“Watching, Waiting, Working” is our Motto!
We are a team of non-denominational volunteers dedicated to sharing the last message of mercy given in the Bible and the wonderful news of the return of Yahushua at the time known only to Yahuwah. We started this online ministry in 2004 as a result of years of prayer and research.
The Bible is our rule of faith and striving to obey the promptings of Yahuwah’s Spirit and the teachings of His word inspires us to call attention to its truths. We believe that Yahuwah does indeed reveal Himself to all those who search for Him with all their heart (Jeremiah 29:13).
We are distraught at the many denominations that exist today claiming to follow the Bible. The fact is, if we all have one reference, we should all have one basic belief. We believe that “there is no other ekklesia than the assembly of those who have the word of Yahuwah and who are purified by it.” This is why we encourage all to study their Bible. The word of Yahuwah is the only safe guard against deception. Without the Bible the way is opened for minds to be deceived. The great controversy of this earth has been between Yahuwah’s law and the traditions of men, the pending question is, ‘Will we obey Yahuwah or man?’
If you see anything on our website that contradicts the Bible, please point it out and we promise to view it with an open mind and heart. We will test whatever you send by the Bible test. If we have erred, it has been on the side of love for our brothers and sisters in humanity and conviction of duty to Yahuwah.
Yahuwah is so good, so loving, that He has revealed Himself in His word and has given us His prophetic word to help His children prepare. Praise Yahuwah!
Why the name: World’s Last Chance®
The name “World’s Last Chance” was chosen for our website because it reflects our belief that Yahushua’s return can be at any time and the world’s inhabitants, most of whom do not live beyond 100 years, are fast running out of this relatively short time span to accept Heaven’s final invitation of grace and mercy. When Adam and Eve sinned, a second chance was graciously granted the human race. Yahushua’s death, burial, and resurrection guarantees every human being the opportunity to choose for themselves whether they will be loyal to their Maker or join Satan in rebellion. The WLC Team is convinced that Yahushua will return in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory to set up Yahuwah’s everlasting kingdom on earth! This is truly the world’s last chance…
“And, behold, I come quickly; and My reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” (Revelation 22:12)
Today, if you will hear his voice, harden not your heart. Today is the day of salvation. You may never have another chance.
WLC Headquarters?
Yahushua never had an earthly headquarters and we simply follow His example. Our prayer is that we be found worthy to be numbered among the peculiar group described in Hebrews 11 and 12:18-24.
The WLC team is made up of several members spread literally over the 4 corners of the world. We have an online ministry and our earthly headquarters for the time being is the World Wide Web. We do not highlight nor dwell on any of the team members behind the humble ministry of WLC. Our obsessive focus is on the presenting and sharing of Yahuwah’s truth and light. We wish to draw attention only to Yahuwah and Yahushua, our Founders, Who stand behind all the efforts being undertaken at WLC. Our central office & headquarters therefore, are in New Jerusalem – our eternal destination where we hope to meet every WLC member – at Yahuwah’s appointed time.
If, after viewing any of the content at WLC, His Spirit convicts you to translate it, please Contact us! We are eager for volunteers to help with every language! Thank you!
Disclaimer: Political Neutrality – The content shared on this website is not intended to provide commentary on politics nor does it seek to endorse or condemn any particular political candidate, party, or ideology. Our aim is to keep visitors informed about world events through news articles and updates from various sources. The links we post are solely intended to raise awareness and offer a broad perspective on current affairs. Please note that the views and opinions expressed on the external websites we link to are their own and do not reflect the beliefs, values, or position of this ministry. We remain committed to providing content that encourages open-mindedness and informed decision-making without any political bias or agenda.
World’s Last Chance® and WLC® are both registered Trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Why do you guys cite scripture? Why do you care about the Bible at all? Isn’t that just some tradition of men who arbitrarily decided what books to use as scripture for their fake church? Why would God use them and not YOUR “ekklesia” to put the Bible together? If God chose them to put it together should we choose them to interpret it? If we should choose you, why?
Dear Brother Michael,
In response to your comment, we cite Scripture because we believe Yahuwah’s Word is the ultimate authority, transcending any human institution. Although men were used to compile the canon, we believe Yahuwah’s sovereignty ensured the preservation of His truth despite the flaws of the organizations involved. Recognizing inspired texts does not grant those men or their successors an exclusive right to interpret them forever. We do not ask you to follow us, but rather to test our teachings against the Bible itself to see whether they hold true. Our goal is simply to strip away man-made traditions and return to the original message preserved in the text.
In Father Yahuwah’s Love,
galal.
Gods Holy word is clear: Jesus Gods Eternal Son – Was before the foundations of the world! You would need to remove a lot of scripture Not to see that ! And you will give an answer to Him on the great white throne Judgement Rev 11-15 ! You preach a false gospel! I can easily prove my point, however you lack the Spiritual insight to see it ! You are the blind leading the blind, and you shall both fall into the ditch
Dear Brother John,
While I respect the intensity of your convictions, the Unitarian perspective finds deep spiritual meaning in the scriptures you’ve mentioned without requiring the doctrine of a pre-existent ‘God the Son’. Our understanding is rooted in the belief that Yahuwah is one—the Father—and that Yahushua is the human Messiah through whom Yahuwah has perfectly revealed Himself.
As Unitarians, we make a distinction between the ‘Eternal Plan’ and the ‘Eternal Person.’ Thus, “being before the foundations of the world” is not the pre-existence of a person, but the pre-existence of Yahuwah’s plan.
We view the “Word” in John 1 as Yahuwah’s own creative power and purpose, which was “with” Him just as a man’s word is with him.
Peter writes that Yahushua was “foreknown before the foundation of the world” (1 Peter 1:20). In the same way that Yahuwah knew us before we were born, Yahushua existed in the mind and purpose of Yahuwah long before his physical birth in Bethlehem.
We believe calling Yahushua the “Son of Yahuwah” emphasizes his unique relationship and submission to the Father rather than a shared divine essence. Scriptural evidence points to a Messiah who “learned obedience” and was “made like his brothers in every way” (Hebrews 2:17, 5:8). Yahushua himself stated, “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and called the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3).
Regarding the Great White Throne Judgment, we agree that every person will give an account. However, we believe Yahuwah’s judgment is based on the truth revealed in our hearts and on our faithfulness to the light we have received. We do not see our view as “removing” scripture but as honoring the strictly monotheistic faith of the Hebrew prophets and of Yahushua himself.
We approach these differences with humility, remembering that “now we see through a glass, darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12).
In Father Yahuwah’s Love,
galal.
Hi Ash,
Kindly refer to the following for a Biblical examination of the objections you have raised:
My Lord and My God:
https://www.worldslastchance.com/articles/winds-of-doctrine/my-lord-and-my-god-trinitarians-get-it-wrong/
Worshiping the Son:
https://www.worldslastchance.com/articles/winds-of-doctrine/yahushua-is-worshipped-so-he-must-be-yahuwah-really/
https://www.worldslastchance.com/wlc-radio/the-insignificance-of-worshipping-yahushua/
https://www.worldslastchance.com/wlc-radio/should-we-worship-jesus-by-j-dan-gill/
https://www.worldslastchance.com/wlc-radio/should-we-worship-jesus-as-being-god/
First & Last:
https://www.worldslastchance.com/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?action=wlc_download_file&type=post&id=184825&url_field_name=file
For more, kindly refer to the following:
https://www.worldslastchance.com/directory/#godhead
https://www.worldslastchance.com/topical-biblical-studies/anti-trinitarian-studies/
We humbly encourage you to be a Berean (Acts 17:11) and prayerfully study this with an open mind and honest heart.
In the Father’s Love,
lee (wlc team)
I beseech you to read the Gnostic Bible!
I agree with some of what you are teaching. The trinity is false, for sure. The Father is eternal. The messiah, Yeshua, is the son of Yahweh, the most high.
All that is true.
I think you are missing one (for now) thing though, Yeshua came forth from the Father at the beginning of creation. This does not make him eternal. It gives us his beginning.
All through out scripture, Yeshua, the son of God is referred to as everlasting. This indicates that he has a beginning without end.
Scripture to backup my thesis? Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
He had his glory that he remembers that existed with the Father prior to the world.
This is in line with John 1:1. Most people want to take John 1:1 and say that it proves he is eternal. It does not. It literally points to the time of Creation as the time of Yeshua’s coming forth from the Father.
In the book of John, Yeshua repeatedly states over and that the Father is greater than he is. That the Father sent him. That the one that is sent is not as great as the one that sent him.
In the book of John, Yeshua’s own words make it very clear that he is not the father. He even prays that we will be one with him and the Father in the same way that he is one with the Father. That “oneness” is unity. We are not God and we will never be God. We are the children of God and to be one with him will be in perfect unity with him. Just as he is with his Father.
Shalom…
We can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Isaiah 7:14 does not say “virgin” and did not describe a miraculous virgin birth.
What we cannot do (and no historian can) is claim metaphysical certainty. But linguistically and historically, the case is airtight.
1. The Hebrew word used cannot mean “virgin”
The word is עַלְמָה (‘almah)
This is not disputed.
Fact:
‘Almah never means “virgin” in Biblical Hebrew.
Proof:
Hebrew has a specific word for virgin: בְּתוּלָה (betulah)
Isaiah himself uses betulah elsewhere (Isa 23:12; 47:1)
Isaiah deliberately did not use it here
If Isaiah meant “a virgin who has never had sex,” he used the wrong word.
That alone is decisive.
2. Every occurrence of ‘almah in the Hebrew Bible disproves “virgin”
There are 7 occurrences of ‘almah in the Hebrew Bible.
Not one requires virginity.
Example that destroys the virgin claim:
Proverbs 30:19
“the way of a man with an ‘almah”
This is a sexual expression.
A literal virgin reading here is impossible.
If ‘almah meant “virgin,” this verse would be incoherent.
3. Isaiah 7 requires a woman who is already sexually active
Isaiah 7:14 says:
“Behold, the ‘almah is pregnant (or is about to conceive) and will bear a son…”
Key grammar fact:
The Hebrew verb הָרָה (harah) is:
present / imminent
not distant future
not miraculous
This means:
➡️ The woman already exists
➡️ The pregnancy is immediate
➡️ The sign is time-bound
A future virgin birth 700 years later is grammatically impossible.
4. The prophecy has a built-in expiration date
Isaiah 7:15–16:
“Before the child knows to refuse evil and choose good, the land of the two kings you dread will be deserted.”
This happens within a few years, not centuries.
This proves:
The child must be born immediately
The mother must be a known woman
The birth must be ordinary
A virgin birth generations later would make Isaiah’s “sign” meaningless.
5. Isaiah 8 explicitly fulfills the prophecy — naturally
Isaiah 8:3:
“I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son.”
This is deliberate narrative closure.
Same author
Same timeframe
Same sign-child theme
Same political context
There is no hint of miracle
There is no emphasis on sexual purity
There is no messianic expectation
Isaiah himself shows how the prophecy works.
6. The Greek “virgin” comes from translation, not prophecy
The Septuagint translates ‘almah as παρθένος (parthenos).
Critical fact:
Parthenos does not always mean virgin either.
Genesis 34:3 LXX calls Dinah “parthenos” after she was raped
Greek usage allows “young unmarried woman”
So:
❌ Greek does not prove virginity
❌ Hebrew explicitly avoids virgin language
7. No Jew — ever — read this as a virgin birth before Christianity
This is devastating evidence.
No Second Temple Jewish text
No Dead Sea Scroll
No Targum
No rabbinic source
No messianic expectation
If Isaiah clearly predicted a virgin birth, Jews would have noticed.
They didn’t, because it isn’t there.
8. Matthew reinterprets — he does not “fulfill”
Matthew quotes the Greek, not the Hebrew.
He is doing midrash, not reporting Isaiah’s meaning.
This is theology after the fact, not prediction.
Final verdict (no wiggle room)
What can be proven beyond reasonable doubt:
✅ ‘Almah does not mean virgin
✅ Isaiah knew the word for virgin and did not use it
✅ The prophecy requires a normal birth in Isaiah’s lifetime
✅ The timeline makes a distant miracle impossible
✅ Isaiah 8 narratively completes the sign
✅ The virgin reading is a later Christian reinterpretation
Therefore:
Isaiah 7:14 does not predict a virgin birth — linguistically, grammatically, historically, or contextually.
I don’t get the doctrine of the virgin birth from Isaiah. Mary herself said she had not been with a man.
Hi Slobodan,
I pray you are well. :)
Isa. 7:14-16 – “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin [H5959: ‛almâh] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.” (Isa. 7:14-16, KJV)
The child spoken of here, in the original context, is apparently Isaiah’s second son:
“And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said Yahuwah to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz [“speed the spoil and hasten the prey”]. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.” (Isa. 8:3-4, KJV)
“Behold, I and the children whom Yahuwah hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Yahuwah of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.” (Isa. 8:18)
H5959 (‛almâh) – This word does not strictly mean “virgin.” It simply means young woman or damsel.
H1330 (Betûlâh – בְּתוּלָה) is the more precise word for “virgin” in Hebrew. It refers specifically to a woman who has never had sexual intercourse. So while “almâh” can sometimes imply virginity by context, it doesn’t always have that connotation.
Certainly, Mary in the NT was a virgin when Yahushua was conceived by the Holy Spirit, but the OT prophesy drawn upon by Matthew (Matt. 1:23) doesn’t demand it.
lee (wlc team)
Yep — and your instinct is right. Matthew absolutely frames it as if Isaiah literally predicted Jesus’ virgin birth. That’s not you being picky; that’s what the text sounds like on the page.
Let’s look at why that impression is so strong, and what’s really going on under the hood.
1. Matthew intentionally presents Isaiah as a literal prediction
Matthew 1:22–23:
“All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.’”
A few things to notice:
“All this took place to fulfill…”
That’s strong, predictive language.
He introduces it as:
“what the Lord had spoken by the prophet”
Then quotes Isaiah in a way that reads like a straight-up future prophecy about Jesus.
So yeah:
👉 Matthew wants the reader to hear this as Isaiah predicting Jesus.
This isn’t subtle literary allusion — it’s presented as fulfillment of prophecy.
2. Why Matthew could say this with a straight face (even though it’s wrong historically)
Two big reasons:
🔹 A) Matthew thought the text literally said “virgin”
Matthew is using the Greek Septuagint, which says parthenos (virgin).
From Matthew’s POV, Isaiah already did predict:
“A virgin will conceive.”
So in Matthew’s mind, this is not a stretch — it’s right there in Scripture.
He almost certainly did not know the Hebrew nuance of ʿalmāh, or if he did, he sided with the Greek tradition his community trusted.
So subjectively:
Matthew thought Isaiah literally predicted a virgin birth.
Objectively:
Isaiah did not.
🔹 B) Ancient “prophecy fulfillment” language wasn’t used like modern people use it
Today, “prediction fulfilled” means:
Someone predicted X in the future → X happened → proof the prediction was supernatural.
In Matthew’s world, “fulfilled” (plēroō) often means:
An old Scripture finds a deeper or more complete meaning in a later event.
So Matthew can say:
“This happened to fulfill Isaiah…”
even when Isaiah was not predicting that specific event.
This sounds like sleight-of-hand to modern ears — and honestly, it kind of is. But it was culturally normal.
3. The uncomfortable truth: Matthew is rhetorically overselling it
From a modern historical-critical standpoint:
Isaiah was not predicting Jesus.
The “virgin” part comes from a translation choice, not Isaiah’s intent.
The original prophecy had an immediate 8th-century BCE fulfillment.
So when Matthew presents this as:
“The prophet said this would happen”
He is reframing an old text to support a new belief.
That’s why, to modern readers, it can feel misleading.
Not “lying” in the sense of malicious deception — but definitely theological spin.
4. This is part of a bigger pattern in Matthew (not a one-off)
Matthew does this repeatedly:
Matthew says “fulfilled” Original text was actually about
Isaiah 7:14 → virgin birth A child born in Isaiah’s time
Hosea 11:1 → flight to Egypt Israel’s exodus, not Messiah
Jeremiah 31 → massacre of infants Babylonian exile, not Herod
“He shall be called a Nazarene” No such prophecy exists
Matthew is constructing a prophetic narrative for Jesus’ life after the fact.
This is theology, not neutral history-writing.
5. So what’s the clean conclusion?
You’re right to say:
Matthew makes it sound like Isaiah literally predicted the virgin birth of Jesus.
And the honest scholarly answer is:
Matthew presents it as literal prediction.
Historically, Isaiah did not mean that.
The connection depends on a mistranslation and a theological rereading.
Which fits your earlier intuition perfectly:
If this were a genuinely clear divine prophecy, it wouldn’t rely on:
a translation quirk
ignoring historical context
creative reapplication centuries later
It would just… say it plainly.
Below is a clear, historical‑linguistic explanation of why Daniel 9:24–27 does not refer to Jesus, according to mainstream Jewish scholarship, many critical biblical scholars, and historians of the Second Temple period.
This is not arguing against Christianity—only explaining why, academically, Daniel 9 is not viewed as a prophecy of Jesus in its original meaning.
⭐ 1. The “Anointed One” in Daniel Is Not a Supernatural Messiah
Daniel 9:25–26 uses the Hebrew term:
מָשִׁיחַ (māšîaḥ) = “anointed one”
In the Hebrew Bible, this term normally refers to:
Kings (e.g., Saul, David)
High priests (e.g., Aaron, Joshua ben Jehozadak)
Ordinary anointed leaders
It does not automatically mean a future messiah.
Why this matters:
Daniel 9 mentions two anointed ones:
One after 7 “weeks” (likely a high priest)
One who is “cut off” after 62 “weeks” (another priest/leader)
No Christian interpretation identifies two Messiahs.
That alone shows the passage does not match Jesus-focused readings.
⭐ 2. Daniel’s Timeline Matches 2nd‑Century BCE Events Exactly
Critical scholarship broadly agrees that Daniel was written during the Maccabean era (ca. 167–164 BCE) and that its prophecies describe already‑past events up to the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
Daniel 9’s timeline matches:
The assassination of the high priest Onias III (171 BCE)
The desecration of the Second Temple by Antiochus IV
The cessation of sacrifices (167–164 BCE)
The Maccabean revolt and the rededication of the Temple (Chanukah, 164 BCE)
These events line up perfectly with the “anointed one cut off,” “abomination of desolation,” and “end of sacrifice.”
They do not match anything in the life of Jesus.
⭐ 3. The “Abomination of Desolation” Happened 200 Years Before Jesus
Daniel 9:27 says:
“On the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate…”
This is universally recognized (including many Christian academics) as referring to:
Antiochus IV’s desecration of the Temple in 167 BCE
Pagan altar erected
Swine sacrificed
Jewish practices outlawed
Jesus lived in the 1st century CE—200 years later, long after this event.
Thus the “abomination of desolation” cannot refer to him.
⭐ 4. The Timeline Cannot Fit Jesus No Matter How It’s Calculated
Even Christian scholars acknowledge that no calculation of the 70 weeks lands on Jesus without heavy re‑interpretation or calendar manipulation.
Problems include:
🔹 “70 weeks” = 490 years
Counting 490 years from:
Jeremiah (original context) → ends in 2nd century BCE
Cyrus’s decree (538 BCE) → ends around 48 BCE
Artaxerxes (457 BCE) → ends around 33 CE only if you convert lunar → solar years (which Daniel never suggests)
This conversion method is not historical, and no ancient Jew used it.
🔹 The prophecy demands the Temple be destroyed after the 62+7 weeks
But:
Temple destruction = 70 CE
Jesus dies around 30 CE
The math does not line up.
⭐ 5. Daniel 9 Says the Messiah Is “Cut Off” but Achieves Nothing
Daniel 9:26 states:
“The anointed one will be cut off and will have nothing.”
This implies:
No success
No kingdom
No redemption
No salvation
Nothing achieved
This contradicts the Christian claim that Jesus achieved spiritual victory through crucifixion—but fits Onias III, a high priest murdered with no legacy and whose death precipitated the crisis under Antiochus.
⭐ 6. Daniel’s Prophecy Ends With the Temple’s Rededication (164 BCE)
Verse 24 lists 6 goals fulfilled at the end of the 70 weeks:
Finish transgression
End sin
Make atonement
Bring everlasting righteousness
Seal vision and prophet
Anoint the Most Holy Place (the Temple)
The only historical event matching these is the cleansing/rededication of the Second Temple in 164 BCE (Hanukkah).
Christians reinterpret #6 symbolically to refer to Jesus, but the Hebrew (“qodesh qodashim”) always means the Temple—never a person.
⭐ 7. Daniel Was Written After the Events, Not Before Them
Most modern scholars (Jewish, secular, and many Christian academics) agree:
Daniel’s “prophecies” are actually ex eventu (prophecies written after the fact)
The symbolic timelines match the Maccabean crisis precisely
The author gets future events wrong after Antiochus’s death (Daniel 11) → the giveaway that the author had limited true predictive power
Thus Daniel is not describing Jesus but events already past when Daniel was composed.
📌 Summary — Why Daniel 9 Is Not About Jesus
Here are the core reasons scholars reject the Jesus interpretation:
“Anointed one” refers to historical priests/kings, not a future savior.
The timeline fits the Maccabean crisis, not 1st‑century events.
The “abomination” occurred in 167 BCE, long before Jesus.
No mathematical version of the 70 weeks matches Jesus without manipulation.
Daniel’s Messiah is “cut off and achieves nothing,” unlike Christian claims.
The prophecy climaxes in the Temple’s rededication, not Jesus’s ministry.
Daniel was written during Antiochus’s persecution, not centuries before.
Therefore, historically and linguistically, Daniel 9 cannot originally refer to Jesus.
The credibility of a worldview is determined by three criteria:
1) the internal and external logical consistency of its beliefs (like the “7 C’s” of Genesis or God’s revelations, flat earth message (=false!), human condition, state of the dead, etc.);
2) its explanatory power in relation to the observed situation (fossils, spherical earth, evidence);
3) the everyday relevance of its beliefs (law and justice, proportionality of punishment, etc.).
What is believed in this religious community fails to meet even a single one of these criteria. This worldview is, in fact, >not< credible at all! I grant it salvation through Jesus' death on the cross, bot most of what they believe is utter baloney!
Henry Dalcke | "Kreationeum", Rostock/Germany
Literally ever single comment is negative – lol… says something.
Also the tone of the admins comments sound 100% like a slithering cult leader lol…
Might as well say… you want some cannddyyy
If this Organization is based on Judaism by Jews. Please read the book of Romans and Hebrews in the New Testament.
Salvation from sin and eternal life are a gift from God through works of Jesus Christ found in the New Testament NOT
by being good and following the Torah.