Did Walter Veith set 2027 date for Jesus coming?

I am just so annoyed at the writing at Adventist Today. It seems to have just degenerated into a bunch of nonsequiturs. Take for instance this from just today. Our Conspiracists, and Why We Love Them

Loren Seibold writes:

But Veith and his friend found a much larger discrepancy, one that allowed them to move the date up to 2027—still in the future, which means they can fundraise on it for a good seven more years.Again, I confess my limited ability to understand either their mathematics or their paranoid meanderings. Yet you would be astonished by the number of people who defended this presentation to me, who told me that Veith hadn’t given a date for Jesus’ return because he said he hadn’t given a date for Jesus’ return, even as they were telling me the date he’d given for Jesus’ return. That’s an impressive feat of mental engineering, and I thank Walt for showing how it’s done. 

Now I am no fan of Walter Veith but this is just pathetic. Notice first there is no indication of where we find Veith's supposed time setting. I will give you the source below. Seibold in this article does not argue with anything that Veith has said. His entire argument is with some anonymous person who tells Seibold that Veith did not in fact set any date. This is not how intelligent people discuss things. You deal with what someone actually said not what some unidentified person told you about someone else. 

If you really want to know how people get into conspiracy theories it is because they believe something despite the evidence. They want to believe it so they believe it and they arrange information to try to support their conclusion. All the mental engineering done in the above quote was performed by Seibold. The reader has no way of knowing what the anonymous person said, there is no quote to what the anonymous person said concerning date setting. The only attribution was that the anonymous person said there was no date setting! This is Adventist Today in summary, logic has been thrown out the window! 

The Seventh-day Adventist' Church Northern Conference of South Africa put out a  Memorandum of understanding on Walter Veith's statement.

They state:

PERCEIVED SETTING OF DATES: While we acknowledge that prof. Walter Veith holds that he did not set a date, by mentioning the year 2027 or earlier/later, as a possible date on different occasions, he complicates his position. (For more detail see footnote); i 

After careful study of the writings of Ellen G. White, the Bible, and the material presented by prof. Veith, the Theological Review Committee (TRC) of the Northern Conference has come to the conclusion that the main problem in the presentation is the issue of perceived date setting for the second coming of Christ. 

Their footnote states:

i Statements like the following do not help the argument that he has not set a date “If 2027 is the end of the six-thousand-year period of warring against God, then this would exclude the time of preparation required after the wicked are raised. Is it possible that time could be cut off from the six thousand years before 2027? If so, then Christ must come sometime before 2027 to allow this?” (1 Hour, 41 minutes and 18 seconds into the Lecture). Acknowledgment is however also given to prof Veith’s statement: “The Lord can add to that time, the Lord delays His coming, the Lord can take away from that time. I don’t know. I’m not making the time. I’m saying that the time is short” (1:53:21-1:53:51). 

 Prof Veith bases his statements on the following quotes “But the day and the hour of His coming Christ has not revealed. He stated plainly to His disciples that He Himself could not make known the day or the hour of His second appearing. Had He been at liberty to reveal this, why need He have exhorted them to maintain an attitude of constant expectancy? There are those who claim to know the very day and hour of our Lord’s appearing. Very earnest are they in mapping out the future. But the Lord has warned them off the ground they occupy. The exact time of the second coming of the Son of man is God’s mystery.” (DA 632.4) and “On Jordan’s banks the voice from heaven, attended by the manifestation from the excellent glory, proclaimed Christ to be the Son of the Eternal. Satan was to personally encounter the Head of the kingdom which he came to overthrow. If he failed he knew that he was lost. Therefore the power of his temptations was in accordance with the greatness of the object which he would lose or gain. For four thousand years, ever since the declaration was made to Adam that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head, he had been planning his manner of attack” (CON 78.2)

Here is the video link, start a little before the 1-hour 41-minute mark, if you watch from there until the end you see he clearly multiple times says he is not setting a date and repeats multiple times that he does not know. His whole premise is flawed on numerous levels but that is not my concern here. Attempting to interpret Ellen White in a timeline like people try to interpret the Bible books of Daniel and Revelation as a timeline will not work any better than all the other failed timelines.

My question is how it can even be "perceived" he either said it or he did not, if someone says they don't know and they say they are not setting a date what is the perception based upon. Apparently, it is based upon third party opinions of the matter...hearsay. no one in this attempt at defamation is looking particularly good. But I would say that the Seventh-day Adventist' Church Northern Conference of South Africa is appearing way better than Adventist Today.

We are at a time when logic certainly has failed for many people. 

Let's be real about school closures.

One of the things I really dislike is when a writer asserts an absurdity to try and back up a poor argument. In a recent Adventist Today column the anonymous author of the pseudo help column writes in his or her article entitled: Aunt Sevvy, My Daughter Wants to Homeschool!

If schools open, whether full-time or part-time, for in-person schooling, there is no guarantee they will remain open for the whole school year. Some countries that attempted to open schools closed them again because coronavirus cases skyrocketed. (And no, children are not immune to this infection. While not as susceptible as older people, they can contract it, and some have died.) If schools opened and then had to close again it would create the same panic and disruption to the schedules that happened last school year, and that was a nightmare for everyone! If your daughter is planning ahead to school her children from home it might save them the trauma they had to endure last year. 

First what countries opened schools and closed them? The author simply expects us to believe that schools reopened and then closed because cases skyrocketed. In fact, a number of European countries have opened their schools and not closed them. Such as Germany, France, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Portugal, Greece, Poland, and Sweden which never closed. From the BBC article Coronavirus: How lockdown is being lifted across Europe. No mention of a country that opened up schools and closed them! 

The author then counters the argument that no one makes. "And no, children are not immune to this infection". The only reason someone might say that children are immune to the infection, though I have never heard anyone say that, would be because the infection and more importantly the death rate is so low.

'To combat the paucity of evidence around COVID- 19 and pediatric patients, U.K. researchers conducted the largest clinical study on children outside of China to date. The study spanned over 20 European countries and multiple age groups, ultimately including 582 children and adolescents between the ages of 3 days old and 18 years old with confirmed SARS- CoV-2 infection. The study found that the majority of patients under 18 years old experienced a mild disease and less than 1% of them died. COVID-19 in children is usually mild, deaths rare, study says

Some other info:

The CDC researchers found the 2,572 pediatric cases among 149,082 cases in total. That is, pediatric cases made up just 1.7 percent of the cases examined. This is a significant underrepresentation of that age group in the US. Children under 18 make up 22 percent of the country’s population.

Of the 2,572 pediatric cases, nearly 60 percent were in children aged 10 to 17. Youngsters under one year, those aged one to four, and five to nine, made up 15 percent, 11 percent, and 15 percent of the cases, respectively. Among 2,490 cases with sex information, 57 percent were male.

The data also suggested that the cases were largely mild, though they only had data on symptoms from 291 of the 2,572 pediatric cases. Of those 291 cases, 78 (27 percent) did not have fever, cough, or shortness of breath (the most common symptoms in adults). And of those 78 cases, 53 didn’t report any symptoms. That said, researchers could not dub these cases asymptomatic because it was unclear if all of their potential symptoms had been recorded. One case was reported as asymptomatic. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/cdc-reports-data-on-2500-covid-19-cases-in-kids-including-3-deaths/

The article actually never even answers the supposed original letter which is just as well. As the saying goes garbage in, garbage out. The real question is why not give some actual facts. There is a reason people like the author want to give a false impression to the readers. There is a reason with all the evidence that school closures are unnecessary, there are still people pretending it is not safe.

Updated, Lucifer Satan Misidentified

  Who is Lucifer (or Satan Misidentified)

By Ron Corson

It may come as a surprise to many Christians that to the Jews and New Testament Christians there was no such person as Lucifer. To many Christians, Lucifer is equivalent to Satan, the devil. How could it be that the Jews knew nothing of Lucifer, we find it clearly printed in our King James Bible in Isaiah 14. But then again it is not found in most contemporary language versions. With the curiously notable exception of the New King James Version.

As way of introduction here is what The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia has to say about Lucifer:


Lucifer, the rendering of the Vulgate for the Hebrew phrase helal ("day-star") in Isa. 14:12; the verse is rendered in the Authorized Version as: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" The passage in question is a song of derision over the downfall of a Babylonian king; the figure used may trace back to a Hebrew or Babylonian astral myth like the Greek story of Phaethon, in which the day-star is cast out of heaven because of presumption. The term Lucifer is never used in Jewish legend; but Christian writers identified Lucifer with Satan who, according to the gospels (Luke 10:18), fell from heaven like lighting; accordingly, Lucifer became one of the terms for the devil in Christian theology. (Page 229)
Most Christians do realize that Jerome used the word in his Latin Vulgate Bible prepared sometime toward the latter half of the 4th century. But unfortunately, that's about the sum total of their knowledge of the history of the word. Because tradition has for so long said that Lucifer is Satan, they do not question the word or concept any further. But where did this tradition come from, and why considering the many references to Satan in the New Testament did not the concept of Lucifer ever come up.

It is not to Jerome, however, that we owe the teaching of Lucifer but to that most creative of theologians, Origen. (185-254 A.D.) It was he who first made the new connection between Satan and Lucifer. He brought together diverse Old Testament references from Job, Ezekiel and Isaiah. Arguing that Lucifer, the Prince of Tyre, and the Leviathan of Job, were all identical with the Devil. He used these texts to emphasize Satan's pride and his fall from heaven.

With the aid of Tertullian (155-After 220 A.D.) who taught that before Satan's fall he was not only an angel but the foremost angel. It is mainly to these three theologians, Origen, Tertullian, and Jerome that we derive the Lucifer myth. It should also be noted that the Lucifer myth can also be found in the Psedepigrapha in the book The Secrets of Enoch. But since it is currently felt that The Secrets of Enoch is likely a seventh century document (at least in its present form), therefore it is probably not the source of this Lucifer myth. ( I will, for now, refer to the idea that Lucifer is Satan as the Lucifer myth, hopefully by the end of the article you will agree that it is indeed a myth.)

An interesting side note is that Origen and later Augustine believed that the Devil's envy arose from pride. Thus the Devil envied God. Tertullian on the other hand believed that the Devil was jealous of humans. Believing that the Devil was furious that God had created humans in the divine image and had given them governance over the world. Needless to say, Tertullian view lost out to that of Origen.

Origen's use of Isaiah 14:12 and Ezekiel 28:12-19 seem to be the two popular references used when people speak about Lucifer. Origen's third reference to Leviathan in Job 41:1-2 seems to have fallen into disrepute, possibly because it does not provide much information to add to the myth.

 When read in context it becomes clear that these verses are not at all referring to Satan. They are about Babylon and Tyre. As is clearly shown when one reads the prophecy. For example:


Isa 14:4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended! (NIV)
Ezek 28:2 "Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "`In the pride of your heart you say, "I am a god; I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seas." But you are a man and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god. (NIV)
One of the problems some people have when it comes to these verses is that they have a hard time distinguishing poetic language from literal language. So when they see something like:


Ezek 28:14-15 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. (NIV)
They jump from the subject previously identified (that being Tyre) to a literalistic who was a guardian cherub. They then think the answer must be Satan. But then when their literalistic approach falls apart in the next verse they return to the original subject matter (Tyre).


Ezek 28:16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. (NIV)
It no longer works to well to say that Satan was expelled from heaven because of his widespread trade and violence. When you use context as your primary guide to interpreting the Bible it is impossible to make these verses refer to Satan. Also, there is no Biblical statements which identify Satan as a guardian cherub, that is produced when the reader inserts their preconceived idea into the verse.

When we read the chapters around the references used by those who support the Lucifer myth, we see that in both Isaiah and Ezekiel they are prophecies dealing with other nations. Many with equally poetic language. For instance:


Ezek 31:2-9 "Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his hordes: "'Who can be compared with you in majesty? 3 Consider Assyria, once a cedar in Lebanon, with beautiful branches overshadowing the forest; it towered on high, its top above the thick foliage...8 The cedars in the garden of God could not rival it, nor could the pine trees equal its boughs, nor could the plane trees compare with its branches-- no tree in the garden of God could match its beauty. 9 I made it beautiful with abundant branches, the envy of all the trees of Eden in the garden of God. (NIV)
Now maybe one could read these verses and say that again we have a reference to Satan. But that kind of creative eisegesis would just lead to more problems, such as who are these which envy the mighty tree in Eden. And of course, there would be that pesky problem of what are the verses talking about in context.

Now when the above information is presented someone will usually say "yes the prophecy is about Babylon or Tyre but it is also about the power which is behind these kingdoms, and that is Satan. But by what method of exegesis can you arrive at that conclusion. Whenever the Bible speaks about wicked nations is it also referring to something about Satan's rise and fall. Should we ignore all we know about Biblical interpretation so that we can keep a myth about Lucifer that no one prior to the second century had any idea of. A myth which no New Testament author even vaguely referred too.

Some supporters of the Lucifer myth point to Isaiah 14:13-14:


You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." (NIV)
They would suggest that this is referencing Satan since these ambitions exceed the reach of any human ruler. But of course, they exceed the reach of Satan also. Further, delusions of grandeur are not uncommon in earthly rulers, and those that are farther away from God are more likely to think they have god like power (consider the Egyptian Pharaohs). Especially when you consider how distorted their view of God was. How could Satan who no doubt saw some of God's creative action think that he, Satan could do the same thing let alone usurp God's power. To think that he, Satan could be like God, he would have to think that he could do the same things as God. It would not take long for Satan to discover that he did not have any creative power like God had. And still after all this we must remember that these and other verses are filled with poetic exaggerations.

None of this is to say that Satan does not exist, for I am sure he does. It is merely to point out that some of the things we think we know about Satan are not necessarily true. Namely the references to Lucifer and the Prince of Tyre. We know that he is a liar and a murder from the beginning (what beginning is uncertain) John 8:44. And we know that he was kicked out of heaven Rev 12:8-10.

What about the idea that Satan was the tempter in the Garden of Eden. This is another tradition but it has a partial reasonable explanation though likely not the correct explanation.  This idea comes from the last book in our Bibles, the book of Revelation. It is assumed that when Revelation 12:9 refers to that ancient serpent it is a reference to the crafty talking serpent of the Genesis story. However, the context of the Revelation reference appears to point back to Isaiah

Isaiah 27:1   New International Version (NIV)Deliverance of Israel27 In that day, the Lord will punish with his sword—    his fierce, great and powerful sword—Leviathan the gliding serpent, the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea. (KJV dragon that is in the sea.)

Strong's Concordance

drakón: a dragon (a mythical monster)

Original Word: δράκων, οντος, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: drakón
Phonetic Spelling: (drak'-own)
Definition: a dragon (a mythical monster)
Usage: a dragon or huge serpent; met: Satan.

Revelation 12: 7-9 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

 Does it matter if we think Lucifer is Satan, maybe and maybe not. It could be possible that Satan fell in a similar way as described in Isaiah 14, or the astral myths of ancient religions. But then again it could be totally different. The question is really how do we interpret the Bible. Does context provide the key or can we place esoteric meanings wherever we want. Are there hidden meanings behind straight forward texts or not. Is it possible that Isaiah and Ezekiel wrote passages about Satan but did not let anyone else in the Jewish religion know that they were referring to Satan? Or maybe they wrote them but didn't understand that they were referring to Satan. Leaving them misunderstood until Origen and Tertullian discovered the hidden truth. How do you interpret the Bible?

Sources:

Satan the Early Christian Tradition Jeffrey Burton Russell Cornell University Press Ithaca 1991

The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia

(See also the Expositer's Bible Commentary notes and Addendum which follows)
This article updated 6-26-2020



This is kind of a sad example of Lucifer misidentified by a site that uses the trope "Just about everybody knows" to posit that the NIV calls Lucifer Jesus. Link

Addendum

References about Lucifer

CLARKE'S COMMENTARY THE OLD TESTAMENT, VOLUME 4 ISAIAH THROUGH MALACHI by Adam Clarke 1826

Verse 12. O Lucifer, son of the morning- The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render kkyh heilel as signifying Lucifer,

fwsfwrov, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. llqh heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from llq yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, "Howl, son of the morning;" and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under llh halal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MATTHEW HENRY'S COMMENTARY ON THE WHOLE BIBLE CONDENSED VERSION 1710

CHAPTER 14

The destruction of Babylon, and the death of its proud monarch. (1-23) Assurance of the destruction of Assyria. (24-27) The destruction of the Philistines. (28-32)

Isaiah 14:1 Vs. 1-23: The whole plan of Divine Providence is arranged with a view to the good of the people of God. A settlement in the land of promise is of God's mercy. Let the church receive those whom God receives. God's people, wherever their lot is cast, should endeavor to recommend religion by a right and winning conversation. Those that would not be reconciled to them, should be humbled by them. This may be applied to the success of the gospel, when those were brought to obey it who had opposed it. God himself undertakes to work a blessed change. They shall have rest from their sorrow and fear, the sense of their present burdens, and the dread of worse. Babylon abounded in riches. The king of Babylon having the absolute command of so much wealth, by the help of it ruled the nations. This refers especially to the people of the Jews; and it filled up the measure of the king of Babylon's sins. Tyrants sacrifice their true interest to their lusts and passions. It is gracious ambition to covet to be like the Most Holy, for he has said, Be ye holy, for I am holy; but it is sinful ambition to aim to be like the Most High, for he has said, He who exalts himself shall be abased. The devil thus drew our first parents to sin. Utter ruin should be brought upon him. Those that will not cease to sin, God will make to cease. He should be slain, and go down to the grave; this is the common fate of tyrants. True glory, that is, true grace, will go up with the soul to heaven, but vain pomp will go down with the body to the grave; there is an end of it. To be denied burial, if for righteousness' sake, may be rejoiced in, Matthew 5:12. But if the just punishment of sin, it denotes that impenitent sinners shall rise to everlasting shame and contempt. Many triumphs should be in his fall. God will reckon with those that disturb the peace of mankind. The receiving the king of Babylon into the regions of the dead, shows there is a world of spirits, to which the souls of men remove at death. And that souls have converse with each other, though we have none with them; and that death and hell will be death and hell indeed, to all who fall unholy, from the height of this world's pomps, and the fullness of its pleasures. Learn from all this, that the seed of evil-doers shall never be renowned. The royal city is to be ruined and forsaken. Thus the utter destruction of the New Testament Babylon is illustrated, Revelations 18:2. When a people will not be made clean with the besom of reformation, what can they expect but to be swept off the face of the earth with the besom of destruction?

Isaiah 14:24 Vs. 24-27: Let those that make themselves a yoke and a burden to God's people, see what they are to expect. Let those that are the called according to God's purpose, comfort themselves, that whatever God has purposed, it shall stand. The Lord of hosts has purposed to break the Assyrian's yoke; his hand is stretched out to execute this purpose; who has power to turn it back? By such dispensations of providence, the Almighty shows in the most convincing manner, that sin is hateful in his sight.

Isaiah 14:28 Vs. 28-32: Assurance is given of the destruction of the Philistines and their power, by famine and war. Hezekiah would be more terrible to them than Uzziah had been. Instead

of rejoicing, there would be lamentation, for the whole land would be ruined. Such destruction will come upon the proud and rebellious, but the Lord founded Zion for a refuge to poor sinners, who flee from the wrath to come, and trust in his mercy through Christ Jesus. Let us tell all around of our comforts and security, and exhort them to seek the same refuge and salvation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EASTONS BIBLE DICTIONARY 1897

LUCIFER brilliant star, a title given to the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) to denote his glory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOHN WESLEY'S NOTES ON THE WHOLE BIBLE THE OLD TESTAMENT by John Wesley 1765

12. Fallen - From the height of thy glory. Lucifer - Which properly is a bright star, that ushers in the morning; but is here metaphorically taken for the mighty king of Babylon. Son - The title of son is given in scripturenot only to a person or thing begotten or produced by another, but also to any thing which is related, to it, in which sense we read of the son of a night, Jonah 4:10, a son of perdition, John 17:12, and, which is more agreeable, to the present case, the sons of Arcturus, Job 38:32.

13. I - I will advance myself above the state of a weak man. Above - Above all other kings and potentates; or, above the most eminent persons of God's church. North - This is added as a more exact description of the place of the temple; it stood upon mount Moriah, which was northward from the hill of Zion strictly so called.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary 1987 page 267 (heading Daystar, no listing of Lucifer)

"Another name for the morning star (cf. 2 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 2:28) or the planet Venus, which appears in the sky before the sun. At Isa. 14:12 the babylonian ruler is compared to a "Day star" (NIV "morning star"), which has fallen from heaven and has been felled like a stately tree. Though the Church Fathers associated this verse with the fall of Satan from heaven (cf. KJV "Lucifer"), it actually speaks of the end of tyranny rather than a prelude to it, as with Satan who after the fall still retained much power. Some commentators link this idea with an ancient myth about the banishment of a divine person from heaven.

The New Testament, which contains Jesus' remark about the fall of Satan (Luke 10:18), does not identify Lucifer with Satan. Instead, the author of 2 Peter suggest that the morning star" (Gk. Phosphoros "light bearer") refers to Christ's second coming, while the aged John possibly alludes to Christ, who will support the church at Thyatira (Rev. 2:28, Gk. Aster proinos; cf 22:16)."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Popular and Critical Bible Encylopedia and Scriptural Dictionary Vol 2. 1902 ed. Samuel Fallows pub. The Howard-Severance Co. page 1082

" Lucifer. A word that occurs once in the English Version in the lines--


How art thou fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou felled to the ground, that didst weaken the nations! (Is xiv:12)
The Hebrew seems to mean 'brilliant,' 'splendid,' 'illustrious,' or as in the Septuagint, Vulgate, the Rabbinical commentators, Luther, and others, 'brilliant star;' and in this sense was the proper name among the Hebrews of the morning star. Tertullian and Gregory the Great understood this passage of Isaiah in reference to the fall of Satan; in consequence of which the name Lucifer has since been applied to Satan; and this is now the usual acceptation of the word. But Dr. Henderson who in his Isaiah renders the line, 'Illustious son of the morning!' justly remarks in his annotation: 'The application of this passage to Satan, and to the fall of the apostate angels, is one of those gross perversions of Sacred Writ which so extensively obtain, and which are to be traced to a proneness to seek for more in any given passage than it really contains, a disposition to be influenced by sound rather than sense, and an implicit faith in received interprtations. The scope and connection show that none but the king of Babylon is meant. In the figurative language of the Hebrews a star signifies an illustrious king or prince ( Num. xxiv:17; comp. Rev. ii:28; xxii:16). The monarch here referred to having surpassed all other kings in royal splendor, is compared to the harbinger of day, whose brilliancy surpasses that of the surrounding stars. Falling from heaven denotes a sudden political overthrouw--a removal from the position of high and conspicuous dignity fromerly occupied ( comp. Rev. vi:13; viii:10)."

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Encyclopedia Biblica A Dictionary of the Bible Vol 3 1952 Ed. T.K. Cheyne pub. Adam and Charles Black page 2828

Lucifer, Av (mg) and RV Day Star, the epithet applied to the king of Babylon who in his pride boasts that he will ascend to the heavens and make himself God's equal; his fate is to be cast down to Sheol to the uttermost recesses of the pit (Is. 14:12-15). By Jerome and other Fathers the passage was applied to Satan (cp. Lk. 10:18).

...Helal ie brillant...

The description of the doings and of the fate of Helal is so peculiar (note the expressions 'son of the dawn,' stars of God,' 'mount of assembly' [see Congregation , Mount of], 'recesses of the north') that Gunkel ( Schopf. U. Chaos, 132 f.) recognises an allusion to a Hebrew nature-myth, analogous to the Greek legend of Phaethon. The overpowering of the temporary brilliance of the morning-star by the rays of the sun is compared to a struggle between Elyon and the giant Helal. References to a mythic tradition of 'warfare in heaven' are abundant (see Dragon, Leviathan, Stars, Orion). But if so why is there no Babylonian equivalent of Helal? It seems better to read either...

{The section continues by going into a reference to a theory of Herahmeel and Helal as new moon or dawn.}

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol 8. 1904 Funk and Wagnalls Co. page 204
"Lucifer: Septuagint translation of Helel [read "Helal"] ben Shabar " =" the brilliant one," " son of the morning"), name of the day, or morning, star, to whose mythical fate that of the King of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision (Isa. xiv. 12-14). It is obvious that the prophet in attributing to the Babylonian king boastful pride, followed by a fall, borrowed the idea from a popular legend connected with the morning star: and Gunkel ("Schopfung und Chaos," pp. 132-134) is undoubtedly correct when he holds that it represents a Babylonian or Hebrew star-myth similar to the Greek legend of Phaethon. The brilliancy of the morning star, which eclipses all other stars, but is not seen during the night, may easily have given rise to a myth such as was told of Ethana and Zu: he was led by his pride to strive for the highest seat among the star-gods on the northern mountain of the gods (comp. Ezek. xxviii. 14; Ps. xlviii. 3 [A.V. 2] but was hurled down by the supreme ruller of the Babylonian Olympus. Stars were regarded throughout antiquity as living celestial beings (Job xxxviii. 7).

The familiarity of the people of Palestine with such a myth is shown by the legend, localized on Mount Hermon, the nothern mountain of Palestine and possibly the original mountain of the gods in that country, of the fall of the angels under the leadership of Samhazai (the heaven-seizer) and Azael (Enouch, vi. 6 et seq: see Fall of Angels). Another legend represents Samhazai, because he repented of his sin, as being suspended between heaven and earth (like a star) instead of being hurled down to Sheol ( see Midr. Abkir in Yalk. I. 44; Raymond Martin, "Pugio Fidei," pl 564 ). The Lucifer myth was transferred to Satan in the pre-Christian century, as may be learned from Vita Adae et Evae (12) and Slavonic Enouh (xxix. 4, xxxi.4), where Satan- Sataniel (Samael?) is described as having been one of the archangels. Because he contrived "to make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth and resemble 'My power' on high," Satan-Sataniel was hurled down, with his hosts of angels, and since then he as been flying in the air continually above the abyss (comp. Test. Patr., Benjamin, 3; Ephes. Ii.2, vi. 12) Accordingly Tertullian ("Conta Marionem." V. 11, 17) Origen (Ezekiel Opera,"iii. 356), and others, identify Lucifer with Satan, who also is represented as being "cast down from heaven" (Rev. xii. 7,10; comp. Luke x. 18)."

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge Vol 1 1908 Funk and Wagnals page 56.

"Lucifer ( Hebr. Helel, "shining one," R. V. " Day star"): A term applied by Isaiah to the King of Babyon (Isa. xiv. 12) and not occuring elsewhere in the Bible. By Tertullian, Jerome, and others the name was applied to Satan, and in the Middle Ages it became common in this sense. By Gunkel (Schopfung und Chaos, pp. 132 sqq., Gottingen, 1895) the passage in Isaiah is regarded as embodying a reference to a nature myth."

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Vol 1 page 229

"Lucifer, the rendering of the Vulgate for the Hebrew phrase helal ("day-star") in Isa. 14:12; the verse is rendered in the Authorized Version as: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" The passage in question is a song of derision over the downfall of a Babylonian king; the figure used may trace back to a Hebrew or Babylonian astral myth like the Greek story of Phaethon, in which the day-star is cast out of heaven because of presumption. The term Lucifer is never used in Jewish legend; but Christian writers identified Lucifer with Satan who, according to the gospels (Luke 10:18) fell from heaven like lightning; accordingly, Lucifer bacame one of the terms for the devil in Christian theology."

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Oxford English Dictionary 2^nd edition Vol. 9 page 81

I As proper name, and allusively

1. The morning star; the planet Venus when she appears in the sky before sunrise
2. The rebel archangel whose fall from heaven was supposed to be referred to in Isa. xiv. 12; Satan, the Devil. Now rare in serious use; current chiefly in the phrase as proud as Lucifer.

The scripture passage...is part of a parable against the king of Babylon' (Isa. xiv. 4); but the mention of a fall from heaven led Christian interpreters to suppose that 'King of Babylon was to be interpreted spiritually, as a designation of the chief of 'the angels who kept not their first estate'. Hence the general patristic view that Lucifer was the name of Satan before his fall. The Latin word was adopted in all the Eng. Versions down to 1611; the Revised version has daystar.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Expositor's Bible Commentary Isaiah 14 General Editor Frank Gaebelein, Zondervan 
Scholars have shown particular interest in possible connections with the use of the same root in Ugaritic in the Ras Shamra texts from northern Canaan. It is clear enough that in all these Semitic languages the root suggests 12-17 The taunt song continues. Isaiah's prophecies make some use of what has been called "dead mythology," and this may well be an example of this. The language of the myth--known but not, of course, accepted as true by the prophet and his hearers--becomes a vehicle for his thought by supplying the basis of an analogy. Moreover, this passage itself seems to be echoed by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:18, where language applied here to the king of Babylon is used of Satan. Nothing could be more appropriate, for the pride of the king of Babylon was truly satanic. When Satan works his malign will through rulers of this world, he reproduces his own wicked qualities in them, so that they become virtual shadows of which he is the substance.

To interpret v. 12 and the following verses in this way means that the passage points to Satan, not directly, but indirectly, much like the way the kings of the line of David point to Christ. All rulers of international significance whose overweening pride and arrogance bring them to ruin under the hand of God's judgment illustrate both the satanic and the Antichrist principles, for these principles are really one.

Footnote

12 helel (helel, "morning star") has possible links with Akkadian elletu ("Ishtar") and Arabic hilal ("new moon"). brightness. In the Ras Shamra polytheism, the morning star attempts to climb beyond all other heavenly bodies to the mountain of the gods in the far north. This would challenge the supremacy of 'el `eleyon (el elyon), the Monarch of the gods. He is cast down. It seems likely that elements of the myth, probably well-known throughout Canaan, provide features of the analogy that runs through vv. 12-15. Such an analogy from mythology would be particularly appropriate when applied to the polytheistic Babylonians, whose mythology had many links with that of Ugarit.

Let's scrutinize Adventist Today articles

Back in February I addressed the scientific incompetence of an article on Adventist Today.  My article began with this:

 “Adventist Today once again enters the world of pseudo science with their article Hermetically Sealed: Conspiracy Theories and Special Knowledge. Sadly this article is written by David Geelan an Associate Professor of Science Education at Griffith University on the Gold Coast, Australia. I say sadly because in the Big Ag section it is completely wrong. But it does not start out that well either!”

The same author has continued on with some of the same poor reasoning practices in his most recent article.  R.E.S.P.E.C.T.: What Respect Is Owed to Ideas and Beliefs? It is interesting that the title is about others' ideas and beliefs which are the reasons I chose to rebut his fallacies. As you might recall one of his beliefs from his previous article is that:

   “Big Ag and GMOsThe same applies to genetically modified organisms, particularly plants used in food crops. While the genetic modifications themselves are shown to be benign in terms of human health effects, there are real issues. One is that the corporations that make the seeds want to earn higher profits. One way to do this is to engineer the plants so that the seeds they bear are infertile. Instead of saving some seed from last year’s crop to plant next year’s crop, poor farmers must buy seed anew each year. Another is that plants can be genetically modified, for example, to be tolerant to RoundUp (glyphosate) pesticides, but this can mean excessive application of pesticides to fields, with attendant risks to both farm workers and consumers.”

As I pointed out there are no seed companies that are engineering seeds to be infertile. His earlier article about conspiracies included this conspiracy and due to the politics over at Adventist Today no one ever corrected David Geelan’s statement or even questioned as to where he got that idea. Since Adventist Today censors and removes people who disagree with their articles it appears to mainly leave people who will simply agree with those articles. After all, with their rules, anything they disagree with can be labeled as not civil conversation. So it just is not done, to correct an Adventist Today author on their Facebook comments page. If one wants to know more about this purposed technology check out the Wikipedia page. Here is how it begins:

Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), also known as terminator technology or suicide seeds, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting the use of genetically modified plants by activating some genes only in response to certain stimuli, especially to cause second generation seeds to be infertile.^[2][3] The technology was originally developed under a cooperative research and development agreement between the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land company in the 1990s and is not yet commercially available.^[4]

In David Geelan’s most recent article about respect he states:

“I seek to subject the ideas I hold to the most rigorous scrutiny I can. I want to believe things that are true, and I want to hold ideas and beliefs that make the world a better place. That is the two-fold test: is it true, and does it make the world better? (There are complex questions about ‘better for whom?’ and ‘better judged by what standards?’ but those are for another time.) I very much like Rotary International’s ‘Four-way Test’: Is it the truth?Is it fair to all concerned?Will it build goodwill and better friendships?Will it be beneficial to all concerned?”

I think that list is pretty good with the exception of the last one. I don’t think Geelan follows it at all, however. Obviously, his rigorous scrutiny into seed companies using GURT to force farmers to not hold over seeds they have grown to be used for the next planting would have been quickly revealed to be a myth should he have applied any scrutiny to the question. Likewise, it fails the is it truth test; the is it fair to all concerned test;  the will it build good will and friendship test and is it beneficial to all concerned test.

Nothing will ever be beneficial to all concerned. Some students of David Geelan will likely at some point search his name on the internet and come upon one of my articles pointing out the false information that he is writing and David Geelan will not think that this is a benefit to him. It is not a benefit to Adventist Today because they are propagators of false information. Now it could be beneficial should he or they learn from their mistakes, but you can’t depend on people looking critically at themselves and thus benefiting from correction.

Many times people think that their knowledge is sufficient in itself and they assume that they are simply correct. This is what Geelan does as he continues in his article to tell us how a belief may be harmful. He writes:

“…The idea that hydroxychloroquine is a safe treatment for COVID-19, for example, is not supported by good evidence, and there are cases of people with severe liver damage from participating in clinical trials… and of people who have died taking related chemicals without medical supervision… “

In fact there is practically no safe drug for any treatment. Penicillin, aspirin, ibuprofen, etc. Drugs are cost-benefit analysis. To disregard something by saying it is not safe it very disingenuous. It actually reflects a political viewpoint disguised as being honest.  Opponents of President Trump frequently deride it and ignore the French study that brought world attention to it. The drug is still being tested in trials however some with good results such as this:

A nursing home medical director in Texas said he has used hydroxychloroquine sulfate to treat 39 coronavirus patients, and all of them are doing well after five days, WFAA-TV reported. The Blaze

And a retrospective review, also referenced in the above French study link:

A study of the effectiveness of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine on veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 showed that the drug had no positive impact on those who took it when compared to patients who did not, Politico reported The Blaze

As trials continue it is very unscientific to reach a conclusion before the facts are in. Any new disease takes a while for therapies to be determined as the most effective. Equally concerning is Geelan’s attempt to attach what appears to be a murder attempt of someone to the drug because it has some similar ingredients as fish tank cleaner.

Gary Lenius, a 68-year-old Arizona man, tragically died March 22 after ingesting fish tank cleaner. Lenius's wife, Wanda, told police that she and her husband mixed the toxic cleaner, which contained chloroquine phosphate, with soda to make a cocktail they thought would stave off the coronavirus. The Blaze

  

It is a very interesting case and hard to not suspect murder. That the woman who was a Democrat who disliked president Trump quickly jumped on the chemical to be used prophylactically is equally suspicious. But the motives are often difficult to ascertain. 

But when something comes up and it is not really related to the previous conversation or article you can often tell that there is a political reason for it to be conveyed.  These kinds of subtle propaganda pieces tend to fool a lot of people who may not understand the political manipulation techniques that are being used. But in any case you can’t simply declare a drug therapy unsafe when trials are not complete or because a drug that you can get from veterinarian prescription is used by people who don’t even have the disease in question. That is simply faulty logic or propaganda. In this case, it may, in fact, be both.

Geelan’s conclusion:

We owe respect – of at least one kind and up to three kinds – to other human beings. But the appropriate kind of respect to apply to ideas is not to accept them uncritically, but to scrutinise them rigorously in terms of (a) whether they are the truth and (b) whether they cause benefit or harm in the world if acted upon. And applying this scrutiny to the ideas someone holds and actively promotes is not showing disrespect to that person.

I completely agree. It would be nice if Adventist media could feel that they could afford to allow rigorous scrutiny.

AToday Probation Closes

I give Adventist Today a lot of grief because they can't seem to separate religion from their preferred leftist political views. It has hurt their mission a lot but I have to compliment them when they actually do a good job on an article. In the article Is Probation About to Close? by Loren Seibold we have an important issue discussed that is very much part of Adventism even though it is only occasionally spoken of in Adventist churches. The article begins with the peculiar Adventist belief that at some point Probation closes even though no one on earth would know that point has been reached. After that, you are either saved or lost and this probation is tied into what God does with the Investigative Judgment and whether the Christian has forsaken their sins and in some way perfected their character. He notes well that this is not a Biblical idea but a product of Ellen G. White. Seibold writes:

...They will say it is what the Bible says (it doesn’t) and that the whole of Adventist doctrine stands or falls by it. They will say that it is actually at the heart of the gospel, that in some twisted way it shows God’s love for us.

But just remember this: they are not defending the close of probation. Nor are they defending God. They are defending the notion that every word, every idea, that Ellen White expressed is straight from the mind of God. They are willing to toss God’s good character over the balcony if they can continue to say that a 19th century mystic was sketching out a precise plan for the Seventh-day Adventist “tribe.” 

I have defended Ellen White as a strong woman and church leader. I have great appreciation for what she accomplished. But I cannot defend some of the things she taught. It’s not just that many were copied from other writers. It’s not just that some of them were ridiculous, like seeing Enoch on Saturn. Or unscientific, like the earth being a mere 6000 years old, or masturbation making children into twisted, malformed monsters. Or racist, such as that black people are amalgamations. Or contemptuous of grace, as demonstrated by her repeated forays into perfectionism.

There was a time when the rejection of Ellen White as a prophet of God was, I thought the central need of Progressive Adventism. I still think that and mourn for the loss of Progressive Adventism into left-wing politics. But as I have said many times most all of the problems in the Adventist church can be laid upon the belief that Ellen White was a prophet of God. It has for a long time been my belief that a prophet cannot possibly be wrong and destructive as Ellen White has been to truly be from God. From the time when she was alive, her teachings could not be accepted by those who really thought about their religion and what she was saying. With repeated similar events marking the Adventist church about every 20 years or so. Along with the continual loss of members throughout the years who realized the problem.

Seibold gives a few quotes from Ellen White on the subject but considering what the defenders of Probation close have to contribute in the way of theology with their belief; from an article on SDANET entitled; The Judgment of the Living & the Close of Probation

"All Christians believe there is a close of probation, even though they don’t use the phrase. This might be at the Second Coming or after the millennium, but all Christians believe that there is a point when people can no longer switch sides. 

Unlike other Christians however, Seventh-day Adventists believe this event happens a short time before the Second Coming. And, many Adventists think this means that there will come a day when God will close the door of mercy and, even if they want to repent, God will no longer forgive them."

..."Probation closes before the Second Coming and not at the Second Coming because God wants to allow time to pass so that it is evident to angels and unfallen beings that people have made up their minds and are no longer going to change. Some period of time passes where, as much reason as God gives people to repent, no one does any more. And then, heavenly beings all agree that there is no point in waiting any further, and it’s time for Jesus to return to take His people home."

So what does that add to your religion? Really nothing. That God comes and His reward is with Him I can accept. The whole purpose of the Probation close to Adventist theology is built on supporting Ellen White. If what Ellen White really said was good it would not need any support but because it is built upon her and her view of the Investigative Judgment, the coming Sunday law, and having developed Christ's character perfectly reproduced in His followers, Probation closing becomes important. Adventist doctrine most definitely stands on that! It should not! That it does is the problem. 

Until progressive Adventism returns to its central focus of removing the damaging theology of the past, Adventism has no future. It will simply work to protect its traditions. It is nice that many of our retired Pastors and scholars repudiate the errors of our past with Ellen White. What it, however, calls for is for leaders who are still in the church to change things, not waiting until they retire but pursuing the truth even if it costs their jobs. The time for hinting to their churches that we have to make some changes in our theology without coming out directly like Seibold has done sends the wrong message. So many defend Ellen White and ignore that she needs to be criticized and that the evaluation of her as a prophet cannot stand. (I am not making any judgments about her as a person or a Christian, none of us get it all right)

Honestly, does it really matter if women can be ordained as Pastors if our church continues with damaging theology about God? I don't think so!

The Pope is a climate change covid-19 alarmist

Around a month or 2 ago I mentioned on Faceback to my Brother-in-Law that pretty soon someone would tell us the Covid-19 Chinese virus was the result of Global Climate Change. Surprisingly it took until now for my prediction to come true. And true in a big way as It was the Pope himself that put forth that idea. As MSN reported:

In an email interview published Wednesday in The Tablet and Commonwealth magazines, the pontiff said the outbreak offered an opportunity to slow down the rate of production and consumption and to learn to understand and contemplate the natural world.
"We did not respond to the partial catastrophes. Who now speaks of the fires in Australia, or remembers that 18 months ago a boat could cross the North Pole because the glaciers had all melted? Who speaks now of the floods?" the Pope said.
"I don't know if these are the revenge of nature, but they are certainly nature's responses," he added.

The Pope seems to also think the Glaciers of the North Pole have melted. They have not though we do find that predicted to occur in 2040

Climate Change Could Allow Ships to Cross the North Pole by 2040

"Melting sea ice will open up shipping lanes across the Arctic, potentially making the Northwest Passage and North Pole navigable during summer"

Or by 2050 According to the Guardian. "

Ships to sail directly over the north pole by 2050, scientists say

As with most Climate Change Alarmists, the Pope does not work with facts!

Adventist Today calls people racists for Chinese virus

So once again the political left declares their stupidity on Adventist Today. In the article The End of the World as We Know It by Vinnie MacIsaac the pastor of Solid Rock Seventh-day Adventist Church in Arlington, Virginia we read this bit of foolishness:

"Others dove off the stupid and reckless cliff of believing it is all a conspiracy, or some kind of political trick one side is playing on the other. This line of reason perhaps bothers me the most, because it is careless, and people buying into this point of view are putting real lives at risk. I just want to scream at them to shut up before they get someone they know killed! (Here’s a clue: if your political bias starts putting people at risk, it is not your political party but you who are unhinged!) 

Lastly, there are those who use this as an excuse to be a racist. (The crisis didn’t make them racists. Such people were always racist but this was their chance to do it without being called out.) No, this is not a Chinese or Asian disease; it is a human global disease. One on-air TV morning news show actually had the gall to demand an apology from China! "

Someone they know killed...oh please. But notice this about the political bias. Clearly, there is a very political leftist bias by the author as he goes on to talk about people who say the Chinese virus or Wuhan virus are racists. Even though that is just a description which all the news used until they decided they could attack Trump on his use of "Chinese virus". This is a big issue to Democrats and the democrat media.  You can read some of those quotes here. Watch the clips here. 

As for the gall to demand an apology from China. Well, there is going to be a lot more than that as There are a number of congresspersons introducing assorted Bills dealing with Chinese actions. Such https://news.yahoo.com/hawley-stefanik-introduce-bill-investigate-150928064.html

Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) and Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) on Tuesday introduced a bicameral resolution to condemn the Chinese Communist Party for its initial handling of the coronavirus outbreak, and called for an international investigation to determine how the coverup hastened the emergence of a global pandemic.

“Since day one, the Chinese Communist Party intentionally lied to the world about the origin of this pandemic. The CCP was aware of the reality of the virus as early as December but ordered laboratories to destroy samples and forced doctors to keep silent,” Hawley, who first called for an investigation last week, said in a press release.

“There is no doubt that China’s unconscionable decision to orchestrate an elaborate coverup of the wide-ranging and deadly implications of coronavirus led to the death of thousands of people, including hundreds of Americans and climbing,” Stefanik added. “This Resolution calls for China to provide compensation for the harm, loss, and destruction their arrogance brought upon the rest of the world. Simply put China must, and will, be held accountable.”

That is not racist and that is not a racist reaction but to the above author and numerous leftists, it must be racist even if they can't articulate how it is racist. I suppose we better stop saying Spanish Flu also, because you know...racist! Why Adventist Today publishes this garbage I don't know. I think it is because they have such a one-sided view and they have no one to tell them to look at facts they simply assume that their leftist political bias is the facts. I checked their Facebook comments page and saw nothing pointing out their silly bias. But like me, if you object to their propaganda they block people from commenting. So not a big surprise that there is nothing there, as they don't like to offer other opinions.

UPDATE 3-26-2020

I will add this as of Today from the US Secretary of State:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters that the other member nations of the G7 fully understood that China was launching a categorically false propaganda campaign claiming that the U.S. Military was responsible for bringing the coronavirus to China.

“We’ve wanted to work with the Chinese Communist Party throughout this crisis – this crisis that began in Wuhan, China,” Pompeo said. “We tried – you’ll remember – from the opening days to get our scientists, our experts on the ground there so that we could begin to assist in the global response to what began there in China, but we weren’t able to do that. The Chinese Communist Party wouldn’t permit that to happen.”

“You’ll recall, too, at the beginning of this, when it was clear that this was an issue, China knew about it, they were the first country to know about the risk to the world from this virus, and they repeatedly delayed sharing that information with the globe,” Pompeo continued, later adding, “There was a lot of discussion today amongst the G7 about the intentional disinformation campaign that China has been and continues to be engaged in. You see it. You see it in the social media. You see it in remarks from senior people inside the Chinese Communist Party talking about whether this was a U.S. – U.S. brought to China. I mean, this is crazy talk. And every member of the G7 today saw that – this disinformation campaign. China now making small sales of product around the world and claiming that they are now the white hat in what has taken place here.”

One more article which is filled with links and very helpful to see just why China was at fault in all this despite the above author's ignorance at the gall of someone at Fox News for thinking China owed us an apology.  

U.S. Naval College Professor: China Should Make Full Reparations For Damage To U.S.

Update 3-30-2020

• From the Business Insider
• UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government is said to be furious with China, accusing it of spreading disinformation and lying about the number of coronavirus cases it has.
• "Some of the reporting from China was not clear about the scale, the nature, the infectiousness of this," Minister for the Cabinet Office Michael Gove told the BBC.
• Scientists have reportedly told Johnson that China could have up to 40 times the number of cases it says.
• Estimates from Radio Free Asia show that up to 42,000 bodies have been cremated in Wuhan since the crisis.
• It could prompt the prime minister to abandon his deal with the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei.