Page 7 of 31 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 453

Thread: Daniel

  1. #91

    Re: Daniel

    ^ EDIT to add: where I'd said, "7 weeks and 62 weeks [483 yrs total spans of time]"... that is, "483 yrs [of 360 days each]" which factors out to about "476 regular years" [and counted from 445bc]

  2. #92

    Re: Daniel

    ^ Oh, and "add (+) 1 yr" for "no year 0"

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    5,189
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    What it appears to me that you are doing, is conflating the "70 YEARS captivity" with the "70 WEEKS [prophecy]"... these are distinct, and have very distinct STARTING points.

    606bc is the start of the "70 YEARS captivity" (Daniel is seeing these years coming soon to their CONCLUSION, in Dan9:2, just before he receives the "70 WEEKS [prophecy]" down further in vv.24-27)

    587bc is the "Jerusalem destruction" [I think...]

    537bc is the "return to Israel"

    518bc is the "temple rebuilding"


    then... after all that...

    445bc is where Daniel 9:25's "Know therefore, and understand, that FROM the GOING FORTH of the commandment to restore and build [/rebuild] Jerusalem UNTO the Messiah the Prince..."

    (and then supplies the LENGTH OF TIME from that Point A to that Point B: 7 weeks and 62 weeks [483 yrs total spans of time])


    Am I making sense?
    Yes I see what you are saying and I use to hold to that view

    Did you read my whole post and see the reason for the 70 weeks prophecy?

    Also my three points and the end of it?

    If your view is right then Why does it say 7 and 62 weeks why not just say 69 weeks as they are separated for a reason

  4. #94

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    If your view is right then Why does it say 7 and 62 weeks why not just say 69 weeks as they are separated for a reason
    In answer to that ^ …


    [quoting J Vernon McGee]

    "The first seven weeks of forty-nine years bring us to 397 B.C. and to Malachi and the end of the Old Testament. These were "troublous times," as witnessed to by both Nehemiah and Malachi.

    "Sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, bring us to the Messiah. Sir Robert Anderson in his book, The Coming Prince, has worked out the time schedule. From the first of the month Nisan to the tenth of Nisan (April 6) A.D. 32, are 173,880 days."

    --J Vernon McGee, [commentary/book on] Daniel; page 156 (1981 edition)

    [end quoting]


    I have no reason to disagree with that.


    [note: another writer has supplied info stating that this is the only year [32ad] (of the surrounding years) that would have worked, due to this "Nisan to Nisan" factor (and the number of "moons" intervening)--the month of "Nisan" is when these types of "commandment/word GOING FORTH" would take place, pertaining to kings issuing these...]


    ...So, the info in Nehemiah 2 "fits" this precisely (to the Zech9:9 thing Jesus DID on Palm Sunday ["thy King cometh UNTO THEE"], the Sunday before His death later that very week, and when He had SAID the Lk19:41-44 thing... BOTH re: "the city," which also these other points refer [both Dan9:24 and Neh2])


    Hope that helps you see my perspective.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,958

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    What it appears to me that you are doing, is conflating the "70 YEARS captivity" with the "70 WEEKS [prophecy]"... these are distinct, and have very distinct STARTING points.

    606bc is the start of the "70 YEARS captivity" (Daniel is seeing these years coming soon to their CONCLUSION, in Dan9:2, just before he receives the "70 WEEKS [prophecy]" down further in vv.24-27)
    I see it that way as well.

    Daniels prayer comes at the end of the 70 years captivity and Gabriel comes with an answer to that prayer that begins the 70 weeks from a future decree.

    70 years captivity for sabbath rest neglect and a 70 week promise that ends with the establishment of our eternal rest in him.

    Counting the 70 weeks in this way leads you to the anointing of Jesus at his baptism after 7 and 62 weeks, and Jesus ministry and death in the final week ,....that secured our Atonement, righteousness everlasting and our rest.



    Heb 9
    11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

    15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.


    but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.


    Jesus appears a second time without ref to sin, which means the 70th week (putting away of sin) was dealt with by him at his first appearing
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    5,189
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    In answer to that ^ …


    [quoting J Vernon McGee]

    "The first seven weeks of forty-nine years bring us to 397 B.C. and to Malachi and the end of the Old Testament. These were "troublous times," as witnessed to by both Nehemiah and Malachi.

    "Sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, bring us to the Messiah. Sir Robert Anderson in his book, The Coming Prince, has worked out the time schedule. From the first of the month Nisan to the tenth of Nisan (April 6) A.D. 32, are 173,880 days."

    --J Vernon McGee, [commentary/book on] Daniel; page 156 (1981 edition)

    [end quoting]


    I have no reason to disagree with that.


    [note: another writer has supplied info stating that this is the only year [32ad] (of the surrounding years) that would have worked, due to this "Nisan to Nisan" factor (and the number of "moons" intervening)--the month of "Nisan" is when these types of "commandment/word GOING FORTH" would take place, pertaining to kings issuing these...]


    ...So, the info in Nehemiah 2 "fits" this precisely (to the Zech9:9 thing Jesus DID on Palm Sunday ["thy King cometh UNTO THEE"], the Sunday before His death later that very week, and when He had SAID the Lk19:41-44 thing... BOTH re: "the city," which also these other points refer [both Dan9:24 and Neh2])


    Hope that helps you see my perspective.
    I do see your prospective but when did the Old Testament end?

    Not at the end of Malachi It ended at the cross

    The bible shows when Jesus fulfilled prophecies especially in the book of Matthew

    Matthew 1:22-23
    22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).

    Matthew 2:15
    15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

    Matthew 2:23
    and came and lived in a city called Nazareth This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene.

    Matthew 4:12-16
    12 When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he withdrew to Galilee. 13 Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali— 14 to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:

    15 “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
    the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan,
    Galilee of the Gentiles—
    16 the people living in darkness
    have seen a great light;
    on those living in the land of the shadow of death
    a light has dawned.”[f]

    Matthew 12-15-21
    15 Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. A large crowd followed him, and he healed all who were ill. 16 He warned them not to tell others about him. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:

    18 “Here is my servant whom I have chosen,
    the one I love, in whom I delight;
    I will put my Spirit on him,
    and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
    19 He will not quarrel or cry out;
    no one will hear his voice in the streets.
    20 A bruised reed he will not break,
    and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out,
    till he has brought justice through to victory.
    21 In his name the nations will put their hope.”[b]

    Matthew 27:6-10
    6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”[a]

    Matthew 21:1-5
    21 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.”

    4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:

    5 “Say to Daughter Zion,
    ‘See, your king comes to you,
    gentle and riding on a donkey,
    and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’”[a]

    There are more in Matthew but I have to ask myself why is there no reference in the New Testament that refers to Jesus fulfilling any of Daniels 70 weeks even though the last verses tie Jesus to Zachariah 9

  7. #97

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    I do see your prospective but when did the Old Testament end?

    Not at the end of Malachi It ended at the cross
    I don't think that was his point.

    You're just reading too much into what he was saying...

    his point was more like this (from GotQuestions):

    [quoting]

    "Question: "What were the 400 years of silence?"

    "Answer: The 400 years of silence refers to the time between the Old Testament and New Testament, during which God did not speak to the Jewish people. The 400 years of silence began with the warning that closed the Old Testament: “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse" (Malachi 4:5-6) and ended with the coming of John the Baptist, the Messiah’s forerunner.

    "At the time of Malachi’s warning, about 430 B.C., the Jews had returned to Israel from the Babylonian captivity (as merchants, not shepherds). The Medo-Persian Empire still ruled Israel, and the temple had been rebuilt. Both the Law and the priesthood of Aaron’s line had been restored, and the Jews had given up their worship of idols. Nevertheless, Malachi’s warning was not without cause. The Jewish people were mistreating their wives, marrying pagans and not tithing, and the priests were neglecting the temple and not teaching the people the ways of God. In short, the Jews were not honoring God."

    [end quoting]

    https://www.gotquestions.org/400-years-of-silence.html


    [note: I have some minor caveats regarding the article... but this is the general idea that J Vernon McGee was conveying in that quote I supplied]

  8. #98
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Clanton Alabama
    Posts
    1,088

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I have a couple of questions for those arguing that the future antichrist is the "king" in Dan 11:36 who came to his end in v-45.

    1. In Rev 13:4 we told that nobody (flesh and blood) can fight against the Antichrist. If we believe that God inspired Apostle John to write Revelation, are we to believe that the Bible is in error then given that a mysterious Egyptian will supposedly rise against him?
    Jesus defeats the Anti-Christ when he returns. The saying that no one can come against the Anti-Christ is not a real time utterance, its God/Jesus telling John what is in their hearts, they fear this man and understand what he has wrought, billions of deaths (1.5 billion - 2 billion deaths/murders}. But we both understand that most of these anti God men don't realize that there is a God and He will take care of Satan, the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet. So he does come to his end, right ?

    Some claim (e.g. my good friend, RevelationMan) that it might not necessarily be Egypt, but Saudi Arabia or Turkey. But the problem with this view is that Daniel's narrative is specific that the king of the south is based in a country south of Jerusalem, e.g. Egypt. And neither Saudi Arabia nor Turkey is south of Jerusalem.
    It really doesn't matter who the King of the South is, that's my point. The only thing that has to happen is the King of the North, as mentioned at any given time, must but "NORTH" of the King of the South. I doubt its Saudi Arabia because the land mass of Arabia wasn't a part of the four generals kingdoms. But the Seleucid Empire covered Turkey, Iran, Iraq etc. etc. etc. So it can be a few nations that form an alliance, or one nation like Turkey that pushes at him. Arabs have been known to attack having no chance, their bravado gets the best of them, see Saddam being too stupid to allow inspections...LOL. As long as the King of the North is the Greek born European Leader, it doesn't matter who the KOTS is in reality, because whoever it is will be crushed, this happens BEFORE the Anti-Christ is feared, this is why he becomes FEARED.\

    2. Rev 13:7 says that "power was given to him over all kindreds and tongues and nations ". The plain interpretation is that the Beast will have sovereign rule (even if he has to use proxies) over the whole world in his little time of 3.5 years. I've heard some claim that his influence will be limited to some parts of the world only. I'm not sure that those who hold this view have truly paid attention to the prophecies regarding the AC's influence.
    We basically agree here, I think other nations fall in line, after the Christians are gone {Pre-trib rapture} the Socialist are in Glee of Bog Government Rule...LOL. So they all fall right in line, especially after they see this mans a maniac.

    My query, therefore, is, given his worldwide influence according to scripture, why then do some insist the AC is the king of the north from Dan 36-45? Why not the evil king of the world? Furthermore, most generally agree that the Beast will use Jerusalem at some point as his HQ. If this is true, doesn't it yet make it impossible for him to be the "king of the north" since Jerusalem is the focal point in Dan 11 rather than the north?
    He is both Evil and the Anti-Christ of Dan. 11:36-45. I don't agree per se that he uses Jerusalem as his Headquarters. I think he just builds an altar unto himself to thumb his nose at the one true God and His people. He will come and go and have a palace there, but he is more than likely going to be living is Europe somewhere. JMHO.

    He is/will be the E.U. President.

    The Seleucids were based in Syria, which is north of Jerusalem, hence, the prefix of the king of the north. So let's say that perchance, the AC makes Damascus his base, will the title of "king of the north" not contradict John's vision of his worldwide reach and influence?

    I need some answers on how he could be the king of the north and not the world?
    Hes is going to be the President of the E.U. so he will indeed be NORTH of any of the other four {five short lived} Kingdoms.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,477

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    The Assyrian name comes from their Capital city Assur in modern day Iraq {Northern Iraq}. They have pretty much immigrated all over the world, but mainly still live in Iraq, Turkey and Syria. Since the war in Syria they have no doubt probably moved elsewhere if possible, of course. Greece is the natural European destination for many of these Assyrians to venture since they have a common border with Turkey.

    Assyrians remain in their ancestral homelands in modern-day northern Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. But they have also spread to more than 26 other countries worldwide. There are an estimated 3.3 million Assyrians throughout the world, according to the nonprofit group Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization: 1.5 million live in Iraq and 700,000 live in the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria). There are about 400,000 in the U.S.

    Most Assyrians are Christians, that is why the Ottomans committed genocide on them in WW1.

    The overall point is he only has to be an Assyrian or of Assyrian heritage according to Isaiah chapter 10, amongst other verses in the bible. He also has to come out of the Fourth Beasts Head AND he has to be born in one of the Four Generals Kingdom in the end times. ALL of these have to come to pass as ONE.

    He only has to be of Assyrian heritage, but he has to come to power out of the old Fourth Beast AND he has to arise {be born basically} in one of the Four Generals KIngdoms, and only a Grecian of the Four, can also come to power in the E.U. {Fourth Beast Head}.

    This is why I call him a Turk, the Turks and Greece have a common border and pretty much free movement between the nations with some exceptions. Where he came from really doesn't matter I guess in reality.

    Why do you see the E.U. as the Harlot ? The Harlot = ALL FALSE RELIGION of All time. {I can explain it if needed}.

    Actually Assyria and Syria have very little in common, some of the Assyrians live there, but many more live in Iraq. The Anti-Christ being an Assyrian just gives us his lineage. He must arise to power in the E.U. and be born in one of the Four Gen. Kingdom. THE KEY is putting all three together.

    Hes an Assyrian born in ___________ who arises to power in the E.U. {Fourth Beast}. So what is the BLANK ? Well the only one pf the Four Generals Kingdoms that could give a person citizenship to come to power in the E.U. is being born in Greece. Now we can look back at Daniel 11 and understand why we were given such detail about the Grecians. In order to understand where hes born, you have to conclude where he rules first. One has a multiple answer {4} whilst the other is matter of fact, he come to power in the E.U.

    People saying that hes a Muslim or from Egypt, Syria etc. etc. conflate the clues IMHO.

    God Bless. Been real busy lately, missed chatting here with you guys. {Remodeling my Bedroom and bath, shes working me like a dog, LOL.}
    The chatting seems to have slowed down lately, less members involved. I was curious about that but I guess each person has their own things going on. Enjoy the renovating!

    Regarding antichrist origins, you mention Isaiah 10: Assyrian, capital Assur in the Turkish region.

    My focus is Daniel 11: king of the North :Seleucid Empire, Capital Antioch/Seleucia. Verse 36-45 continue to label him the King of the North. Yet I see that those ancient cities are actually in Turkey too. Everything keeps pointing back to Turkey, so I can agree with you on that part.

    I don't see the Europe link to the antichrist. The coming ruler in Daniel 9 is Jesus, not the antichrist. Galilean Jews ruined the city just before the Roman's came in like a flood and destroyed it.

    The Byzantium Empire, based in Istanbul inherited the Roman Empire, not Italy/Europe. Rome and Europe take on the role of Harlot/false Prophet, the beast hating this economically and religiously powerful harlot. If the beast hates this harlot with a massive trading economy (Rev 17/18), this means the beast cannot be the harlot. Hopefully you can see some sense in what I'm saying.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,209
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    IF you followed the verses through you find that Dan 11:21 EXACTLY fits A4E. It is the time in the progression of the history of the kings of the North. If you try to change this to Titus you insert a gap of hundreds of years with nothing to show this to be the case.
    I don't find a single thing which doesn't fit historically.
    What we find is actually things which do fit historically, such as the 1290 and 1335 days. There is one insertion which confuses people because it speaks of the time of the resurrection, but contextually this says that what you do NOW or THEN will have an impact for your FUTURE state when the resurrection occurs.
    I concur with your views. The only appearance of Rome in Dan 11 is in v-30 (ships of Chittim) which brought Roman legions sent by Rome in response to the Ptolemaic appeal for help against A4E. And of course, the ambassadors who delivered the senate's orders to A4E to withdraw with immediate effect or consider himself at war with Rome.

    Strangely, Rome did not take advantage of A4E's weakness at the time to upstage him as the king of the north but actually allowed their existing bilateral trade agreement with Jerusalem to continue. Thus allowing Judea to enjoy a little over 100 years of autonomy and self-rule under the Hasmoneans. It wasn't until 63 BC that Jerusalem fell under Pompey's siege, ending their sovereignty forever and from that period, Rome became the king of the north.

    Needless to say that A4E had died 100 years earlier and although other Seleucid kings reigned after A4E, none of them had the power and influence to really trouble the Hasmoneans.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,209
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    Jesus defeats the Anti-Christ when he returns. The saying that no one can come against the Anti-Christ is not a real time utterance, its God/Jesus telling John what is in their hearts, they fear this man and understand what he has wrought, billions of deaths (1.5 billion - 2 billion deaths/murders}. But we both understand that most of these anti God men don't realize that there is a God and He will take care of Satan, the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet. So he does come to his end, right ?
    Not sure what your point is? Forgive me, could be my fault as I don't understand what you mean. Agreed that majority of the ungodly don't believe in God, but does that mean they will have the resources and wherewithal to wage a war against the AC? I don't think so, given that scripture expressly says that God will send them a strong delusion to believe the lies of the AC (1 Thess 2:11-12).

    Thus, if they buy the lies of the Beast, why will they fight him or be his ally, which one is more plausible? Brother, I'd rather believe Rev 13:4 that no man can fight him than a cleverly crafted conjecture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    It really doesn't matter who the King of the South is, that's my point. The only thing that has to happen is the King of the North, as mentioned at any given time, must but "NORTH" of the King of the South. I doubt its Saudi Arabia because the land mass of Arabia wasn't a part of the four generals kingdoms. But the Seleucid Empire covered Turkey, Iran, Iraq etc. etc. etc. So it can be a few nations that form an alliance, or one nation like Turkey that pushes at him. Arabs have been known to attack having no chance, their bravado gets the best of them, see Saddam being too stupid to allow inspections...LOL. As long as the King of the North is the Greek born European Leader, it doesn't matter who the KOTS is in reality, because whoever it is will be crushed, this happens BEFORE the Anti-Christ is feared, this is why he becomes FEARED.\
    You did not venture to cite even one scripture to support this position, because there is none. Therefore, I put it down to unfounded speculations. As I pointed out, the label of "the king of the north" will never fit the AC as scripture clearly say his reach and influence is worldwide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    We basically agree here, I think other nations fall in line, after the Christians are gone {Pre-trib rapture} the Socialist are in Glee of Bog Government Rule...LOL. So they all fall right in line, especially after they see this mans a maniac.
    Glad we agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    He is both Evil and the Anti-Christ of Dan. 11:36-45. I don't agree per se that he uses Jerusalem as his Headquarters. I think he just builds an altar unto himself to thumb his nose at the one true God and His people. He will come and go and have a palace there, but he is more than likely going to be living is Europe somewhere. JMHO. He is/will be the E.U. President.
    Repeating that the antichrist is the king in Dan 11:36-45 means nothing if you can't prove it. I have given you the opportunity to prove that but and you're obviously stumped. Given you have done some extensive research, what about a little open-mindedness and objectivity? I am sure that a little of these virtues will convince you the AC is not in Dan 11 as claimed.

    Throughout Dan 11, there are THREE players in the narrative, namely, the Seleucids in the north and the Ptolemies in the south and sandwiched between them albeit in a minor role, is Judea. Daniel's people, from whose perspective the narrative unfolds. Therefore, a king of the north or south MUST be one with influence over the region bothering Israel in the north, or Egypt in the south and nowhere else!

    These positions are fixed and not fluid, therefore, you unwittingly killed any chance you have of forcing the AC as the king of the north when you correctly pointed out that Jerusalem will not be his Hq. Since we both agree that his HQ will most likely base in Europe, he cannot, therefore, be the king of the north. Another notable reason for this impossibility is that the "north" limits his influence when scripture says he will have worldwide influence (Rev 13:7).

    I know how difficult it can be to drop long formulated doctrines even when proven to be wrong (I know because I've struggled with some myself), but every genuine scholar should not let such baggage hold them back from progress and advancement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    Hes is going to be the President of the E.U. so he will indeed be NORTH of any of the other four {five short lived} Kingdoms.
    Same as I've said many times. The EU is just one of many blocs around the world. The head of one bloc has no power or authority over the others. For the sake of clarity, we are told explicitly that the AC will have power over all kindreds [tribes/creed] tongues [languages] and nations. And yet for one seeking the truth, you are willing to ignore this and make him "the king of the north" which gives him no more than 1/3 of the world population! Africa alone dwarfs Europe almost 3x in size and numbers!

    I am hoping that you will take time out to study, juxtapose your position and mine and with objectivity in mind to search for the most logical interpretation of Dan 11:36-45.

  12. #102

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't think it was obvious, while the Law was still in effect, how the cross would change the way God's Law operates. Jewish rebellion against God and violation of His Law would bring about an end to their temple worship and to their habitation in the land. We know that it was the cross that brought this judgment upon the Jews.

    Yes. However, my point is that the sacrifices and offerings were terminated in terms of their efficacy at the time of Jesus' death. Destruction of those things, along with the temple infrastructure, were just cleanup. Since Daniel is referring to the Messianic Covenant, something happening in the middle of that Week of Confirmation would be where the sacrifices and offerings lose their efficacy--not when they are destroyed. The thing that happened in the middle of the Week was Jesus' crucifixion.

    I don't agree. Liberals will disagree with Conservatives because they don't believe in the inspiration of Scriptures. They don't know what to believe. But those who actually believe the Bible can come to terms with different arguments, noting that some arguments are better than others. If we keep the argument not one of pride, but of learning, we can all come together, among those who believe God's word.

    It may even help you to know that the Early Church largely believed that Dan 9 was all about Jesus' Covenant? Yes, those closest to the time of Jesus did think what you think is wrong. The farther away we get from that time, the less we know about the time that determined what those things meant. However, we do have modern tools to rediscover these ancient truths, and we need to use them!

    For sure!
    We aren't very far off.

    My point of saying the argument over theology is without conclusions is that we all have firm beliefs, Christians, liberals, conservatives, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, communists, capitalists, etc, etc, etc... and all will probably die for those various beliefs, right or wrong. Yet they are only based on beliefs, opinions, and deep feelings, which create a certainty which may often be misplaced.

    What I point out is the proof history offers to confirm beliefs. We remain apart on the specific interpretation of one detail. But c'est la vie .

    Keep up the good work.

  13. #103

    Re: Daniel

    Everyone tries to start at the beginning of Daniel's 70 sevens and works forward. It is far easier to start at the finish and work backward. This is so because the starting point is uncertain, no matter how certain one might feel about it.

    But the finish is definite. When we are told in the prophecy that the people of a prince will come and destroy the sanctuary, and that the offerings and sacrifices will end, we know that there can be no sacrifices and offerings without the sanctuary, so they must occur as part of the same approximate event.

    There is not sanctuary or sacrifices currently, so this is not about us.

    We do know with a reasonable certainty exactly when the sanctuary was destroyed and when the sacrifices and offerings ended. The both occurred in the summer of 70 AD. And we know the prince then had to be Titus, the son of the Emperor, and the people of the prince had to be Rome and its allies.

    Now, regarding the 1335 days in Daniel: If you believe the fall of Masada was on Passover 74 AD, as I do for some good reasons, then the day the temple fell to the Romans to the day Masada fell--ending the Jewish Revolt was, yes you guessed it, 1,335 days.

    If 74 AD is the end of the last seven, then it began with a covenant in 67 AD. And yes indeed, there was a covenant between several allies of Rome to subdue the Jewish Revolt in the spring of 67 AD.

    Is this not accurate enough to reject pure coincidence?

    So the 483 years ended in 66 AD. We can't say for sure what the Messiah being "cut off" means, it is not a phrase used elsewhere in the Bible as a synonym for being killed so I can't be satisfied with that definition.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,477

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Pergola View Post
    Everyone tries to start at the beginning of Daniel's 70 sevens and works forward. It is far easier to start at the finish and work backward. This is so because the starting point is uncertain, no matter how certain one might feel about it.

    But the finish is definite. When we are told in the prophecy that the people of a prince will come and destroy the sanctuary, and that the offerings and sacrifices will end, we know that there can be no sacrifices and offerings without the sanctuary, so they must occur as part of the same approximate event.

    There is not sanctuary or sacrifices currently, so this is not about us.

    We do know with a reasonable certainty exactly when the sanctuary was destroyed and when the sacrifices and offerings ended. The both occurred in the summer of 70 AD. And we know the prince then had to be Titus, the son of the Emperor, and the people of the prince had to be Rome and its allies.

    Now, regarding the 1335 days in Daniel: If you believe the fall of Masada was on Passover 74 AD, as I do for some good reasons, then the day the temple fell to the Romans to the day Masada fell--ending the Jewish Revolt was, yes you guessed it, 1,335 days.

    If 74 AD is the end of the last seven, then it began with a covenant in 67 AD. And yes indeed, there was a covenant between several allies of Rome to subdue the Jewish Revolt in the spring of 67 AD.

    Is this not accurate enough to reject pure coincidence?

    So the 483 years ended in 66 AD. We can't say for sure what the Messiah being "cut off" means, it is not a phrase used elsewhere in the Bible as a synonym for being killed so I can't be satisfied with that definition.
    Interesting views, but there are multiple ways of looking at the 70 sevens, all which fit the text, but all which have some flaws.

    I personally believe theres a gap in the 70 sevens, and there remains 3.5 years to be fulfilled. Obviously the coming prince in v25 is Jesus, and I believe the promise mentioned in v25, is that promise fulfilled in v27, the promised Messiah.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    5,189
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Daniel

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    I don't think that was his point.

    You're just reading too much into what he was saying...

    his point was more like this (from GotQuestions):

    [quoting]

    "Question: "What were the 400 years of silence?"

    "Answer: The 400 years of silence refers to the time between the Old Testament and New Testament, during which God did not speak to the Jewish people. The 400 years of silence began with the warning that closed the Old Testament: “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse" (Malachi 4:5-6) and ended with the coming of John the Baptist, the Messiah’s forerunner.

    "At the time of Malachi’s warning, about 430 B.C., the Jews had returned to Israel from the Babylonian captivity (as merchants, not shepherds). The Medo-Persian Empire still ruled Israel, and the temple had been rebuilt. Both the Law and the priesthood of Aaron’s line had been restored, and the Jews had given up their worship of idols. Nevertheless, Malachi’s warning was not without cause. The Jewish people were mistreating their wives, marrying pagans and not tithing, and the priests were neglecting the temple and not teaching the people the ways of God. In short, the Jews were not honoring God."

    [end quoting]

    https://www.gotquestions.org/400-years-of-silence.html


    [note: I have some minor caveats regarding the article... but this is the general idea that J Vernon McGee was conveying in that quote I supplied]
    Okay I see what you are saying but what do you think of my datelines are they all be chance?

    Major events happed which match the sets of weeks from the time King Cyrus issued the decree

    Also what about the rest of my post dealing with no New Testament referring of Jesus fulfilling any of the 70 weeks especially in Matthew 21:1-5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 41
    Last Post: Oct 8th 2019, 04:47 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jun 21st 2018, 03:12 PM
  3. Daniel 10:14.
    By divaD in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Oct 18th 2017, 11:31 AM
  4. 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
  5. 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

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
  •