Page 8 of 26 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 377

Thread: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

  1. #106
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,333
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    ... If I say in midst of the pie is a steak then you know it is a whole pie but when you get to the middle of it you will reach a steak ...
    Yes. but maybe Daniels 70th week was a $1 pie with just a bit of mince and gravy?
    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    3,323
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by Jesuslovesus View Post
    I disagree, I believe the "Coming" of the Annointed One Concerns THE CITY.

    Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.

    Once more 69 weeks from the Decree to "Restore & BUILD THE CITY" to the "Coming of the Anointed ONE" TO once more "THE CITY". Is 69 Weeks. I don't know how you factor in his baptism to your timeline.
    The "Coming of the Anointed One" was the birth of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with the city or his baptism. The restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem started at the end of the Hasmonean dynasty and Herod the great, was the instrument for it.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,150

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The "Coming of the Anointed One" was the birth of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with the city or his baptism. .
    The anointing has everything to do with his baptism.


    Jn 1
    31 I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.” 32 John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. 33 I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”

    Jesus was manifested and recognized as the Messiah at his baptism.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    2,673

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The "Coming of the Anointed One" was the birth of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with the city or his baptism. The restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem started at the end of the Hasmonean dynasty and Herod the great, was the instrument for it.
    Once more the passage is concerning the city. I see no mention of to the "birth of the Anointed One", Kings of Israel must be Annointed and this is *NOT* done at birth.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    6,231

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    According to my take on this, if the following occurs at the end of the beast's 42 month reign...the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them...it would mean the following.

    Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
    9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
    10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

    because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

    When did these torment them?

    Is it not during the following time?

    Revelation 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

    When does the text indicate the two prophets are killed?

    Revelation 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.


    Clearly after the 3.5 years allotted to them is already in the past.

    If there are two 3.5 periods of time, and that we know the 2 prophets are not killed during the first period, therefore no one is making merry in the earth during the 3.5 years the 2 prophets are giving their testimony, why wouldn't they be making merry during the 3.5 years that follow instead?

    Revelation 11:11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
    12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
    12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
    13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
    14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.
    15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

    Notice what verse 15 indicates....The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. Would that not end the beast's power at that time?

    Revelation 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.


    This says...And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come. Would not this then be meaning the time for the 7 vials to begin being unleashed on the beast and it's kingdom, and those that have been worshiping it? My point here is that no one would be making merry in the earth during the vials of wrath. They would be doing that prior to the unleashing of the vials. Per my view here, what would be preceding the vials of wrath/ The 42 month reign of the beast, therefore they would be making merry in the earth during that period of time. Totally impossible if the 3.5 years in Rev 11 and the 3.5 years in Rev 13 run parallel.
    Many erroneously assume that the vials follow the trumpets instead of seeing some overlap. The vials occur during the tail end of the trumpets. Both involve a final great war and then end with the second coming. The second coming context of the seventh trumpet is completely clear even if denied by most. It is impossible for the kingdoms of the world to become Christ's while the beast rules. Yet the two witnesses are killed just before the kingdoms become Christ's. This means they exist during the final 3.5 years.

    Despite the troubles in the Middle East, life carries on as usual around the world right until the second coming. Marriage, work etc etc, even those people with troubles would celebrate the death of the two witnesses if they saw them as a source of trouble and plague during the 7 vials. So I don't see the great objection you are trying to illustrate. The beast reigns in the Middle East for 3.5 years while the witnesses witness against him for those 3.5 years. Then the witnesses are killed and the nations celebrate thinking their troubles are over. But then the witnesses are raptured around the time the beast is destroyed and Jesus then rules the kingdoms of the Earth. No contradiction anywhere and it fits better with context which places the two witnesses at the time of Jesus taking over the kingdoms of the world.

    You do have a point about the bottomless pit, but the mention of the pit is merely defining which of the two beasts of Rev 13 or the four beasts of Daniel 7 is being referred to. It's the one from the bottomless pit. The verse is not placing the timing of the rise from the pit at the same moment as killing of witnesses.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    6,231

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Sorry, the prince in v-25 and 26 are different people.

    Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

    26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

    The texts are clear:

    1. Verse 25, Messiah the Prince (capital P) is Jesus.
    2. Verse 26, he is already cut off by the time this prince (small p) shows up.
    3. Continuing in v-26, it says "the people of the prince THAT SHALL COME SHALL DESTROY THE CITY..." This is undoubtedly Titus and his army.
    4. Irrespective of the Jews' infighting, the actual destruction of the city and its sanctuary is attributed to Rome. The passage speaks for itself.
    The subject of v25 is the coming prince. The subject of v26 is the people of the coming prince. Normally if one wants clarity, they would refer to another coming prince or a second coming prince. But no such wording is used. Yes the prince is cut off then the people of the prince ruin Jerusalem.

    The mayor died, the townsfolk of the mayor later burnt down the town hall. To claim that the mayor's townsfolk cannot engage in any activity after the mayor's death is not a logical grammatical claim. To claim that Jesus countrymen cannot engage in activity after his death makes no sense.

    Sure Rome is in view through destroying the city, but the word shachath is used in v26 meaning ruin. The Galilean Jews ruined the city first as per Josephus the historian. Then the Romans destroyed it like a flood. So despite all the objections Jesus fits well as the coming prince of v25 and v26 and also Jesus fits well as the one who confirms the covenant.

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    6,231

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The "Coming of the Anointed One" was the birth of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with the city or his baptism. The restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem started at the end of the Hasmonean dynasty and Herod the great, was the instrument for it.
    How can he be the anointed one if not yet anointed? Jesus was only anointed with power on high and started healing and setting Jews free as the recognised Messiah from the moment of John's baptism. This is when his powerful ministry started. This is when he became the anointed one.

    Many dates are popular but my preference is the issuing of the decree in 458bc to restore Jerusalem, and then 483 years later Jesus started his ministry.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,150

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    How can he be the anointed one if not yet anointed? Jesus was only anointed with power on high and started healing and setting Jews free as the recognised Messiah from the moment of John's baptism. This is when his powerful ministry started. This is when he became the anointed one.
    yep

    Lk 4
    18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
    Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.
    He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives,
    And recovery of sight to the blind,
    To set free those who are oppressed,
    19 To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.”


    Acts 10:38
    You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    461
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I'm not arguing the passage, just pointed out that the texts you quoted as 1 Tim 6:15 is incorrect. That's all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn View Post
    Read the whole context of 1Timothy 6:15, it says. "...in the sight of God who QUICKENETH all things and Christ Jesus [whom God raised], who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou without spot and unrebukeable keep _commandment_until[to a given point/about/as far as/concerning- ‘mexri’]: The_Appearing / Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ which ('hehn'- "Law"- 'tehn entolehn') in its Own Seasons ['Kairois Idiois'] HE (Jesus) MUST SHOW/REVEAL ['deiksei']", through Resurrection from the dead! Cf. Leviticus 23:4,37---THE PASSOVER LAW OF YAHWEH!
    "Read the whole context of 1Timothy 6:15," I said. Thanks.

    That is what I miss in this whole conversation, that God in Christ's PURPOSE and "COMING", reached CLIMACTIC ACHIEVEMENT "according to the Scriptures" the Passover Scriptures about "how the Christ AUGHT TO HAVE SUFFERED" : AND ACHIEVED! Ephesians 1:19,20. Because it was crucial from before the foundation of the world and will be all that is crucial into all eternity in the future on earth. Only on strength of Jesus' coming from the dead and grave "in the flesh" shall He Come Again TO what always had been and has been "HIS OWN": The Kingdom of His Father ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN. What's the Roman Empire or the anti-Christ or any other event of whichever day, date and era, but DROSS and VAIN anxiety of people and nations in noisy turmoil? "Warum rasen die Völker und toben in Zorne?"

    One misses and looses everything of worth the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation are full of, missing and loosing their CENTRAL MESSAGE of the coming of the Messiah to the dead, US, in our WORLD and TIME in all dimensions of OUR reality, having descended and ascended from the dead "in the flesh".
    "Touch Me; put your finger in the PLACE: It is I...I-AM". "I-AM (standing before you, honourary Docter in Theology and Letters, Thomas Didymus,) the Beginning and End of the creation of God." Therefore we all say, "My Lord and my God!", and pray: "Come Lord Jesus, come quickly!"

  10. #115

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    IMO, post # 89 I just made further shows that I am the one that is correct here. When something has been debunked numerous times, such as I have done in this thread concerning this, why can't anyone come to admit it's been debunked? It's not a disgrace to have been wrong about something, and to then have been proven wrong. But it seems intellectually dishonest to not admit it. The same goes for DurbanDude here.

    BTW, the same applies to me as well. If it turns out that someone manages to convince I have debunked nothing, and that they are correct instead, I will be intellectually honest and admit it. But if or until then, I'm convinced I have debunked these 3.5 year periods of time being parallel.
    David, I haven't read post #89 yet, and I certainly haven't read all of the posts in this particular thread. But I've read *nothing yet* to indicate that you've successfully debunked this idea of a parallel track for all the 3.5 years--the 1260 days, 42 months, and the time, times and half a time. Not saying you haven't done so--I just haven't read it yet, if it exists at all.

    Any attempt I've heard you make to debunk this falls short of a successful "debunking." I've just given you my argument against the idea that the 2 Prophets cannot be in the 3.5 years of Antichristian persecution because they would've been killed. That idea falls short because there are examples in the Bible where wicked men have pursued prophets and yet failed to kill them. In fact the Scriptures indicate these 2 Prophets receive special help from God to resist capture or a premature death.

    So this argument alone is what I was a addressing--not any other argument. Other arguments, if you will direct them to me, I will consider when I read them. If they are in post #89 I will consider that next. Until then you have not yet successfully debunked the "parallel track" theory.

    Sorry, David. You may have to repeat your arguments several times before everybody gets it. I know. I've been doing that for a long time as well.

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    6,231

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    IMO, post # 89 I just made further shows that I am the one that is correct here. When something has been debunked numerous times, such as I have done in this thread concerning this, why can't anyone come to admit it's been debunked? It's not a disgrace to have been wrong about something, and to then have been proven wrong. But it seems intellectually dishonest to not admit it. The same goes for DurbanDude here.

    BTW, the same applies to me as well. If it turns out that someone manages to convince I have debunked nothing, and that they are correct instead, I will be intellectually honest and admit it. But if or until then, I'm convinced I have debunked these 3.5 year periods of time being parallel.
    If you throw around the phrase "intellectually dishonest" the same could be said of yourself. If a coming prince is mentioned in two consecutive verses without the text clarifying a second coming prince it could be regardeded as intellectually dishonest not to admit they are in fact the same prince.

    Regarding the two witnesses killed just before Jesus rules the kingdoms of this world, as killed 3.5 years earlier seems like a head in the sand approach to clear scripture. With that sort of biblical interpretation it seems ironic that you would use terminology like "intellectually dishonest" . These debates are full of disagreements, I don't know why your terminology has insulting undertones more so in this debate than in other debates. Maybe it's a deep underlying commitment to tradition (7 year tribulation) that motivates you to be particularly insistent despite the fact every one of your objections has been clearly refuted. Sure people have disagreements on this website but to use a word like dishonest, one has to look a little deeper to determine where the motivation for your emotive response is coming from.

  12. #117

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    Where's the contradiction? Try reading the text again, keeping in mind that according to some of you, the 3.5 years the 2 witnesses give their testimony, and the 3.5 years the beast reigns, these are referring to the same period of time.

    Revelation 11:7 *And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

    Let's break this down some.

    And when they shall have finished their testimony.

    What would that mean according to the position that claims the 3.5 years the 2 witnesses give their testimony, and the 3.5 years the beast reigns, these are referring to the same period of time? Would it not mean this 3.5 year period of time is now over and in the past?
    Yes, the Beast kills the 2 Prophets at the end of 1260 days. This is at the end of the 3.5 years. This does not mean that the 3.5 years of the Antichrist's Reign and the 3.5 years of the 2 Prophets are not synonymous--they are. Antichrist Reigns at the same time the 2 Prophets are prophesying. The 2 Prophets are killed after they are done prophesying.

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD
    the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

    When does the text indicate the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them? Is it not until after they have finished their testimony?
    This is where your failure to debunk the "parallel track" theory really shows. You have not proven that the Beast ascends out of the bottomless pit *after the testimony of the 2 Prophets!* In fact, it is much more logical to assume that the Beast ascends out of the bottomless pit *before he begins to reign!*

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD
    Wouldn't that clearly mean that the 42 months the beast is allowed to continue, this is not when the beast shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them, but that the beast instead does these things after the 42 months he is given is over first?
    Not at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD
    My position on this doesn't have this problem. My position is sticking to the text, and that the text is indicating in Rev 13 this.... and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. Obviously once this 3.5 years are concluded, the beast's power that he was given is taken away. But your position claims he still has this power post this 3.5 year period.
    It is not given when the Beast's power is taken away. All we know is that the Beast's Reign terminates after 1260 days. We know the Antichrist lives beyond this because the 2 Prophets rise from the dead 3.5 days later, and Armageddon has not yet taken place. It is at Armageddon that the Antichrist is thrown *alive* into the lake of fire.

    And so, I have to assume that some event terminates Antichrist's Reign, even though he continues to fight on until Armageddon. Perhaps he loses his position of power in the world, though retaining power within his own confederation? It's open to speculation, I think. But since these things remain arguable, I don't think you've proven anything positively.

    On the other hand, it is far more credible to believe in the "parallel track" theory, because that's how we normally reference things, by calling upon some past precedent in order to build upon that precedent. It is very normal for biblical writers to refer back to a 3.5 year period in which Antichrist Reigns, namely in Dan 7, in order to build upon that theme later. That's what John does in the book of Revelation. He talks about the reign of Antichrist for 3.5 years, based on the precedent established in Dan 7 that Antichrist would reign for "a time, times and half a time," or 3.5 years. To view several mentions of 3.5 years in the book of Revelation as *different time periods* is illogical and unprecedented--therefore highly suspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD
    Revelation 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

    When was it given to him to do this? Prior to the following, during the following, or after the following is already in the past? and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
    The power was given him both by God and by Satan. And it was before or as he came into power. His reign was, as I suggested earlier, a *world power,* with world-wide acceptance. But it may be at the end of 1260 days that the world withdraws its acceptance of the Antichrist, leading to a world war--Armageddon, in which Antichrist fights against those who resist him. Thus, Antichrist's power extends beyond the period of his world-wide reign of 1260 days.

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD
    When the two witnesses are made war against, overcome, then eventually killed, it most definitely has to occur during the 3.5 years the beast is allowed to continue. Totally impossible per your position, as I have clearly shown in all of the above.
    You have not clearly shown that the 2 Prophets are killed *during the 3.5 years!* That is literally impossible, because the 2 Prophets are given to witness *throughout the period of the 3.5 years.* If they prophecy for 1260 days they cannot be killed before the 1260th day!

  13. #118

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    If you throw around the phrase "intellectually dishonest" the same could be said of yourself. If a coming prince is mentioned in two consecutive verses without the text clarifying a second coming prince it could be regardeded as intellectually dishonest not to admit they are in fact the same prince.

    Regarding the two witnesses killed just before Jesus rules the kingdoms of this world, as killed 3.5 years earlier seems like a head in the sand approach to clear scripture. With that sort of biblical interpretation it seems ironic that you would use terminology like "intellectually dishonest" . These debates are full of disagreements, I don't know why your terminology has insulting undertones more so in this debate than in other debates. Maybe it's a deep underlying commitment to tradition (7 year tribulation) that motivates you to be particularly insistent despite the fact every one of your objections has been clearly refuted. Sure people have disagreements on this website but to use a word like dishonest, one has to look a little deeper to determine where the motivation for your emotive response is coming from.
    Although I generally like David's posts this surprised me as well. I suppose we all cave in to our lower impulses sometimes? He probably just can't anticipate a checkmate coming? (Just kidding David)

  14. #119

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn View Post
    TDW:
    Matt26
    29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

    ...perfectly fulfilled by Jesus between having spoken and having resurrected from the grave ... rather, more exactly, between having spoken these very words and having expired his last breath giving his soul into his Father's hands and DYING VICTORIOUSLY.

    [...]


    I am not partaking in a competition with you in being versed in Scripture texts. I am only telling, Jesus, speaking or having spoken these words, foretold his Passover of Yahweh Victory through SUFFERING, that is, through having eaten and drunk of that Passover of the Almighty God once for all IN THE KINGDOM OF HIS FATHER.

    And it is not a matter of anyone being able or not being able to comprehend the matter and substance of the Conflict of the Ages, but of God's grace to understand and believe Jesus' Last Supper of his Last Passover.

    Simple as that. No crystal ball or magic prophetic glasses required to read the future and end of all things whether on earth or in heaven. "God gave CHRIST as Head to the Church The ALL in all fulfilling Fullness of God!"
    Okay. I think I see where you're coming from. You believe the phrase I bolded above, from my post ("I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you..." [G3326 'meth' -in company with]) has been fully fulfilled in His death and resurrection on Passover/Firstfruit (Nisan 32ad... or whichever year you believe He died and rose again). Never again will He drink of this fruit of the vine "new/anew with [G3326 in company with] you" because He's finished that (in His death/resurrection), and that's what he meant in these phrases, according to you. Correct?

    And the phrase "of this fruit of the vine" not being literal, simply means His "death" (and His resurrection), in your view?




    [adding this: my view/understanding is that the "bridegroom" provides the wine at/for his OWN "wedding feast/supper"--Jn2:9c-10 (Rev19:9 [distinct from 19:7's "marriage" itself ("aorist") having already taken place in heaven by the time of Rev19]; Luk12:36-37,38 "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding..." THEN the meal; Matt25:1-10,10 "wedding feast" (as in the nasb and others), i.e. the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom, upon His "return" to the earth (Matt22:9-14 also; "wedding feast" [not the "wedding" itself])]

    [Heb7:22 "has become the surety of a better covenant"]

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    16,651

    Re: 7 years and Daniel 9:27

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    If you throw around the phrase "intellectually dishonest" the same could be said of yourself.
    And I even mentioned the same would apply to me if someone managed to convince me that I didn't debunk anything after all, I would then be intellectually honest and admit it. But if I didn't admit it, though someone managed to convince me I didn't debunk anything, what would that make me? Intellectually dishonest.

    Let me give you an example. Years ago I used to debate Arnold Murray students about the serpent seed doctrine they held to. I debunked their interpretations left and right, yet they claimed nothing was debunked and that I didn't debunk anything, though clearly I did. They were being intellectually dishonest then. I only used this example to make a point in general, and that point is, just because someone is in denial about something being debunked, that doesn't mean it was never debunked then.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 2 guests)

  1. ForHisglory

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: Sep 29th 2017, 08:34 AM
  2. How many times did Daniel watch the little horn? Daniel 7
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Sep 28th 2016, 09:44 PM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: Apr 2nd 2015, 09:58 PM
  4. Did Daniel see two leopard beasts in Daniel 7?
    By vinsight4u8 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Nov 21st 2011, 11:07 AM
  5. Daniel 11:36-45... who is this about?
    By Nihil Obstat in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: Mar 1st 2010, 08:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •