Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Daniel's 70th Week - Ellis Skolfield

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Daniel's 70th Week - Ellis Skolfield

    This is a view of Daniel's 70th week that members here may not be familiar with pasted with permission of the author. The 69 weeks of Daniel were covered under the "Mathematical Perfection of Bible Prophecy" thread and those weeks closed at the Cross with mathematical perfection. http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=54529



    "Sometimes we simple-minded Christians expect our sovereign God to be
    just as simple-minded. In no place is that more glaringly obvious than
    in our interpretation of Daniel's 70th Week. Many believe that week to
    be about a Seven Year tribulation at the end of the Christian Era, but
    it's about something else entirely."


    Daniel's 70th Week

    LOCATING the foundations of the Solomonic temple on the old
    temple platform in Jerusalem, about 300 feet north of the Islamic
    Dome of the Rock, may be one of the most important
    archeological discoveries of the last century. Since that discovery,
    some researchers, probably for doctrinal reasons, have been trying
    to prove that the temple of Solomon was once where the Dome of
    the Rock now stands. Those researchers are not farmers, or from
    the Scripture alone they would have seen their error:

    2Ch 3:1 Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord
    in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the Lord had
    appeared to his father David, at the place that David had
    prepared, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.

    The temple was built over a threshing floor. Note that Scripture
    calls it a "floor". Floors are flat. Anyone who knows anything at all
    about threshing grain knows that threshing floors have to be flat.
    As-Sakhra, the craggy stone over which the Dome of the Rock now
    stands is as prickly as a porcupine. No farmer in his right mind
    would have attempted to thresh grain there, particularly when
    there was an absolutely flat rock, just perfect for threshing, only
    300 feet away. So rest assured, the temple was NOT built where
    the Dome of the Rock now is.

    But since the discovery of the original foundations of the
    Solomonic temple (see Biblical Archeology Review, Mar 1983), the
    Moslems have tried to hide all evidence of its existence by
    cementing over the holes in the bedrock spaced on the sacred
    cubit. Some researchers have also written lengthy arguments
    defending As-Sakhra as the temple's location, but it's still an
    impossibility, both scripturally and agriculturally.
    http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=54566

    2

    So who cares? Is knowing the exact location of the old temple
    that important? You bet it is. Recognizing that the Holy of Holies
    in the Temple of Solomon was actually 300 feet North of the
    Dome of the Rock1 is the key to understanding the day-years of
    Revelation 11:2 and understanding those day-years enables us to
    understand Daniel's 70th Week.

    UPON A WING OF WHAT?

    Most students of Bible prophecy recognize the 69 Weeks of Dan
    9:24 as sixty-nine weeks of years that were fulfilled at Jesus.
    crucifixion2. But the 70th "week" doesn't fit the events
    surrounding the crucifixion, so in the late 1800s, John Darby of
    the Plymouth Brethren theorized that the 70th "week" was actually
    a Seven-Year tribulation that would take place at the end of the
    Christian Era. Darby then imagined a 2000 year gap between the
    69th and 70th weeks to make it fit his prophetic scheme of things.
    Darby also figured that the day-years of both Daniel and
    Revelation were the first or last half of his so-called Great
    Tribulation.

    It all sounds very reasonable, and many believe it, but the view
    is really unsupportable, both biblically and historically. As you
    have read in The False Prophet, all the day-years in the Bible were
    fulfilled during the construction of the Dome of the Rock in 688AD
    or in new Israel in 1948 and 1967.
    So where do we go from here? Well, to view Daniel's 70th
    Week correctly we need to remember that the Dome of the Rock
    ______________________________________

    1 For details on the importance of knowing the temple's exact location, read Ch.
    5 of The False Prophet. That book can currently be downloaded, free of charge, from
    www.EllisSkolfield.com
    2 As covered in The False Prophet, when Hebrew day-years are converted into solar
    years, they exactly fit from the decree of Artaxerxes I (444BC) that authorized
    Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem until the Cross of Jesus (32-34AD) 483 Hebrew
    years = 396 solar years - 444 = 32AD.
    ____________________________________

    3

    is Daniel's Abomination of Desolation. Once we acknowledge that
    fact, then the 70th "week" can be viewed in a more rational way.
    Let's look at Dan 9:26-27 once again. For those who do not
    read Hebrew (and that includes me), Green's Interlinear, literal,
    word-for-word translation could be helpful. We need to see if
    there's a different sentence structure that makes the intent of the
    author more understandable. There are no punctuation marks in
    the quote below because none appear in the original Hebrew text:

    Dan 9:26-27 (Green's) and its end with the flood and until
    end war are determined desolations and he shall confirm a
    covenant with the many week one and in the half of the
    week he shall make cease sacrifice and offering and upon a
    wing abominations a desolator
    even until end and that
    which was decreed shall pour out on the desolator.


    The underlining is mine, but read the above quote carefully.
    What is Gabriel saying? If you hadn't already read the KJV or the
    NAS, or been told what those verses mean, what would "upon a
    wing abominations a desolator" mean to you?
    Hard to tell, isn't it? But when we put a pause after "wing".
    look at what happens "Upon a wing . . . abominations a
    desolator". Now we can ask ourselves: "Upon a wing of what is an
    abomination that makes desolate going to be placed?" The translators
    of the NIV saw a very reasonable possibility and rendered
    the passage as follows:3

    Dan 9:26-27 (NIV) ...And its end will come with a flood;
    even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
    But He will confirm a covenant with many for one
    seven, but in the middle of that seven, he will put an end to
    sacrifice and offering, and one who causes desolations will

    _________________________________

    2 Though it does not effect this passage, evidence is mounting that the NT of modern
    English Bibles like NIV and NAS were translated from Greek texts that were corrupted
    in the 3rd Century by Gnostics. Under UV inspection, it appears that codex Aleph, codex
    Bezae, and Papyrus 75 etc. (used in Wescott & Hart's edition of the Greek NT) were
    altered for doctrinal reasons. The KJV and the NKJV are still probably the most accurate
    translations available in the English language today.
    _____________________________________

    4

    place abominations on a wing of the temple, until the end
    that is decreed is poured out on him.

    Again, the underlining is mine, but look; sometime in Daniel's
    future, an Abomination that makes Desolate could be placed .on
    a wing of the temple.. Now that makes some sense. Sacrifices took
    place at the temple, so if sacrifices were going to be abolished, the
    temple site would be where that would happen.

    SHIQQOTS HA SHAMEN

    Now let's compare Dan 9:27 with Dan 12:11. In these two verses,
    the Lord not only the identifies the Abomination that makes
    Desolate, but also gives Daniel the exact time frame of major
    events in Jerusalem's future:

    Dan 9:27 . . . (NIV) and one who causes desolations
    (shamen) will place abominations (shiqqots) on a wing of the
    temple, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

    Dan 12:11 (KJV) And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be
    taken away, and the abomination (shiqqots) that maketh
    desolate (shamen) set up, there shall be a thousand two
    hundred and ninety days.

    The Hebrew word for "abomination" is shiqqots (Strong's No.
    8251), and the Hebrew word for "desolation" is shamen (Strong's
    No. 8074). Shiqqots and shamen appears in both verses and since
    they do:

    Both verses are about an Abomination that makes Desolate!
    Since we already know that the abomination is the Dome of
    the Rock, then both verses are about the Dome of the Rock!
    Once we see that Daniel's 70th Week is really about the Dome
    of the Rock, then all support for a future Seven-Year tribulation
    collapses because Dan 9:27 is the ONLY verse in the whole Bible
    from which anyone could even conjure up such an idea. The
    identification of the Dome of the Rock as the Abomination of
    Desolation is confirmed by the day-years of Rev 11:2-3 and 12:6,

    5

    and 13:5. The dates are historically unassailable, and the
    mathematical fit incontestible. Which leads to the next point:

    If the Dome of the Rock is the Abomination that makes
    Desolate, and Daniel's 70th Week is about that dome, then the
    70th week has to stretch into the past and future from 688AD
    when the dome was constructed.

    So how long can the 70th week be? Well, Daniel was placed in
    Babylon at the beginning of the time of the Gentiles for a
    particular reason. The Lord used Daniel to show the Jews and the
    surrounding nations a prophetic picture of the time that Gentile
    nations will control the Holy Land.

    Since that was Daniel's mission, an interpretation of the 70th
    Week that fits the history of the Jewish people during the time of
    the Gentiles would be most appropriate. Unlikely as it may sound,
    Daniel's 70th Week may be a 57 word prophetic picture of the
    total time of the Gentiles. The key is hidden in the Hebrew word,
    shavuim. Shavuim is a unique plural form of the Hebrew word
    Shavua, which is defined as a seven or a week.

    SHAVUOT AND SHAVUIM

    What follows may be a bit technical, but it's a "one brick at a
    Time" empirical argument. All the evidence needs to be in place
    before the conclusions we can draw from them make any sense.
    Everywhere in the Old Testament, except in the book of Daniel,
    the Hebrew words shavuot or shavua are used to express a seven
    or a week. However, in Daniel an unusual word for seven is used:
    shavuim, the masculine plural form of shavuot. This plural form
    appears ONLY in Daniel and even here, shavuim is used only four
    times, three of which are in the 70 Weeks! So why is an unusual
    plural form of the word for seven used here?
    Because it is meant to be a plural, that's why!

    6

    The 70th Week is not just one week of years -- it is a plural of
    weeks of years or a multiple of weeks of years. In The Covenant,
    The Holocaust & The 70th Week, Dr. David Lurie (a Messianic Jew
    and Hebrew scholar) concludes that since shavuim is plural, then
    the 70th Week must represent an unknown multiple of sevens.
    According to Dr. Lurie, the plural form of shavuim demands that
    it be multiplied by something. So if the 70th Week requires a
    multiplier, what is the multiplier? Let's look at the Scriptures
    Daniel knew and see what we can find out about biblical multiples
    in general.

    All the way back to creation, there were weeks. The Lord
    created the Earth in six days followed by a Sabbath day of rest
    (Gen 2:2-3). Then in Exodus the Lord established a week of years.
    (Six working years, followed by a Sabbatical year, Exo 23:10).
    Daniel knew about both kinds of weeks. Being raised under the
    Levitical code, he was equally familiar with weeks of days and
    weeks of years.

    Then further in the Levitical code, the Lord initiated a cycle of
    50 years. Seven weeks of years (for 49 years) followed by a special
    year of the Jubilee. Within that cycle, each seventh year was a
    sabbatical year. The Jubilee year followed the 49th sabbatical year
    as an extra sabbatical year! The Jubilee year was an additional 360
    days of rest, Lev 25:8-10. Without question, Daniel knew about
    this 50 year cycle, and the year of the Jubilee:

    THE LEVITICAL CODE

    1st: Seven years.
    2nd: Seven weeks of years.
    3rd: One unique year of the Jubilee.
    Seven years, seven weeks of years, and the year of the Jubilee,
    were plainly spelled out for Daniel by Moses. That 50 year cycle
    repeated itself on down through Jewish history. Now compare
    that Levitical code with the new cycle that Gabriel gives Daniel in
    the 70 Weeks:

    7

    DANIEL'S 70 SEVENS

    1st: Seven weeks of years, seven Shavuim.
    2nd: 62 more weeks of years, 62 Shavuim.
    3rd: One unique multiple week, one Shavuim.

    Note the similar structures. Of course that resemblance was
    obvious to Daniel. Seven shavuim, then a multiple of shavuim,
    followed by one shavuim . all requiring multipliers. This new
    series of weeks was just like the Levitical code that Daniel knew,
    but now it was a series of 70 Weeks not just 50 years.

    As Daniel saw it, first there was the well understood seven
    weeks of years, for 49 years. But instead of those 49 years being
    followed by a Jubilee (as he would have expected), the Jubilee
    was deferred while the Lord gave Daniel 62 more weeks of years.
    Those 69 weeks of years were then followed by one special
    kind of week, a shavuim, or plural week of years. What could that
    mean? Though the numbers are different, the numeric progression
    in the Levitical code and in Daniel's 70 Weeks are identical. Please
    look at the comparison below:

    1st: A Seven.
    2nd: A multiple of sevens.
    3rd: A unique Jubilee.
    1st: Seven Sevens
    2nd: 62 Sevens
    3rd: A plural of Seven. The Jubilee was a unique year
    so this 70th Week would also be a unique plural!

    Daniel would have recognized the 70th Week as being unique,
    different in kind from the prior 69, but still similar to the Jubilee.
    Daniel was a brilliant man, and the Lord had given him the gift of
    interpreting dreams. If we slow Christian folk can see this parallel
    progression 2500 years down the line, then Daniel would have
    seen it with his eyes shut.

    The next question is this: In what way was the 70th Week
    similar to the Jubilee? Well, what was the year of the Jubilee like?
    It was a special sabbatical year for every living thing in the land:

    8

    Lev 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim
    liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof:
    it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto
    his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. A
    jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow,
    neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the
    grapes in it of thy vine undressed. For it is the jubilee; it shall be
    holy unto you: ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field.
    Besides the forgiving of debts, Jubilee was treated as a year of
    complete rest for every man and beast, a special kind of super
    Sabbatical year. For all practical purposes, Jubilee was an additional
    year of rest with 360 Sabbaths!

    Since the 70th Week linguistically suggests a multiplier of some
    kind, could every day of this 70th Week actually represent a year?
    If the 360 day Hebrew Year is our multiplier, then 7 x 360 = 2520
    Hebrew Years. Since our history is written in solar years we
    convert 2520 x .9857 = 2484 (2483.95).

    Dan 9:26-27 (NIV) ...And its end will come with a flood;
    even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
    But He will confirm a covenant with many for one
    seven, but in the middle of that seven, he will put an end to
    sacrifice and offering, and one who causes desolations will
    place abominations on a wing of the temple, until the end
    that is decreed is poured out on him.


    (Illistration included here. Found in this link in PDF http://www.ellisskolfield.com/pdf/Daniels70thWeek.pdf )

    The Dome of the Rock is "on a wing" of the temple. The "Middle
    of the week" is not a precise time. When used to describe 2484
    years; 706AD is also in the "middle of the week."

    9

    2484 - 536BC = 1948AD
    ˝ of 2484 is 1242 - 536BC = 706AD

    1. From Cyrus. decree to return to the land in 536BC to
    new Israel in 1948AD is exactly 2484 solar years!
    2. The exact middle of that time is 706AD, one year after
    the completion of Islamic work on the temple mount!

    From the above, it appears that the Lord intended the 70th
    week of Dan 9:27 to be an overview of the time that Gentiles
    would control the Holy Land. If that is correct, then the 70th
    Week is over, and all support for a future Seven-Year Great-
    Tribulation disappears into thin air!4
    ______________________________________

    4 This is not the only place in prophecy where the Lord used imprecise terms to
    describe general areas of time. In Dan 7:12,God used "a season and a time. to
    describe 1260 years. This unusual usage is documented in Ch 8 of The False
    Prophet.
    ________________________________________
    Please visit http://www.ellisskolfield.com/index.shtml

  • #2
    Aaalllrrriigghhttyy then.

    Thats some new mathematics I haven't seen before. And in reference to the dome of the rock.

    All seventy weeks were fulfilled in THE ROCK, Christ. There are threads here in this forum on it and sites with apologetics explaining all the weeks of the Messiah.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Teke
      Aaalllrrriigghhttyy then.

      Thats some new mathematics I haven't seen before. And in reference to the dome of the rock.
      All seventy weeks were fulfilled in THE ROCK, Christ.
      That is not correct. The first 69 weeks of Daniel were closed at the Cross, as the mathematics of those weeks demonstrate with absolute perfection, exact to the year. http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=54529
      Originally posted by Teke
      There are threads here in this forum on it and sites with apologetics explaining all the weeks of the Messiah.
      This thread is about Daniel's 70th week - not the first 69 - and the 70th week closes in 1948, and is centered around the Dome of the Rock - The Abomination of Desolation.
      http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=54566
      http://www.66619.org/thequran.htm
      Please visit http://www.ellisskolfield.com/index.shtml

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MattHenry
        That is not correct. The first 69 weeks of Daniel were closed at the Cross, as the mathematics of those weeks demonstrate with absolute perfection, exact to the year. http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=54529 This thread is about Daniel's 70th week - not the first 69 - and the 70th week closes in 1948, and is centered around the Dome of the Rock - The Abomination of Desolation.
        http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=54566
        http://www.66619.org/thequran.htm
        Matt

        Can I give you a bit of advice? You should stop quoting this man extensively and search the Word for yourself. He might hold a lot of truth, but he holds a lot I disagree with, as can be seen above. You quote him more than Jesus. That is unwise and unscriptural and sends out a wrong message to those who follow your posts.

        Paul
        Last edited by wpm; May 11 2006, 03:07 PM.
        "ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

        http://www.evangelicaltruth.com/

        WPM

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by wpm
          Matt Can I give you a bit of advice?
          If you feel compelled to.
          Originally posted by wpm
          You should stop quoting this man extensively
          and search the Word for yourself.
          In various chat rooms I have
          seen the fruit of many who believe they can sit in a vacuum and then feel they are guided by the Holy Spirit in their understanding of Scripture, when it becomes so quickly and painfully obvious they are not.

          I try to take advantage of those of the former age, and their fathers, as the Bible instructs, as well as those who write today using Scripture, rather than doctrine, to explain scripture. Mr. Skolfield doesn't have all the answers, nor does he claim to.
          Originally posted by wpm
          He might hold a lot of truth, but he holds a lot of nonsense, as can be
          seen above.
          Are you going to be specific?
          Originally posted by wpm
          You quote
          him more than Jesus. That is unwise and unscriptural
          Please support what I bolded.
          Originally posted by wpm
          and sends out a
          wrong message to those who follow your posts.
          Paul
          What is this wrong message I am sending? I am trying to introduce Mr. Skolfield here, which is difficult because his book is really best started at the beginning. While many are threatened by it, Mr. Skolfield's book is simply a Bible study, not a doctrine. Mr. Skolfield's study is also very supported not only by Scripture and history, but especially by the events that are happening in the world today. If you haven't read it I am surprised you would comment on it.

          It would help if you can be specific about which part, is "a lot of nonsense, as can be seen above".
          Please visit http://www.ellisskolfield.com/index.shtml

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MattHenry
            If you feel compelled to. In various chat rooms I have
            seen the fruit of many who believe they can sit in a vacuum and then feel they are guided by the Holy Spirit in their understanding of Scripture, when it becomes so quickly and painfully obvious they are not.

            I try to take advantage of those of the former age, and their fathers, as the Bible instructs, as well as those who write today using Scripture, rather than doctrine, to explain scripture. Mr. Skolfield doesn't have all the answers, nor does he claim to. Are you going to be specific? Please support what I bolded. What is this wrong message I am sending? I am trying to introduce Mr. Skolfield here, which is difficult because his book is really best started at the beginning. While many are threatened by it, Mr. Skolfield's book is simply a Bible study, not a doctrine. Mr. Skolfield's study is also very supported not only by Scripture and history, but especially by the events that are happening in the world today. If you haven't read it I am surprised you would comment on it.

            It would help if you can be specific about which part, is "a lot of nonsense, as can be seen above".
            Matt,

            I want to discuss with you. You seem to have some constructive arguments, but I have no interest in developing Mr. Skolfield's arguments as he isn't here to defend them. We could all post long quotes from those that agree with us, but discussion would come to a standstill. If I want to find out what Mr. Skolfield believes I can go to his site, I want to hear what Matt believes. Frankly, I circumvent most of his quotes. I'm sure most people are the same. His views above re the 70 weeks sees him trying the fit history into Scripture, instaed of the other way round. However, he is not here to defend it, so I have no interest engaging in it. As a rule, I only discuss with those that articulate their own thoughts - as they can be developed for the good of all. This is not a personal attack but constructive advice.

            Paul
            "ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

            http://www.evangelicaltruth.com/

            WPM

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by wpm
              Matt, I want to discuss with you. You seem to have some constructive arguments, but I have no interest in developing Mr. Skolfield's arguments as he isn't here to defend them. We could all post long quotes from those that agree with us, but discussion would come to a standstill. If I want to find out what Mr. Skolfield believes I can go to his site, I want to hear what Matt believes. Frankly, I circumvent most of his quotes. I'm sure most people are the same. His views above re the 70 weeks sees him trying the fit history into Scripture, instaed of the other way round.
              Why not work it in one direction and then take a look back in another? I don't believe that Scripture should necessarily, or even wisely, be considered in a historical vacuum, do you?
              Originally posted by wpm
              However, he is not here to defend it, so I have no interest engaging in it. As a rule, I only discuss with those that articulate their own thoughts - as they can be developed for the good of all. This is not a personal attack but constructive advice. Paul
              You didn't seem to be too shy when it came to attacking Skolfield's material, but now defer when it comes to articulating your contention; "but he holds a lot of nonsense, as can be seen above".

              Scripture gives us quite a bit of math to puzzle. Sometimes it works to start with the scripture that offers the problem, then do the math and see how it fits back through scripture. Nor do I see a problem with trying a mathematical "what if", particularly when some of the method was known to and considered by those of "the former age and their fathers".

              I have posted Skolfield's comments and have done my best to answer questions that have been raised. As far as I know I left none unanswered except one poster's questions that seemed to be heavily rooted in Catholic doctrine of which I am not, nor will I be, versed (particularly having recently read Fox's), and I didn't want to appear as though I was trying to flame the Catholic Church in response.

              Why don't we start with Daniel's 69 weeks, and if I don't believe I can defend Skolfield I will let you know. You said "I want to hear what Matt believes" and this is what I believe. I would not have posted any of the material if it wasn't. The following thread is somewhat of a paraphrase, by me, anyway. Let's try it. http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=54529
              Please visit http://www.ellisskolfield.com/index.shtml

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MattHenry
                Why not work it in one direction and then take a look back in another? I don't believe that Scripture should necessarily, or even wisely, be considered in a historical vacuum, do you?
                You didn't seem to be too shy when it came to attacking Skolfield's material, but now defer when it comes to articulating your contention; "but he holds a lot of nonsense, as can be seen above".

                Scripture gives us quite a bit of math to puzzle. Sometimes it works to start with the scripture that offers the problem, then do the math and see how it fits back through scripture. Nor do I see a problem with trying a mathematical "what if", particularly when some of the method was known to and considered by those of "the former age and their fathers".

                I have posted Skolfield's comments and have done my best to answer questions that have been raised. As far as I know I left none unanswered except one poster's questions that seemed to be heavily rooted in Catholic doctrine of which I am not, nor will I be, versed (particularly having recently read Fox's), and I didn't want to appear as though I was trying to flame the Catholic Church in response.

                Why don't we start with Daniel's 69 weeks, and if I don't believe I can defend Skolfield I will let you know. You said "I want to hear what Matt believes" and this is what I believe. I would not have posted any of the material if it wasn't. The following thread is somewhat of a paraphrase, by me, anyway. Let's try it. http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=54529
                Matt

                I wanted to private message you or email you, but that facility was not available on your profile. That is why I responded here. I would have preferred to speak private. I certainly have no desire to undermine your personal posts. My issue is not with your writing. I enjoy and concur with most of your arguments. I just find it difficult reading long quotes from someone that is not here to discuss it. I apologise if I have caused you any hurt or embarassment. I have re-worded my description of his views so as not to cause offence.

                Paul
                "ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

                http://www.evangelicaltruth.com/

                WPM

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wpm
                  Matt

                  I wanted to private message you or email you, but that facility was not available on your profile.
                  That is funny. I tried to do the very same and also found the very same.
                  Originally posted by wpm
                  That is why I responded here. I would have preferred to speak private. I certainly have no desire to undermine your personal posts. My issue is not with your writing. I enjoy and concur with most of your arguments. I just find it difficult reading long quotes from someone that is not here to discuss it.
                  The reason they are long is to include the context so it doesn't take a lot of back and forth. The reader can then select (to choose not to read it or) the parts that they have questions with. I am here to discuss the posts and have, in each and every question raised, as far as I know (including the one that I earlier mentioned excluding). I post chapters as well in order to hopefully tease folks into reading the book.

                  Part of my purpose is to post what Ellis teaches in order to be put in a position of having to defend the material. I was a futurist up until a few months ago when I was led out of that valley by Mr. Skolfield's writings, so I desire desperately to view all the sides of Skolfield's Bible study and this is the perfect type of format, and this forum contains some of the most versed Bible students, that I have encountered (yourself perhaps at the top). Please just pretend that I am Ellis Skolfield. Perhaps that should have been my username. Please treat my posts as such.

                  Take a look at the antichrist thread for another example. I believe I am surviving well in spite of some serious attempts to flame what was posted.
                  Originally posted by wpm
                  I apologise if I have caused you any hurt or embarassment.

                  Paul
                  Not at all. I just wish you would reply to the posts so I could learn more, and so I can be confronted with questions that have not occurred to me yet. I also desperately want you and everybody else to read The False Prophet. It is absolutely free (not even a login required) so how can it cause injury? To get the gist start with Daniel's 69 weeks "mathematical perfection" thread and take issue with the math.
                  http://www.ellisskolfield.com/downloadable-books.shtml

                  I titled the thread "the wrong rock" badly (I think I should have named it Abomination of Desolation) but did you see it? http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=54566
                  Please visit http://www.ellisskolfield.com/index.shtml

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Here is a site with info on Daniel. It explains the three popular views of Daniels seventy weeks (chart toward botttom of page).
                    http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/ar...aniel.html#8.2


                    I tend to agree with the third one in ref. to the second (Christs ministry). As I see Nebs dream of the tree relating also to the church. I posted on that subject in this thread. http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...t=acts+to+tree

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Teke
                      Here is a site with info on Daniel. It explains the three popular views of Daniels seventy weeks (chart toward botttom of page).
                      http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/ar...aniel.html#8.2


                      I tend to agree with the third one in ref. to the second (Christs ministry). As I see Nebs dream of the tree relating also to the church. I posted on that subject in this thread. http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...t=acts+to+tree
                      From how long ago do you suppose these views might have come?
                      Please visit http://www.ellisskolfield.com/index.shtml

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        As I've stated many times in this forum, I think the most honest view of the 70 weeks is to keep them attached to eachother. There's nothing in the text itself that would make me think to add a gap. Only reading certain commentaries would give me that idea. The NT is literally full of the fulfillment of all 70, so why try to cast the fulfillment further into the future? I guess the only reason would be a self-centered method of interpretation that equates most prophecy with our own times. People have been doing this for thousands of years, so I guess we should not be surprised that it continues.
                        The Matthew Never Knew
                        The Knew Kingdom

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MattHenry
                          From how long ago do you suppose these views might have come?
                          Does what the historical church (the people of God) believes and teaches, mean anything to you?
                          That is only a small amount of the historical teachings of the Church. They are the ones that don't change. Secular views change with the times. The Revelation of Christ never changes. And is what the Church is to preach.

                          So, are you a progressive revelationist (revelaltion continually changing with the times) of systematic theology (mostly mathematical in this instance)?

                          I'm not bashing you. I've just seen my share of speculation by man. The bible is not a book of mathematics, although the numbers written of have significance. That significance belonged to the era (Hebrew thought) it was written in, not our present age.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Teke
                            Does what the historical church (the people of God) believes and teaches, mean anything to you?
                            Lately that is a tough question for me as I was saved about 2-1/2 years ago in the Church that I still attend that holds futurist and pre-trib doctrine.
                            Originally posted by Teke
                            That is only a small amount of the historical teachings of the Church.
                            To what are you referring is only a small amount? eschatology? I agree. I am also grateful that our salvation doesn't depend on getting our understanding of prophecy correct or we would surely all be hellbound.

                            So what is "the Church"? Greek Orthodox? Catholic? For New Testament saints the Church is inside of us isn't it?
                            Originally posted by Teke
                            They are the ones that don't change.
                            You are going to have to be very specific here. What Church hasn't changed?
                            Originally posted by Teke
                            Secular views change with the times. The Revelation of Christ never changes. And is what the Church is to preach.

                            So, are you a progressive revelationist (revelaltion continually changing with the times) of systematic theology (mostly mathematical in this instance)?
                            Did you look at some of the math? Does Scripture include it in order for us to ignore?
                            Originally posted by Teke
                            I'm not bashing you. I've just seen my share of speculation by man. The bible is not a book of mathematics, although the numbers written of have significance. That significance belonged to the era (Hebrew thought) it was written in, not our present age.
                            Now I wonder if you have pondered these verses in regard to the value of Church teaching/tradition in respect to the book of Daniel:

                            Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

                            Dan 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words [are] closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

                            Here God Himself guarantees that Daniel did indeed succeed in sealing the book of Daniel - until the "time of the end". What do you make of that?
                            Please visit http://www.ellisskolfield.com/index.shtml

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Matt

                              Let me present a few questions.

                              What event do you believe did/will

                              (1) "finish the transgression"?
                              (2) "make an end of sins"?
                              (3) "make reconciliation for iniquity"?
                              (4) "bring in everlasting righteousness"?
                              (5) "seal up the vision and prophecy"?
                              (6) "anoint the most Holy”?

                              And exactly in what way did/will this be accomplished?

                              Paul
                              "ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

                              http://www.evangelicaltruth.com/

                              WPM

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X