Friday, August 7, 2009

Barack Obama: The Antichrist?

Many of you may have seen this rather stupid and paranoid video claiming that Barack Obama is the antichrist. Well, now a Hebrew scholar, Dr. Hector Avalos, has debunked this myth for us:

The narrator has the WRONG Hebrew root for the name Barack if we accept President Obama's explanation for his name. President Obama’s explanation of his name may be found in, among other places, the 2004 National Democratic Convention speech: “They would give me an African name, Barack, or ‘blessed,’ believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success.” SeeObama’s explanation What Obama meant by “African” is simply an African language version of a well-known Semitic root (BRK) for “blessed” that can be found in Arabic and Hebrew. Since his name means “blessed,” then this name is related to the Hebrew word BARAK, spelled with Hebrew Kaph, not a Qoph. These are two entirely different consonants and phonemes in Hebrew. The Hebrew BARAK and BARAQ are from two entirely different roots, with ONLY the latter meaning “lightning.”

6 comments:

Bruce the Agnostic said...

What wrong with you? Don't you know anyone with a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance becomes an instant expert on Hebrew and Greek? :)

I spent most of my adult life as as an Evangelical pastor surrounded by other pastors who had just enough knowledge of Hebrews and Greek to make them dangerous.

From the inside videos like this make perfect sense. From the outside you find yourself saying"time for the white coats and padded cell."

Bruce

Terry Collins said...

Every radical biblical prophecy I've seen lately tries twisting Hebrew Aramaic to suit their purposes. If we are to believe this translation mistake, how can we believe anything in the bible is accurate?

John said...

Barak Obama is definitely not the Antichrist. Most of the people who talk about an antichrist do not know what the word means. It was only used four times in the Bible, the first three were in John's first epistle and the fourth in his second epistle. The word was never used in Revelations.

Indeed, an Antichrist is one who teaches the opposite of Jesus Christ and leads people away and to perdition. All the theologies which have been sprung from the minds of the misinformed are based on a false premise. I treat the subject in length in my new book: Saint Paul, The First Antichrist / Deception and Dogma : which lays out the teachings of Paul against those of Jesus like they were depositions and proves beyond any doubt that Paul taught the opposite of Jesus Christ.

Now, what does this do to the Bible and Christianity. It takes the whole thing back to the true teachings of Jesus Christ.

The book further shows that Peter was not the designated head of the church from the Gospel of John.

It is available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Alibris.

John

Bruce the Agnostic said...

John,

It is Revelation not Revelations.

That aside, I quite agree on one point. Paul and Jesus taught two different Christianities.

Bruce

AIGBusted said...

A correction, Bruce: Paul and the gospel writers taught different Christianities.

I don't think we can ever be sure of what Jesus taught.

Bruce the Agnostic said...

Correct, my carelessness with the words.

Bruce