will He dissolve the heavens one day but we will live on? Why will he make new heavens and a new earth for us? I already mentions some changes in the life of mankind that God seemed to want to make. Shorter lives, moving continents for us to get around and separate from a one world situation. Changed languages. Also a greater degree of separation of spiritual from physical. Angels used to marry women and have kids for example. That does not happen today. Things are different. Looking at the future, if I am correct that He will change it again, one reason might be to stop man from blowing up the world! (if nuclear physics no longer works then nukes won't work either!) That is because present nature and laws DID NOT PRODUCE THE WORLD! Of course using temporal current laws cannot explain creation or the past or the future! A different future and past does explain it.

OK tks

No. He was talking to Jewish believers. He ALSO was talking to you and me. He was talking especially to people who would be alive in the end and see those signs. He said other sheep have I (besides you as well, that are to come) The gospel being preached in all the world is one of the signs. You cannot limit the end time to Israel alone or Jews alone by any stretch of the imagination. The Jews are a focal point of the very end and prophesy. But the whole world is involved and believers that are not Jewish are involved. God came for the world! He loved the world, so He came and died for us. Jews included. Not Jews only! It also refers to leaders of Israel as children of Satan! Jesus was not calling all people dogs! He was illustrating that He was sent first to the house of Israel. Yet He still had mercy, even before the time came to reach all the world on the outsider!

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Looking at a commentary I saw this "VI. And to anoint the Most Holy, קדש קדשים kodesh kodashim, "the Holy of holies." משיח mashach, to anoint, (from which comes משיח mashiach, the Messiah, the anointed one,) signifies in general, to consecrate or appoint to some special office. Here it means the consecration or appointment of our blessed Lord, the Holy One of Israel, to be the Prophet, Priest, and King of mankind." https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/acc/daniel-9.html#verse-24 In context, then, if this is correct, it would mean the time at the end when Jesus returns and is the ruler of the world. While He is king now of all who believe, He then will be king of all the earth. The holy city in the verse it seems refers to the holy city of the Jews, Jerusalem, from which Jesus will rule the world.

He was talking about the end (as He was asked to address the issue and times). Also to people who would be alive at that end time. You can't hide that fact with a fig tree, or obscure interpretation of some meaning read into a tree. The point of the tree was simple. When we see buds or leaves, we know that the summer is near. When we see the signs START then we know that the end is also near. Probably the greatest sign is the abomination of desolation that will be set up in the holy place in the end. Right now it looks like the stage is being set and is set to a large extent for many of these things to happen. That is why I can't see a lot of time available for a whole new major kingdom to be set up still.

Luke 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. The whole context is the time coming when all will be fulfilled. The end of the world 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Where He stated things about the end. The Jews of that day were not in the end of the world.

No, He was also talking to those who would see the end. In fact, especially to us. It also was not talking about Jews. It was talking about us who believe in Jesus. (including Jews). These days most folks call such people Christians. It doesn't matter what they were called then. The context is when the END comes.

The point was that it was claimed that another empire would arise. Looking at Israel and the degenerate nature of governments and schools and etc in the world today, it seems unlikely that another major power like Greece or Medo Persia or Babylon would rise before the Rapture and events to come in the tribulation. It is true we don't know when exactly. We can say the signs Jesus mentioned have begun though, I think. Not all of them, obviously. People trying to be saviors of the planet, false Christs, rising persecution. Christians being hated of all men. (for opposing the gender confusion attack on children, abortion,sodom lifestyles, etc etc) Luke 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. Yes it says clearly that the events mentioned covered the time from Daniel till the very end. "Seventy ‘sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place. The events coming do not require you to do anything. Once the things Jesus told us about start to happen, the rest will follow in a fairly short time. In a broad sense, knowing the end of things from prophesy, we know the world will have a global government. We know commerce will center on an identifying mark embedded inside of people. We know Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies. We know believers will be killed worldwide. etc. It is obvious that the stage is being set today.

The problem with that is that once the clock starts ticking there is no time for some new empire or kingdom to rise. When you see some things start to happen, Jesus said, you know it is all coming down fast. (that was a paraphrase)

No matter what continent men lived on they would have known about the flood. Once continents moved with the animals and people on them, there still were stories and legends of the great flood. There is also some similarities in pyramids.