That depends on which bible you mean....there are many.

Really? Lost to history?! Hardly....lost to the ignorant and uneducated maybe, but even atheists like me know full well Jesus the man was a Jew, and definitely not a European or "white". Roman/Italian artists knew this, but worked for a Roman church so portrayed him in their image.

Genetic purity?! Lol. I guess that means no one has EVER become Jewish, you're either born one by two pure Jewish parents or not. Hardly reality, and would reject nearly every person in Israel (or elsewhere). Just because there is a long standing religious/cultural taboo against marriage outside the culture, it still happens, as does conversion. Racial/genetic purity is a fallacy debunked by genetic testing.

Prophecy is a leap. No prophecy has been correctly interpreted until AFTER the events supposedly prophesied occurred. It's ridiculous to go back after the fact and claim "see, now that I know exactly how to interpret the unclear prophecy I couldn't decipher before, it's a 100% perfect prediction" but never be able to predict the future. That's the same nonsensical logic mediums use.

The second temple was also the third, since the true second temple was originally a rather modest structure constructed by a number of Jewish exile groups returning to the Levant from Babylon under the Achaemenid-appointed governor Zerubbabel. However, during the reign of Herod the Great, the Second Temple was completely refurbished, and the original structure was totally overhauled into the large and magnificent edifices and facades that are more recognizable. Logically, the third temple was the one destroyed by Romans, the second replaced by Herod but the new one was still called the second temple anyway. (To avoid contradicting prophecy? ;-) )

If the dome of the rock, the second most holy place in Islam, is destroyed, expect Jerusalem to follow soon after, as that will definitely start a religious war between nuclear powers.

Herodotus is credited with using the term Palestinian first, in the 5th century BCE as an ethnonym, making no distinction between Arabs, Jews, or other cultures inhabiting of the area. Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term then came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.

I think you are confused about the history, here's a primer...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel

The area was populated by various people's including Jews until the Jewish–Roman wars of 66–136 CE, during which the Romans expelled most of the Jews from the area (well, really they arguably left voluntarily because they refused to be second class citizens barred from practicing their religion freely) and replaced it with the Roman province of Syria Palaestina, the Arabs were already there, not invaders or immigrants. When Assyrians (Mesopotamians) invaded in circa 722 BCE, they ruled empirically, meaning only the Jewish ruling elite left, returning in 538 BCE under Cyrus the Great....so no, the Arabs didn't just settle after the Jews were dispersed.

It's patently ridiculous to say the Arab nations were unprovoked, Jewish illegal immigration led to a hostile takeover of the region by illegal immigrants with rapid expansion of their territories into their neighbors continuing through today. The Jews defeated the Arabs thanks to American backing and exponentially better hardware. It was only their right if might makes right, and the Arab nations are under no obligation to let them keep what they stole any more than the Jews were obligated to let the Arab nations retain control in the first place. If Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any combination can take it, by your logic they have every right to do so.

I do agree, in the end there will be more conflict until the area becomes uninhabitable....largely because every religion's prophecies end with them in control, and no one wants to admit it's all nonsensical iron age tribalism at work.

The bible was written almost exclusively by Jews, both the Old and New Testament. Jesus was a Jew and so were most of His apostles. The events of the majority of the books in the bible happened in Israel. Christianity is a Jewish religion. So, it shouldn't really surprise anyone that the bible has a lot to say about the Jews. Where they came from, how they got there, and what happens to them in the future.

Christian support for the Jews is a relatively new phenomenon. During the reign of the Catholic church, Jews were persecuted by Catholics and forced to convert to Christianity. The Jewishness of Jesus was lost to history; this is why you see much of the art during the middle ages depicting the Lord as a European man.

What changed is that the Jews returned to the land of Israel in 1948, something that many scholars of time past assumed was impossible. The general teaching was that God had broken His covenant with the Jewish people because they rejected Christ and that the church was now the new Israel. This is called replacement theology.

Yet, the Jews did return to their own land, a unique event in all of history. Never before had a people group been displaced from their own country, scattered all over the world for thousands of years, and then regathered to their original land with their cultural and genetic purity intact. This is a true miracle which anyone can plainly see is evidence of the hand of God working in the Earth on behalf of His chosen people.

The video makes it seem like the idea of Israel being integral to end times prophecy is some kind of leap, yet anyone who has studied the bible seriously knows that nearly everything predicted about the end times revolves around Israel, and particularly Jerusalem. There are numerous prophecies in the Old Testament stating plainly that God will scatter His people and gather them back to Israel in the last days.

The scripture predicts that the Jews will build a third temple. At this moment the Dome of the Rock, the golden domed building you see in photographs of Jerusalem, stands in the place where the third temple must be built. You could sum up the entire tension in the middle east in two words: "Temple Mount".

Not only are the Jews ready to rebuild their temple in a moments notice, they have created all of the implements of the temple and have been training priests to serve in the temple. The scripture declares that for end times prophecy to be fulfilled there must be a third temple. I can confidently predict that this will happen sometime in the future and the Dome of the Rock most likely be destroyed.

I also wanted to mention one other thing. The name "Palestine" was given to the area by the Romans. The Palestinians are not a people group, they are Arabs who settled in the area after the Jews were dispersed around the world. The video really does you a disservice by neglecting to mention the fact that it was the Arab nations that attacked Israel unprovoked on multiple occasions and the Jews against all odds defeated them. It was their right to take that territory and they are under no obligation to return it.

In the end, there will be much more conflict in the middle east, all revolving around the Jews and Jerusalem in some way. You may doubt the scripture but you will see this unfold with your very eyes. One day a charismatic man will come on the scene who will negotiate a peace in the middle east between the Jews and the nations of the world. He will seem at first to be someone who can solve all of our problems but eventually he will establish a one world order and rule the world with an iron fist. He will go into the Jewish temple and declare himself to be God. This is who the bible calls the Antichrist.

So, if you want to know where we are at in the end times, watch Israel and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is Gods prophetic time clock. When you see the Dome of the Rock being replaced by the temple, know the Lord is near, even at the doors.

More like selling ass, like he thinks he's a pimp and America is his bottom bitch. He's ok with any degradation of our nation if it makes money. He's incapable of measuring by or even comprehending any other metric.

Speaking of money, how's the deficit? How about the national debt? How much has he increased spending on rehabbing U.S. infrastructure? Where's my (much lower) tax bill on a 3x5" card?
What's the state of our union? It's looking fragile and tattered, so much that his cultists threaten to go to war with America if he's removed, even by losing the election. These are a few ways he's kicking ass for our enemies while abandoning or attacking multiple allies, weakening the U.S. further.

Another red tsunami 2020....just like the last two you predicted when republicans polled much higher and Trump hadn't recently admitted to stealing millions from veterans under oath. Can't wait.

Clickbait title. Freight elevators had existed for many years, the building designer simply predicted there would be a safe passenger elevator invented soon enough to put an elevator shaft(round one!) into his new building. He was right, but the key is he wasn't predicting the invention of the elevator as the title implies.

Oh no. Not another red tsunami. The last two that you predicted were so devastating.

Sure, the world has had fire since it's been a planet, but if I told you in 1979 that in the next 5 years both the world's funniest comedian and most popular pop star would survive catching themselves on fire, that's still a miraculously accurate prediction.

Chicken restaurant chain releases new chicken sandwich, runs out, and causes multiple riots was hardly foreseeable, imo....at least not the first time. I kind of expected it for the reboot, granted.

I don't think it was "predicted"
The world's been burning since the world's been turning!"
"Same as it ever was! Same as it ever was!"

Your video, Boondocks predicted the chicken sandwich wars, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I don't have time today, but if memory serves, ar4 temperature/ sea level prediction was 30-60% higher than ar3, ar5 less of a change, but still higher than ar4, and yesterday it went up another 10% with the intermediate report, expected to rise again in the 2021 report. I found it by accident and can't find it this morning, and I'm out of free time already today.

It's the factual, scientifically likely outcome. There is no "right" approach, indeed there's no working solution at all.

Yes, different again on two NOAA sites. They don't make it easy to find and compare accurately reported data.

I meant it was odd because they listed the 2018 data as if it was the highest readings, I understand it's not a constant rise.

Lol. Their chart predicts below .5C by 2020, we reached .83C last year. Stopping there.

@newtboy,

"Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections"
Hogwash

IPCC AR5 predictions we can go check out are here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

Surface temp is in Fig. 11.9 page 981. They only graph for their 'middle' 4.5 case, not the worst 8.5 case that you call wildly optimistic. You can see even at the time they graphed it, the instrumental record sat on the extreme cold end of their projections, almost threatening to leave the margins of error. If you take today's today for 2019 and check it out we are sitting about dead center on their projected path. Doesn't seem like current temperature data shows their 'middle' case scenario underestimating anything, let alone their worst case.


If you look at the same for sea level rise in AR5 here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

You can look for fig 13.11 on page 1181. Again, it shows projections approx 100mm sea level rise from 2000-2020, which more or less matches the instrumental record as we approach 2020 to verify. Again, not grossly underestimating.

The sea level rise is especially important to your alarms over Greenland being grossly underestimated by the IPCC. If they did grossly underestimate Greenland, it seems likely they also grossly overestimated something else if they more or less are on track with the overall sea level projections.

Again, if you just cherry pick a couple results and declare everything the IPCC did has been proven to over/under estimate things so they must be ignored, you aren't helping.

@newtboy,

"bankrupting the global economy isn't the only way to plan for asteroids, now is it? What we have done is put some money towards developing solutions that could be implemented in time, with minor exceptions for super fast unknown asteroids we likely couldn't do much about if we did have a planetary defense system."

That's precisely my point though, bankrupting the global economy to reach negative net emissions tomorrow isn't the only way to plan for climate change either.

"the probability of disastrous climate change is near 100% if you take historic human behavior into account. For many it's already hit. It's only the severity and speed that are in question, and those estimates rise alarmingly with every bit of data we use to replace guesses in the equations.

And the odds of a catastrophic asteroid hit sometime in the future is near 100% too, it's just a question of how many millions of years Earth's luck holds out. Nor has every prediction or projection underestimated future warming so far, your flat wrong on that.

More to the point, the timing and severity of the changes we face is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the actions we need to take. Similarly, knowing the benefit of reducing our emissions by X% by a particular date is also extremely relevant to the actions we need to take. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that we have a lot of gaps and uncertainty in our knowledge on those points.

At minimum base level, we know changing global temperature on the whole will impact us negatively, that our CO2 emissions will make things warmer than they otherwise would be, and thus can easily conclude with certainty that the science dictates policies to reduce emissions are a good idea.

Now, you seem to be hell bent on demanding those policies take the shape of staring down the face of disaster 2-3 times worse than the IPCC AR5 reports absolute worst case scenario. I've got to tell you, that the uncertainties involved with that kind of prediction are too great to warrant an honest dictate that the facts support a need for economically devastating action being taken today. It's just not the case.

Even if green tech never takes over, if the next century sees us final solve fusion power and adoption of electric cars, we already get our emission outputs off the worst track scenario the IPCC projected in AR5. I honestly do believe that we will see non-fossil fuel electricity generation and electric cars as the norm in my lifetime, so I'm hopeful for a future that tracks better than the IPCC worst case. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but it's more like we should take a similarly rational/practical approach to it like you see us doing with asteroids.

If they get bored and stop listening, they'll get confused, won't they? I think they often get bored because they can't follow along, it's incredibly boring to have someone drone on using statistics and measurements you don't grasp and won't remember on a subject you also don't grasp.

I agree, but so far, measurements have consistently been outpacing the estimates, almost never the reverse.

What they tend to do is come from that incomplete data and incomplete analysis to model the absolute best case scenario to dictate policy, not the worst. That's absolutely what the U.N. report does, and it's not clear to most how much is left out, like infinitely better melting models (the measured melting in Greenland is already at the rate not predicted to be reached until 2075 in the UN's published estimations) and feedback loops we already see in action like melting methalhydrates and permafrost, both outgassing massive amounts of methane. Sane policy makers DO assume the absolute worst modeled outcome, then suggests policies to avoid it, at all cost when that worst case is extinction. Since measurements are consistently as bad or worse than the worst case scenario modeled, the only rational thing to do is assume that will continue and plan for the worst....you know, like they taught in preschool, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Your house burning down is an unlikely worst case scenario, but I bet you have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and support the fire department. Good planning is to assume you WILL have a fire and plan to minimize the damage.
Or, terrorist attacks. The likelihood you'll be killed in a terrorist attack is exceptionally low, but we spend untold billions and sacrifice liberties to combat a worst case but unlikely scenario.

Prudence is the better part of valor.

Edit: as to most problems society faces, I suggest they are likely ALL a function of overpopulation....no question imo when it comes to the apocalyptic problems. Pollution, resource mismanagement, ecological destruction, etc. None would be disastrous with 1/10 the population.

@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

Care to retract now that even the new U.N. report (along with all the other studies I linked) reportedly says almost exactly what I suggested....faster and higher sea level rise than previously predicted, likely above 3 ft by 2100, hundreds of millions of refugees, massive loss of sea life, loss of water for billions, droughts, floods, and diseases expected to drastically reduce the amount of food production world wide, etc....or are you going to continue to, head in the sand, ignore the scientific consensus to stand on the 5+ year old report that was lambasted by the scientific community as unbelievably optimistic when it was released?

Had you read the Forbes article (or the other links provided) you would know it was reiterating NOAA data and predictions, not making it's own.
But it's a waste of time to point out the science if you aren't willing to examine it.

I'm still in.