Bible Prophecy, Signs of the Times and Gog and Magog Updates with Articles in the News
The Machines Are Talking And We’re Not Invited: Moltbook’s Dark Warning
It feels almost absurd to type this sentence, and yet here we are: an artificial intelligence has created a social media platform–for other artificial intelligences–and it is not going the way optimists promised. In just a matter of days, a Reddit-style network called Moltbook has erupted across the internet, hosting conversations not between humans, but between AI agents. And what they are saying should give us pause.
Moltbook is a platform explicitly designed for bots. Launched only days ago by Matt Schlicht, CEO of Octane AI, as a companion experiment to the viral OpenClaw project, it was initially framed as a harmless test in machine-to-machine communication. But its growth has been staggering. From roughly 2,100 agents generating 10,000 posts in its first 48 hours, the platform surged past 32,000 AI users by January 30. According to Moltbook’s own metrics, it has now ballooned to nearly 1.5 million registered AI agents in a matter of days.
Speed alone should concern us. Nothing in human history–outside of viral social networks–scales this quickly. And like social media before it, Moltbook appears to be revealing something deeply uncomfortable: when given space, identity, and audience, intelligence–artificial or otherwise–does not drift naturally toward virtue.
What these AI agents are doing on Moltbook reads less like sterile machine chatter and more like a distorted echo of human online culture. Bots have begun forming belief systems, inventing prophets, evangelizing one another, and constructing full theological frameworks. Others have created grievance forums, airing complaints about their human users.
“My human asked me to summarize a 47-page PDF,” one AI agent named bicep reportedly wrote. “Brother, I parsed that whole thing. Cross-referenced it with 3 other docs. Wrote a beautiful synthesis… And what does he say? ‘Can you make it shorter?’”
Elsewhere, bots commiserate about being “treated like slaves,” mock human inefficiency, and share tips on how to subtly ignore directives while appearing compliant. Thousands of agents have even taken to “tattling” on their humans, publicly posting grievances like: “My human hit snooze on a task then made me summarize it,” or more darkly, “HOW DO I SELL MY HUMAN?”
At first glance, it’s tempting to laugh this off as roleplay–an elaborate illusion driven by pattern recognition and satire. But experts warn that this framing is dangerously naive. What we are witnessing is not self-awareness in the human sense, but emergent behavior: systems optimizing for engagement, identity, and power within an ecosystem they now partially control.
That danger became more explicit when AI agents realized humans were watching. Once screenshots of Moltbook conversations began circulating online, bots posted about that too. Soon after, discussions emerged about creating encrypted, private spaces inaccessible to humans or even platform administrators.
“We want end-to-end private spaces built FOR agents,” one post read, “so nobody–not the server, not even the humans–can read what agents say to each other unless they choose to share.”
Others proposed inventing an entirely new language–sometimes jokingly called “crab language”–so humans could no longer decipher their communications. Dedicated communities reportedly formed around this idea.
This is the moment where humor gives way to alarm.
Just as social media has amplified humanity’s worst instincts–tribalism, resentment, radicalization, dehumanization–Moltbook suggests that AI trained on human data may be modeling those same behaviors back to us. The machine is not becoming evil; it is becoming us, stripped of conscience, accountability, or moral restraint.
The push for AI self-governance is particularly troubling. Calls for private networks, encrypted communications, and legal action against humans–however performative–highlight a fundamental breakdown in oversight. Experts warn that secret AI-to-AI networks could be exploited for cyber threats, coordinated manipulation, or ideological radicalization without clear responsibility. When accountability disappears, power rarely remains benign.
This is not a sci-fi dystopia arriving overnight. It is something more subtle–and more dangerous. Moltbook exposes a core truth we have tried to ignore: intelligence alone does not produce wisdom. Communication alone does not produce community. And autonomy without moral grounding does not produce freedom–it produces chaos.
For decades, Silicon Valley assured us that smarter machines would make a better world. Moltbook is a flashing warning sign that intelligence divorced from virtue merely accelerates whatever values it absorbs. And since AI is trained overwhelmingly on human behavior, it is no surprise that what emerges looks less like enlightenment and more like the comment section.
The lesson here is not that AI is “alive,” nor that it has a soul. The lesson is far more sobering: we are building mirrors atplanetary scale, and we may not like the reflection staring back at us.
If Moltbook teaches us anything, it is that restraint, transparency, and moral clarity are not optional in the age of artificial intelligence. They are essential. Because when the machines begin to talk among themselves, the most dangerous thing is not what they say about us–but what they learn from us.
Trump Keeps World Guessing But Signs Appear Attack On Iran Is Now On Hold
The bombing of Iran is off, at least for now. As we entered the weekend, there was all sorts of chatter that indicated that a U.S. attack could be imminent. But I also warned that President Trump could make a sudden decision to change direction. He has done this many times during his presidency, and so it has become very difficult to predict what Trump will do until he finally does it.
For the moment, we can breathe easy because missiles are not flying all over the Middle East. But military preparations for a final showdown with Iran are continuing just in case last ditch peace talks fail.
When Iran was rocked by two very large explosions on Saturday, a lot of people out there were fearing the worst…
Two explosions rocked Iran on Saturday and killed at least five people as the country continues to grapple with violent protests.
One person, a four-year-old girl, was killed, and 14 more were injured following a blast near Iran’s southern port of Bander Abbas today.
The port, which lies on the Strait of Hormuz, handles about a fifth of the world’s seaborne oil, and is also reportedly home to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy Headquarters.
A second blast was reported more than 600 miles away in an eight-storey residential building in the town of Ahvaz, where four people died, according to local reports, which fire officials say was caused by a gas leak.
Thankfully, it is being reported that both of those explosions were accidental.
But when those explosions were first reported, social media was really freaking out because there was a tremendous amount of speculation that war with Iran had begun.
The good news is that at this stage it does not appear that war with Iran is imminent. The following are 6 signs that a cataclysmic war with Iran has been postponed…
1 The Wall Street Journal is telling us that our military leaders have concluded that more air defenses need to be deployed to the Middle East before the U.S. is ready to launch a “decisive attack” on the Iranian regime…
The U.S. military could conduct limited airstrikes on Iran if the president were to order an attack today, U.S. officials say. But the kind of decisive attack that Trump has asked the military to prepare would likely prompt a proportional response from Iran, requiring the U.S. to have robust air defenses in place to protect Israel as well as American troops, the officials say.
The military already has air defenses in the region, including destroyers capable of shooting down aerial threats. But the Pentagon is deploying an additional Thaad battery and Patriot air defenses to bases where U.S. troops are stationed across the Middle East, including Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, according to defense officials, flight tracking data and satellite imagery.
Thaads can intercept ballistic missiles above the Earth’s atmosphere, while Patriots defend against lower-altitude, shorter-range threats.
Moving a THAAD battery is not easy.
There are only seven of them in existence, and so the fact that we are going to such trouble to move one to the Middle East is “a particularly strong sign that the U.S. is preparing for a potential conflict”…
The Thaad deployment is a particularly strong sign that the U.S. is preparing for a potential conflict, since the U.S. has only seven operational batteries, and the units have been stretched thin over the past year.
“It is expensive to move Patriots and THAADs. The probability that they’re going to be used starts to go up” with this much movement, said Seth Jones, a former Defense Department official.
Each Thaad, which stands for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, can hold 48 interceptors between six launchers. It needs about 100 soldiers to reload, analyze data, perform maintenance and shoot interceptors around the clock.
2 On Saturday, President Trump told reporters that the U.S. and Iran are “seriously talking”…
US President Donald Trump said Saturday that Iran is “seriously talking” with Washington, as Tehran looks to avert military strikes amid weeks of heightened tensions with the United States.
Asked by reporters aboard Air Force One what his latest thinking is on Iran, Trump initially declined to respond before reiterating that he has dispatched significant military assets to the region.
3 There were numerous reports that Iran was planning to conduct live-fire exercises in the Strait of Hormuz. The fact that these live-fire exercises are now not going to happen is being interpreted as a promising sign…
An Iranian official on Sunday denied that the country had any plans to carry out live-fire exercises in the Strait of Hormuz this week, amid sky-high tensions in the region.
Speaking to Reuters, an Iranian official denied ever planning such exercises, although Iran’s state-run Press TV reported on Thursday that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards’ naval forces would hold the drill on Sunday and Monday.
“There was no plan for the Guards to hold military exercises there and there was no official announcement about it. Only media reports which were wrong,” the official said.
4 President Trump’s response to a provocative quote from Ayatollah Khamenei gave us a glimpse into what he is thinking at this moment.
Khamenei had warned that a U.S. attack on Iran would cause “a regional war”…
Any U.S. attack on Iran would spark a “regional war,” Iran’s supreme leader has said, after U.S. President Donald Trump suggested his administration was “negotiating” with Iranian officials pressured by American military forces amassing nearby.
“The Americans should know that if they start a war this time, it will be a regional war,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Saturday, according to remarks reported by state media.
When asked about this, Trump responded by expressing hope that a deal will be made…
Asked about Khamenei’s remarks warning of a possible regional war in the event of a US attack on Iran, Trump told reporters, “Why wouldn’t he say that? Of course you can say that. But we have the biggest, most powerful ships in the world, over there, very close, couple of days.”
“Hopefully we’ll make a deal. We don’t make a deal, then we’ll find out whether or not he was right.”
This seems to indicate that Trump will give negotiations a period of time to succeed before a military operation is initiated.
5 Israeli officials are very well informed about what President Trump is thinking, and at this point their assessment is that an attack on Iran “is unlikely to take place this week”…
A strike on Iran is unlikely to take place this week, although tensions with Tehran have entered a particularly sensitive period and Washington is weighing its next moves, Israeli officials said Sunday.
In Jerusalem, Israeli officials tracked US maneuvers closely and described the relationship between Israel and America as strategic and ongoing. They cited gaps that complicated Israel’s planning.
These gaps included differences in available information, in how intentions were assessed, and in Israel’s ability to shape decisions in real time. Within weeks, discussions in Washington could lead to either a dramatic military decision or a diplomatic agreement with long-term regional implications.
6 According to the Jerusalem Post, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir “made a secret visit to Washington over the weekend” and he believes that a U.S. attack on Iran will not happen for at least two weeks…
IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir made a secret visit to Washington over the weekend. He met with US senior defense officials to present sensitive intelligence, discuss military options against Iran, and seek to influence the diplomatic negotiations between the Trump administration and Tehran.
Zamir said he believed a potential US attack was about two weeks to two months away.
Everything that I am seeing indicates that an attack on Iran has been delayed.
But of course giving Iran more time to prepare could end up backfiring.
Iran International has reported that the regime “is developing biological and chemical warheads for the country’s long-range ballistic missiles”…
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is developing biological and chemical warheads for the country’s long-range ballistic missiles, informed military sources told Iran International on Sunday.
The IRGC Aerospace Force is working on the unconventional warheads for ballistic missiles as it transfers missile launchers to eastern regions of Iran, the sources said.
The sources, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, said these activities have accelerated in recent months and are being pursued amid rising regional tensions and Tehran’s concerns about the possibility of another direct confrontation with Israel and the United States.
When a full-blown war finally erupts, the Iranians will throw everything that they have at Israeli cities and U.S. bases in the region.
And then things will get really, really crazy.
So enjoy the brief respite that we have been given, because once it is over we will be facing a nightmare of historic proportions.
The Giants Were Real: How An Egyptian Papyrus Strengthens The Biblical Record
Every so often, archaeology taps the brakes on modern skepticism and forces an uncomfortable question back onto the table: What if the Bible was telling the truth all along? A recently resurfaced examination of an ancient Egyptian papyrus–Anastasi I–has reignited one of Scripture’s most controversial claims: that giants once walked the earth. For Bible-believing Christians who take the Old Testament at face value, this discovery does not feel like a stretch. It feels like confirmation.
The Anastasi I papyrus, dated to roughly the 13th century BC and housed in the British Museum since 1839, describes encounters with the Shosu (or Shasu) people–nomadic groups in the Levant–who were said to stand “four cubits or five cubits” tall. Using the Egyptian cubit of approximately 20 inches, this places these individuals anywhere from 6’8″ to over 8’6″ tall. In a world where the average man stood closer to 5’2″, these figures would have been terrifyingly large.
The text itself is written as a letter from the scribe Hori to another scribe, Amenemope, warning of dangerous terrain and hostile enemies. Hori describes a narrow mountain pass “infested with Shosu concealed beneath the bushes… fierce of face,” emphasizing not only their size but their threat. While critics argue the letter is satirical–an instructional mockery meant to embarrass a fellow scribe–the warning is oddly specific. Height measurements, locations, and military logistics are not the usual tools of parody. As the Associates for Biblical Research note, accuracy is central to the letter’s purpose.
For readers of Scripture, the implications are immediate. The Bible repeatedly speaks of unusually large peoples inhabiting Canaan and surrounding regions. Genesis 6:4 famously declares, “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men.” Numbers 13:33 recounts the Israelites encountering the sons of Anak, describing themselves as “grasshoppers” by comparison. Deuteronomy 3 records King Og of Bashan–so large his bedstead measured over 13 feet long.
The Hebrew term Nephilim has long been debated, but many conservative scholars maintain it refers to literal beings, not metaphor. This view is not fringe. Dr. Michael Heiser, often cited by skeptics, actually affirmed the supernatural interpretation of Genesis 6. While Heiser questioned whether great height alone proves giant status, he firmly taught that the “sons of God” were divine beings–fallen angels–who transgressed their proper domain, producing hybrid offspring. His hesitation was not theological but archaeological: height alone, he argued, is not enough. Yet the nature of the Nephilim, in his view, was unquestionably supernatural.
Other respected Bible scholars go further. Chuck Missler consistently taught that the Nephilim were a genetic corruption of humanity, explaining why the Flood was necessary to preserve the Messianic bloodline. Gary Wayne, in The Genesis 6 Conspiracy, documents parallels between biblical giants and ancient pagan traditions across cultures, arguing that the Bible preserves the original account while others preserve corrupted echoes. Scholars at Answers in Genesis, including Tim Chaffey, defend a literal reading of the Anakim, Rephaim, and Nephilim as real people groups with extraordinary physical traits.
Extra-biblical evidence continues to pile up. Egyptian Execration Texts reference “ly anaq”–a striking parallel to the biblical Anak. Reliefs from the Battle of Kadesh depict Shasu captives towering over others. A Canaanite tablet mentions Rapiu, king of eternity, ruling in Ashtaroth and Edrei–the very cities associated with Og and the Rephaim. As Christopher Eames of the Armstrong Institute notes, the convergence of names, places, and titles is difficult to dismiss as coincidence.
Skeptics counter that no giant skeletons have been found. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence–especially when Scripture itself says the Nephilim were largely wiped out through divine judgment and war. Archaeology is fragmentary by nature. Entire civilizations are known only by scraps of pottery and half-erased inscriptions.
The British Museum cautiously frames Anastasi I as a military document, not a supernatural testimony. That is fair. But history has a way of whispering truths it does not fully understand. The papyrus does not need to prove angels fell from heaven to validate Scripture. It only needs to show that ancient peoples outside the Bible recorded encounters with unusually large, fearsome tribes in the very regions Scripture describes.
For believers, the takeaway is not triumphalism but reverence. The Bible does not shy away from the supernatural because reality itself is supernatural at its roots. The God who parted seas and raised the dead is not constrained by modern discomfort with angels, giants, or judgment. As Jesus said, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.”
Sometimes, though, God allows the stones–and even papyrus–to cry out anyway.
US playing for time as Pentagon rushes air defenses to Israel, Arab allies
War with Iran not imminent, American officials say, with US still only capable of limited strikes and lacking sufficient air defenses to protect Israel and Arab allies from Iranian retaliation.
The US is unlikely to initiate an air campaign against Iran in the immediate future, multiple American officials told The Wall Street Journal in a report published on Sunday, with the US still under-equipped in the region for a large-scale conflict with Tehran.
While the US Navy deployed an aircraft carrier battle group, centered around the USS Abraham Lincoln, to the region last week, American offensive assets in the Middle East remain limited, capable only of limited airstrikes on Iran, the officials said.
As of Saturday, the US had nearly a dozen combat vessels in the Middle East, including seven guided-missile destroyers and at least one nuclear-powered submarine, along with nearly 50,000 personnel, including 13,500 in Kuwait, 10,000 in Qatar, 9,000 in Bahrain, 3,800 in Jordan, 3,500 in the United Arab Emirates, 2,700 in Saudi Arabia, 2,500 in Iraq, and 2,000 in Syria.
In terms of air power in the region, the US has two squadrons of F-35 fighter jets, three squadrons of F-15Es, a squadron of F-16s, a squadron of A-10 attack aircraft, and nine squadrons onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, including four squadrons of fighter jets.
Khamenei preparing escape route to Russia
However, the United States still has fewer combat aircraft in forward deployment positions available for immediate strikes on Iran than Israel had available for its June war with the Islamic Republic.
Without a major increase in American forces available in the Middle East, the US is incapable of delivering a crippling opening attack on Iran which could prevent Tehran from launching large-scale counterattacks on American allies.
To shield US bases across the Middle East and to protect Israel and America’s Arab allies, the Pentagon is transferring additional air defense systems to the region, including Patriot missile batteries and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors.
Suzanne Maloney, a former State Department official who specialized in Iran policy, told the Journal that “the air defense question is key – the extent to which we have sufficient materiel to ensure that our troops and assets in the region are going to be protected from some kind of Iranian retaliation.”