Do none of these self-declared experts remember the fiasco about Franz Joseph Strauss?
Simple answer: yes, but they're humming loudly to themselves and pretending they don't.
So along comes Herman Van Rompuy, and the screaming doom-casters, having learned nothing, are at it again.
Bob Thiel, Th.D (Kochi, India) has this to say on his blog.
Herman Van Rompuy has pledged to raise taxes. And since he is not the final King of the North, if Daniel 11:20 has a final fulfillment and he dies early, the following may apply to him:
You're wading way out into the quicksand there Bob.
There shall arise in his place one who imposes taxes on the glorious kingdom; but within a few days he shall be destroyed, but not in anger or in battle (Daniel 11:20).
... I believe that while Herman Van Rompuy is not likely to be the one that is the final King of the North, he may help set the stage for that leader to rise up. And if he fulfills his comments about raising taxes, he certainly could be considered as a person who fulfills Daniel 11:20.
The hilarious thing is that Bob is posturing as the cautious commentator vis-à-vis the truckload of manure that the Flurry sect is spouting on this issue. He doesn't seem to have succeeded!
Let's be honest. Franz Joseph Strauss had zero prophetic significance. That's obvious in hindsight, but it was also obvious at the time to anybody who bothered to look into the genre of biblical writing.
Herman Van Rompuy has zero prophetic significance. You don't need to wait to find that out, it's completely obvious right now.
Daniel 11:20 has nothing to do with Herman Van Rompuy. Does Bob (or Gerry) not possess a decent commentary to refer to? (Possibly not, as they'd consider such a thing "worldly.")
Herbert Armstrong and his "hanger-onners" had zero prophetic insight.
Gerry Flurry's prophetic insight scores in negative numbers. Zero flatters him.
Bob Thiel has zero prophetic insight.
This is where all the nonsense about "watch world news" falls apart. The Bible can't be aligned with the newspaper headlines of today (or Time cover articles), any more than it could in the 1930s or 1970s. The whole enterprise is doomed to failure, although a convincing performance may line the pockets of those who claim otherwise.
It may cause folk to feel special if they delude themselves about having an inside-track on world events, but sooner or later they - and often their loved ones - are going to have to pay.
Across on Mike Bennett's blog is one of those gratuitous postings on the perils of taking the Lord's name in vain. It's called "Signs of perilous times: blasphemers." Here's the irony: the very same people who are horrified by gosh or darn seem deliriously happy when someone climbs up into the pulpit and talks utter rubbish in God's name, claiming - on God's authority - to identify prophetic significance where there is absolutely none. Again, think of all that inane speculation about Strauss and Otto von Habsburg.
Now that really is taking God's name in vain.