Pastor Scott Markle

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    1,114
  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Pastor Scott Markle

  • Rank
    Abiding in Christ
  • Birthday 08/13/1971
  • Bio My name is Scott Markle, and I have served the Lord my God and Savior in pastoral ministry since 1992. I have served as the pastor of Melvin Baptist Church, a small country church in the Thumb area of Michigan, since 1998. I have been joyfully married to my beloved wife Kerry since 1993; and we have been blessed of the Lord with two sons, Padraic and Westley.

    My life-verses are Philippians 3:8 and John 15:4-5. "Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ." "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine: no more can ye except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in, and I in him, the same bringeth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." The burden of my life is to pursue "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord" and to walk daily abiding in Christ, and Christ in me.

    Concerning all my ministry, it is the burden of my heart to exalt, not myself, but the name of Jesus Christ and the truth of God's Word. It is my burden that Christ must increase, while I must decrease. Therefore, I maintain the policy that my name, as the author of a book, must remain smaller, while the phrase, "For the Glory of the Lord," must stand larger above it. Thus far the Lord our God has graciously allowed me to self-publish two books which can be purchased at my website: "God's Wisdom for Marriage & The Home" and "The Spirit of Revival: A Contrite and Humble Spirit." In addition, I maintain a daily (Monday-Friday) Bible study blog at that website.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://www.shepherdingtheflock.com

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location: Melvin, MI
  • Are you IFB? Yes

Recent Profile Visitors


4,951 profile views

Pastor Scott Markle's Activity

  1. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic Debate - Prophecy in Daniel 9   

    Brethren,

    The following posting will be my final posting in this discussion-debate thread.  Brother Day and I have engaged in this matter now for a number of months.  My family and ministry responsibilities simply will not permit me to continue herein for a number of months more. Throughout the discussion-debate thus far, we have touched upon each of the details of truth that are found within Daniel 9:24-27.  In some manner we are now simply repeating that which we have already presented.  Indeed, there are three details in Daniel 9:27 that I wish to focus upon one further time (and shall do so in this posting).  Since I took the opening posting of this discussion-debate, I fully expect that Brother Day should receive the closing remarks herein (before the thread is locked).  Thank you all for following the discussion-debate in what manner that you did.

    ______________________________________________

    Brother Day,

    You compel me yet again to defend my focus upon grammatical analysis in Bible study.  Concerning your accusation above, I believe that a more accurate word would have been the word “precise,” rather than the word “extreme.”  That in which I have engaged is precise grammatical analysis in order that we might rightly understand what God the Holy Spirit has precisely inspired.  It is our responsibility as Bible students to be “rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)  This instruction portrays the picture of precisely cutting a line in accord with a precise pattern.  Through inspiration God the Holy Spirit has established the precise pattern of truth in God’s Holy Word.  It is now our responsibility to be just as precise in our study of that word of truth.  Now, when God the Holy Spirit precisely inspired God’s Holy Word, He not only precisely inspired the words; He also precisely inspired the grammatical placement of those words into sentences and the flow-of-thought placement of those sentences into contexts.  Therefore, when I engage in the precise grammatical and contextual analysis of a passage, I am being directly obedient unto my Lord’s instruction to be “rightly dividing” (cutting the line of understanding with precision) His Holy Word in accord with the precise pattern of words, grammar, and context that God the Holy Spirit precisely inspired.  Even so, let it be known unto you, unto those who have joined with you in this debate against me, and unto all others – No matter how much you may attack me for engaging in such precise grammatical and contextual analysis, I will NOT disobey my Lord by complying to your wishes and by giving up on that precise grammatical and contextual analysis!

    Now, concerning the matter of appreciation for my precision in the grammatical and contextual analysis of the passage – Any individual who desires to pursue a precise understanding of the passage will greatly appreciate my precision in handling the passage.  However, it is just as certain that an individual who prefers to handle God’s Holy Word with loose generalities and who finds the precise grammar and context to be against his position will not at all appreciate my precision in handling the passage.  Indeed, the very fact that you and those who stand with you in this matter so regularly seek to disregard and disrespect precise grammatical analysis is evidence in itself that the precise grammar of the passage is more in favor of my position and more in contradiction to your position.  Certainly, why would you want to find appreciation for that?

    Most certainly I will stand against you for so doing.  God the Holy Spirit Himself precisely inspired the grammatical arrangements for the words of Scripture in order to communicate precisely the truth of God as He intended.  Do you believe that He has given you the authority to rearrange the grammatical arrangement of those words as you see fit?  I am certain that He has not.  Do you believe that you know better than He did and does concerning how the grammatical arrangement of those words ought to be?  I am certain that you do not.  Now, since you have revealed how little regard and respect you have for the precise grammar of the passage, I am not actually surprised that you feel comfortable rearranging the Holy Spirit inspired, grammatical arrangement of the words in that passage.

    Even so, I would repeat the warning that I gave in my previous posting -- Whenever an individual changes the grammatical arrangement that God the Holy Spirit inspired in any given statement of God’s Holy Word, that individual changes the meaning from that which God the Holy Spirit communicated into some other meaning.  Such changing of the meaning from that which God the Holy Spirit communicated by inspiration is not right dividing of God’s Word of truth.  Yet again, I would challenge all to develop a greater respect for every single word that God the Holy Spirit inspired and for the grammatical arrangement of those words in each sentence that God the Holy Spirit inspired in each given context.

    That which follows the adversative conjunction “but” in your statement above – Is this your defense for rearranging the precise grammatical arrangement of the words that God the Holy Spirit inspired.  How can you come to a right understanding of what God the Holy Spirit precisely intended to communicate in the Scriptures, if you first rearrange the precise grammatical arrangement for the words by which He communicated?  Precise grammatical analysis (as that in which I engage) handles each statement of God’s Holy Word word-for-word according to the precise grammatical arrangement in which God the Holy Spirit inspired and communicated that statement of God’s Holy Word.  (For example – If God the Holy Spirit inspired the coordinating conjunction “and” to be precisely arranged at the beginning of each and every independent statement (sentence, clause) in a series of statements, then God the Holy Spirit had a precise reason for so arranging that conjunction; and it is my responsibility as a Bible student to discern and understand God the Holy Spirit’s precise reason for so doing.)  Such a practice is not “extreme” grammatical analysis.  Rather, such a practice is a precise, word-for-word (“jot and tittle”) grammatical analysis that regards and respects every single word that God the Holy Spirit inspired, in the precise grammatical arrangement in which God the Holy Spirit inspired it.  Indeed, such a practice is “rightly dividing” God’s Holy Word of truth.  Indeed, such a practice is the only way to understand precisely what God the Holy Spirit has inspired and communicated, before we engage in the matters of “interpretation” and “application.”

    By definition “to interpret” is “to explain the meaning of something, to make understandable.”  As such, interpreting does indeed require “additional words” and an “emphasis upon actual words” for the sake of explanation.  However, rearranging the grammatical arrangement of the words is not engaging in the process of explanation in order to make God’s truth understandable.  Rather, it is engaging in the process of transformation in order to adapt God’s truth unto one’s own ideas.

    My efforts of precise grammatical and contextual analysis have not engaged in changing that statement even one word.  (Although if I remember correctly, there was another who did seek to change that Scriptural statement from “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city” to something like “Seventy weeks are determined upon all the nations of the earth and upon thy holy city.”)  However, my efforts of precise grammatical and context analysis have made note that the statement does not actually read, “Seventy consecutive weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city.”  Furthermore, my efforts of precise grammatical and contextual analysis have engaged in combating the loose generalities by which you have sought to support your position.

    I myself did not insert the “gap;” God the Holy Spirit did.  By inspiration He arranged for Daniel 9:25 to mention specifically the conclusion of the 69th “week” of years.  By inspiration He arranged for Daniel 9:27 to mention specifically the beginning of the 70th “week” of years.  And by inspiration He arranged for Daniel 9:26, along with its reported events, to be placed precisely between these two other verses.  Now, 69 plus 1, regardless of any “gap” between them, still equals the 70 “weeks” of years that the Lord God determined to administer upon Daniel’s people, the children of Israel. 

    So then, what about that “gap” of time?  Does it not have any administration upon the children of Israel?  Actually, the New Testament passage of Romans 11:25 teaches that this is the time wherein spiritual “blindness in part is happened to Israel” and that this spiritual blindness will continue upon them “until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.”  Even so, this “gap” of time is to be understood, not as the time for Israel, but as “the times of the Gentiles.” (See Luke 21:24)  Yet the New Testament passage of Romans 11:26-27 further teaches that after “the fulness of the Gentiles” comes in and “the times of the Gentiles” are fulfilled, then the Lord shall bring forth the salvation of and fulfilled covenant blessings upon the children of Israel.

    Indeed, you have presented many “supporting” passages from the New Testament.  Yet you have not provided a single passage that precisely indicates that the 70 “weeks” of years of Daniel 9:24-27 were fulfilled at any time during the 3.5 years after Christ’s resurrection.  Indeed, not a single New Testament passage that you have presented has mentioned the 70th “week” of Daniel at all.    

    Indeed, as much as I have been able, I have attempted to remain with a precise examination of the grammar and context of Daniel 9:24-27 itself.  Certainly, I have made some references to other supporting passages concerning the Lord God’s new covenant promises unto the children of Israel.  Since Daniel 9:24-27 is a prophecy concerning the Lord God’s intended blessing upon Daniel’s people, the children of Israel, and since the Lord God’s new covenant promises unto the children of Israel are prophetic utterances concerning the Lord God’s intended blessings upon the children of Israel, it seemed Biblically appropriate.  However, when I have handled these passages at length, I have done so in “external” threads.  Furthermore, in so doing I have also handled at least one New Testament passage concerning this matter, that is – Romans 11:25-27.

    Actually, we have no such thing; for no New Testament Scripture directly indicates that it is the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27.  Oh, in your manner of loose generalities, you have made the claim that there are such passages.  Yet when these passages are examined with precision, your loose generalities are found faulty.

    Yes, this is the assumption of your position.  Yet you have not given evidence for that assumption.  You have simply made the assertion of your assumption over and over again as if your personal declaration thereof is evidence enough.  Did the transgression of the children of Israel “finish” (completely stop) at the event of Christ’s death and resurrection (“. . . upon thy people . . . to finish the transgression”)?  No, it did not.  Did the sins of the children of Israel “end” (completely stop) at the event of Christ’s death and resurrection (“. . . upon thy people . . . to make an end of sins”)?  No, they did not.  Did the children of Israel as a national people group enter into their condition of reconciliation with God at the event of Christ’s death and resurrection (“. . . upon thy people . . . to make reconciliation for iniquity”)?  No, they did not.  Did the children of Israel as a national people group enter into a walk of everlasting righteousness at the event of Christ’s death and resurrection (“. . . upon thy people . . . to bring in everlasting righteousness”)?  No, they did not.  So then, we should not look at Daniel 9:24 as being fulfilled at the event of Christ’s death and resurrection.  Rather, we should look for a future event wherein the Lord God will precisely fulfill every detail of the new covenant promises that He declared that He would make with the children of Israel as a national people group.

    Furthermore, even if for the sake of the argument we considered that the event of Christ’s death and resurrection was the fulfillment for the six-fold purpose statements of Daniel 9:24, we would find another problem of imprecision.  According to your position, Christ did not die at the end of the 70th “week,” but in the midst of the 70th “week.”  As such the event of Christ’s death and resurrection would have been 69.5 “weeks” of years, not 70 “weeks” of years.  Yet Daniel 9:24 declares that 70 “weeks” of years were determined in order to bring forth the six purposes.  Again, when the matter is examined with precision, loose generalities are found faulty.

    Indeed, He did consider that “He had finished the work the Father had given Him.”  Indeed, He did finish that work!  However, that is not the point of the debate.  The point of the debate, as I have made clear on a number of occasions, is whether Daniel 9:24 is even speaking about the saving work of our Lord Jesus Christ that God the Father had given for Him to finish.

    Indeed, it was necessary for Christ to have suffered those things “and to enter into his glory.”  It was necessary for the Lord God’s plan of salvation for us sinners to be fulfilled, and it was necessary for the Old Testament prophecies concerning those things to be fulfilled.  (Although at the moment wherein our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking to these disciples, He had not yet fully entered “into His glory.”)  Indeed, all of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ that pertain to His first coming were fulfilled in His first coming.  Such does not mean that every single Old Testament prophecy of any and all types was fulfilled in His first coming, for some of the Old Testament prophecies are not “concerning” Him and His first coming.  In addition, such does not mean that every single Old Testament prophecy concerning Him of any and all types was fulfilled in His first coming, for some of the Old Testament prophecies “concerning” Him are “concerning” His second coming (which has not yet occurred).  Even so, we find ourselves returning to the point of the debate – Is Daniel 9:24 one of those Old Testament prophecies that is “concerning” His first coming?  Nothing in either Luke 24:25 or Luke 24:44 precisely indicates such; therefore, neither of these two verses is precisely relevant to the point of the debate.

    I have no desire “to deny the simple words of Scripture” by any means.  Rather, I have a desire to be “rightly dividing” God’s Holy Word of truth with precision in accord with the precise grammar and context that God the Holy Spirit inspired. 

    Concerning Scofield – I believe that any individual who reads through my postings in this discussion-debate can quite clearly observe that I have placed my emphasis upon the grammar and context of the passage (not upon the “Scofield” of the passage).  The foundational authority for my understanding is just that – the precise grammar and context of the passage.  Brother Scofield’s teachings concerning the passage serve as an authority for my understanding of the passage exactly none at all.

    (Note:  It is interesting to me that you would engage in this practice of “throwing Scofield in my face.”  It is interesting since you were the one who, at the beginning of the discussion-debate, made significant request (such that it became a rule of the discussion-debate) that I not do a search for the beliefs of other partial preterists, and then apply the resulting information to you.  So then, Brother Day, are you now practicing a double standard?)

    ________________________________________

    By its very nature, the phrase, “we should expect,” indicates human assumption and expectation.  However, human assumption and expectation is not at all the authority for Bible study and Biblical understanding.  The Lord our God’s wisdom and ways are far above human wisdom and ways.  Therefore, it is far better to accept what God’s Word says according to precise grammatical and contextual study, than to expect what God’s Word meant according to human assumptions.

    As I have indicated above, not one New Testament passage precisely indicates that it is a fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th “week” of years.  It is only your method of human assumptions and loose generalities that makes this application.  Does any New Testament passage speak precisely concerning our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion?  Certainly.  Does any New Testament passage state precisely that the event of our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion was a part of Daniel’s 70th “week” of years?  No, not one.  Does Daniel 9:26 state precisely that the event of our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion was to be within the 70th “week” of years?  No, it does not; for Daniel 9:26 does not directly mention the 70th “week” of years at all; and then Daniel 9:27 begins by directly mentioning the beginning of that very 70th “week” of years.

    Furthermore, your method of human assumption finds another difficulty.  If (for the sake of the argument) by the method of human assumption, we humanly assume and expect the events of the 70th “week” to follow immediately upon the end of the 69th “week,” and thus humanly assume and expect Daniel 9:26 to present those events because it follows immediately after verse 25 – then we should also humanly assume and expect all of the events of Daniel 9:26 to fall within the 70th “week,” since Daniel 9:24 only speaks concerning 70 “weeks” being determined upon the Daniel’s people, the children of Israel (not 70 “weeks” plus some time more), and because Daniel 9:26 and its events are presented before verse 27 wherein the 70th “week” is still being specifically referenced.  Not a single statement of Daniel 9:24-27 precisely speaks concerning anything after the 70 “weeks” that were determined; therefore, by human assumption and expectation, we should expect every detail of the prophetic utterance to be a part of the 70 “weeks” of years (which even your position denies).

    Yes, we are agreed.

    Indeed, we are still agreed, especially on the fact that Daniel 9:26 does not necessarily speak concerning events that are during the 70th and final “week” of years.  The difference and disagreement between us is that I would place the events of Daniel 9:26 between the end of the first 69 “weeks” of years as recorded in verse 25 and the beginning of the 70th “week” of years as recorded in verse 27, just as verse 26 was arranged by the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit to be between verse 25 and verse 27 – whereas you would indicate that the events of Daniel 9:26 occur during and beyond the 70th “week” of years.

    Indeed, we know by historical record that our Lord Jesus Christ, “the Messiah the Prince,” was crucified approximately 3.5 years after His baptism.  Furthermore, we know by historical record that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was approximately another 40 years after that.  Finally, we know by historical record that “the end of the war” (if we view this as a reference only to that immediate conflict, and do not view this as a reference to the ongoing conflict between Rome and the children of Israel that has continued unto this very day) occurred even some number of years after that.  As such, by historical record we know that the prophesied events of Daniel 9:26 extend after our Lord’s baptism to a time period of 44+ years.  That is quite a bit longer than one “week” of years.  In fact, this is so because Daniel 9:26 not even once precisely states that it is prophesying concerning events that would fall within the 70th and final “week” of years.  Rather, the beginning of that 70th and final “week” of years is not precisely mentioned until the beginning of Daniel 9:27, which then proceeds to mention precisely the middle of that 70th and final “week” and the consummation of that 70th and final “week.”

    Herein, we are fully agreed.

    Your use of the word “naturally” in the above statement reveals you reliance upon human assumption.

    Your above conclusion (“so runs from . . .”) is founded upon your human assumption (“the 70th week naturally . . .”).  I myself reject that human assumption (as I have revealed many times throughout this discussion-debate) based precisely upon the Holy Spirit inspired information and arrangement of Daniel 9:25, Daniel 9:26, and Daniel 9:27.

    _____________________________________

    Now, concerning the three elements of detail in Daniel 9:27.

    1.  To whom does the pronoun “he” make reference?

    My own answer has been given previously, as follows:

    Grammatically and contextually, there are two possible antecedents for the pronoun “he” in Daniel 9:27.  The first of these is “the Messiah the Prince.”  The second is “the prince that shall come.”  Three times throughout the context of Daniel 9:24-26 the Messiah is referenced, and each time He is referenced with an exalted title, as follows: (1) “the Most Holy” in verse 24, (2) “the Messiah the Prince” in verse 25, and (3) “Messiah” in verse 26.  Considering that such exalted titles are used for Him in each of these prior cases, it seems out of contextual character then to reference Him in verse 27 simply with the pronoun “he” for all three uses.  Furthermore, when the pronoun “he” could have been used for the Messiah in verse 26 without any ambiguity from the context of verse 25 (since the other “he,” “the prince that shall come,” had not even been mentioned yet in the context), still the exalted title “Messiah” was employed.  As such, this seems to emphasize the characteristic of this context to reference the Messiah only with exalted terminology.  On the other hand, by referring to “the prince that shall come” with such a more general and less exalted phrasing, it would fit the character of the context quite well then to reference him in verse 27 with the simple pronoun “he.”  Furthermore, it is a common principle of communication (although not a universal principle) to arrange the antecedent for a pronoun as the closest possibility, which “the prince that shall come” would be in the contextual flow of thought from verse 26 unto verse 27.  As such, the grammatical and contextual evidence seems to point unto “the prince that shall come” as the correct antecedent for the pronoun “he” in Daniel 9:27, rather than “the Messiah the Prince.” 

    Even so, I myself would contend that the “he” of Daniel 9:27 refers to some political leader of the Roman kingdom (within the context of its “iron and clay mixed” form as a religious force) “shall come” unto Jerusalem and “shall confirm” some specific “covenant” with some “many” (presumably, in this context, a “many” from among the children of Israel).  Furthermore, I myself would contend that this “prince” from the Roman kingdom “shall confirm” this specific “covenant” only and specifically for a period of “one week” (or, for a period of 7 years), even as the modifying prepositional phrase, “for one week,” directly indicates.  Finally, I myself would contend that this confirming of this specific “covenant” will initiate the beginning of the 70th and final “week” (of years) of the 70 “weeks” that were determined by the Lord God to be administered “upon” Daniel’s people, the children of Israel.

    Brother Day’s answer has also been given previously (here), as follows:

    Yet it should be noted that Daniel did not precisely reference the Messiah even one time throughout His prayer of confession and supplication.  Furthermore, it should be noted that Daniel’s primary request of supplication was for the Lord God to turn away His anger and fury from the city of Jerusalem (see Daniel 9:16, 18) and to cause His favor to shine upon the temple in Jerusalem (see Daniel 9:17).  Indeed, the Messiah is not first mentioned throughout the context of Daniel 9 until Daniel 9:24.  To make the claim that the Messiah is the theme of the entire context of Daniel 9 is not discovered through the method of precise grammatical and contextual analysis, but through the method of human assumption.  So then, each member of the audience must now make a decision as to the authoritative basis for his or her own conclusion on this matter.

    2.  To what specific covenant does the phrase “the covenant” make reference?

    My own answer has been given previously, as follows:

    The use of the definite article “the” in the phrase “the covenant” seems to indicate that this “covenant” is some definitely specific covenant.  However, no further description is given in Daniel 9:27 concerning this “covenant,” or even in the full context of Daniel 9:24-27, by which to specifically define this “covenant.”  Therefore, we must consider the broader context of the entire chapter of Daniel 9 and of the entire book of Daniel.  In so doing, we find one other reference to a covenant with the definite article “the” in Daniel 9, in Daniel 9:4.  Furthermore, we find five other references to a covenant with the definite article “the” in Daniel 11, in Daniel 11:22, 28, 30 (2), 32. 

    In Daniel 9:4 Daniel indicated that the Lord God was keeping (in the present tense of Daniel’s time) “the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments.”  So then, what “the covenant” was the Lord God keeping with His people at that present time?  It would seem most likely that Daniel was referring to the covenant that the Lord God had made with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai during Moses’ time.  This would seem to be supported when we consider the similarity in terminology, as per Moses’ declaration unto the children of Israel in Deuteronomy 7:12-13, saying, “Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: and he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.”  Furthermore, this would seem to be supported when we consider Daniel’s own reference unto “the law of Moses” in Daniel 9:11-13, saying, “Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.  And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem.  As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth.”  Finally, within their context every one of the five references to “the covenant” or “the holy covenant” in Daniel 11 also appears to be a reference unto the covenant that the Lord God had made with the children of Israel at Mount Sinai.

    So then, in what way will the “he” of Daniel 9:27 “confirm” the Lord God’s covenant with the children of Israel that He had made with them at Mount Sinai?   In order to answer this question, it might be of value to consider the opposite behavior as presented in Daniel 11:30-31.  Therein we learn of a foreign ruler who would “have indignation against the holy covenant,” which he would demonstrate by polluting “the sanctuary of strength” (that is – the temple in Jerusalem) and by taking away “the daily sacrifice” from being engaged.  Even so, if having indignation against “the holy covenant” is to pollute the temple and to take away the sacrificial system from the temple, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that confirming “the covenant” would be to support the temple and the engagement of the sacrificial system in the temple.

    Even so, I myself would contend that some political leader of the Roman kingdom (within the context of its “iron and clay mixed” form as a religious force) “shall come” unto Jerusalem and “shall confirm the covenant with many” among the children of Israel for a seven year period (“one week”), such that there shall be an agreement that those “many” among the children of Israel will be permitted to engage in the sacrificial system of the temple for that period of time.

    From his immediately previous posting, Brother Day’s answer appears to be as follows:

    However, the understanding that the phrase “the covenant” in Daniel 9:27 is a reference to the new covenant that was established at our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion with His shed blood and sacrificial death has a timing problem.  Daniel 9:27 reveals that the “he” of the verse would “confirm the covenant” for the period of “one week,” thus indicating that this confirmation of this covenant will be initiated at the beginning of the 70th and final “week” of years.  If we accept for the sake of the argument that the 70th “week” of years began with our Lord Jesus Christ’s baptism, and if we accept for the sake of the argument that the “the covenant” of Daniel 9:27 is the new covenant in our Lord Jesus Christ’s blood, then we are moved to ask – How did our Lord Jesus Christ confirm the new covenant at His baptism 3.5 years before the new covenant was even created in His blood?  No, even if I accepted the argument that the 70th and final “week” of years began immediately at the end of the first 69 “weeks” of years and with the baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ, I could not accept that “the covenant” of Daniel 9:27 is the new covenant in Christ’s blood; for the method of precise detail would not allow for this.

    Yet Brother Day adds further in his immediately previous posting, as follow:

    However, in Acts 3:25 the apostle Peter revealed precisely the covenant about which he was speaking.  Peter was speaking about the covenant which the Lord God had made with the patriarchal fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-Israel.  Furthermore, Peter even specified the specific, singular promise of that covenant about which he was speaking – “. . . saying unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.”  As such, Peter was not speaking about every detail of every single promise that the Lord God had made unto the patriarchal fathers, but only about this one specific, singular promise.

    In addition, in Romans 15:8 the apostle Paul also specified the divine promises about which he was indicating that our Lord Jesus Christ had confirmed.  Paul specified that our Lord Jesus Christ confirmed the promises that the Lord God had made unto “the fathers,” that is – either the promises that the Lord God had made unto the patriarchal fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-Israel, or the promises that the Lord God had made unto the exodus fathers at Mount Sinai through Moses (and repeated to the next generation in Deuteronomy).  Furthermore, the continuing context of Romans 15:9-12 reveals the specific element of those promises that the apostle Paul was seeking to specify, that is – that the gospel of eternal salvation from sin was for all mankind, not only to the circumcision (the children of Israel), but also to the Gentiles.  As such, Paul was not speaking about every detail of every single promise that the Lord God had made unto the patriarchal fathers or the exodus fathers, but only about this one element of promise.

    In 1 Peter 2:9-10 does the apostle Peter indicate that New Testament believers are “now the people of God” as a replacement for the children of Israel, or in addition to the children of Israel?

    Indeed, although not every single prophetic utterance that they delivered concerning those days, every prophet from Samuel forward had foretold of our Lord Jesus Christ’s first coming.  Indeed, even the closing line of Daniel 9:25 and the opening line of Daniel 9:26 foretold of those days.  (However, this does not mean that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 concerned those days.)  Indeed, the audience to whom Peter was speaking at that time were the children of the Old Testament prophets and of the Old Testament covenants; for they were all members of the children of Israel.  Indeed, God the Father had sent forth His only-begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, as Savior to bless the children of Israel with eternal salvation from their sinful iniquities in accord with the promise that He had made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-Israel; for the children of Israel are indeed a part of “all the kindreds of the earth.”

    Indeed, the apostle Peter did not speak concerning the fulfillment of the many detailed promises that the Lord God had promised to fulfill for the children of Israel in the new covenant.  This is because in context Peter was speaking to New Testament believers concerning the eternal salvation of their souls.  He was not speaking in context to the children of Israel concerning the restoration blessings that the Lord God had promised unto them.  Brother Day teaches as if these two categories of truth are mutually exclusive, that they cannot both be true.  However, God’s Holy Word teaches them both as truth in accord with God’s divine promises.

    4.  What does it mean that this “he” will “cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease”?

    My own answer has been given previously, as follows:

    The second independent statement (clause) of Daniel 9:27 states, “And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”  This statement clearly indicates that this event will occur “in the midst of the week,” that is – at the 3.5 year point of the 7 years for which “the covenant” had originally been confirmed.  What then will this “he” do at this time?  He personally “shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”  He will cause the sacrificial system of the temple in Jerusalem to cease being engaged.  He will no longer permit sacrifices and oblations to continue.  Now, if it is correct that the confirming of “the covenant” would be an agreement to permit the engagement of the sacrificial system in the temple, then this act would be a direct violation of the agreement of that confirming of “the covenant.”

    To this I would add that grammatically the infinitive “to cease” does not possess any modifiers.  This phrase means just what it says – At the prophesied time, the sacrifice and the oblations will be made to stop, to cease happening, to cease existing.  To add a modifier such as “to cease being effective or acceptable in God’s sight” is to add unto that which God the Holy Spirit inspired.  Even to add such a phrase as “to create the cause whereby the sacrifice and oblation would eventually cease” is to add unto that which God the Holy Spirit inspired.  (By the way, such also changes the action verb “cause” to a noun, and thereby changes the grammatical meaning of that which God the Holy Spirit inspired.)

    From his immediately previous posting, Brother Day’s answer appears to be as follows:

    Even so, Brother Day acknowledges that the sacrifice and oblation did not cease occurring at the time of our Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion.  Rather, he indicates that these sacrifices and oblations were now an abomination before the Lord God.  Thereby he implies that these sacrifices and oblations had ceased, not in their occurrence, but in their effectiveness and acceptableness before the Lord God.

    ____________________________________________

    Neither 1 Peter 1:10-12 or Hebrews 11:39-40 precisely speaks concerning the restoration and land promises to the children of Israel.  As such, it is not even possible for them to indicate those promises about which they do not even speak are now mine as a New Testament believer.  (Ah, the method of loose generalities versus the method of precise details.)

    I fully agree and have never denied that the gospel of eternal salvation from sin through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son, as Savior is for all mankind at the present time.  I have never once indicated that this gospel truth is only for a “remnant of a future generation of Israelites after Jesus returns.”  Rather, I have argued from the promises of God’s Holy Word that the restoration and land promises are for the entirety of a future generation of the children of Israel at the time of our Lord’s Second Coming, as per Jeremiah 31:31-40; 32:37-42; Ezekiel 36:21-38; 37:19-28; Romans 11:25-27.

    Finally, concerning the millennial (1,000 year) reign of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the earth after His Second Coming, God’s Holy Word in Revelation 19:11 – 20:9 is quite precise on the subject.

    _______________________________________________

    Asking precise questions concerning the precise promises of God’s Holy Word is not rhetoric, it is “rightly dividing.”  The fulfillment of the prophetic utterances in God’s Holy Word are to be considered according to the principle of precise detail. (See Deuteronomy 18:20-22)  Now then, Zacharias, speaking as an Old Testament member of the children of Israel, spoke concerning two of the promises that the Lord God had made unto the children of Israel, as follows: (1) “that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us,” and (2) “that he would grant unto us, that we, being delivered out of the hand of our enemies [as per the first promise], might serve him without fear [of our enemies], in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of or life.”  In accord with the principle of precise detail, I then asked the following two questions:

    (1)  So then, at the time of the Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, did the Lord God fulfill His holy covenant concerning the children of Israel, which He made with Abraham, such that they were delivered out of the hand of their enemies and all that hated them? 

    (2)  Are the children of Israel now serving the Lord their God “without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him,” all the days of their lives? 

    In answer to the first question, Brother Day presented John 16:33 and Romans 8:28-39, and then declared that the answer of Scripture is a resounding “YES!”  However, neither of these passages speaks concerning the children of Israel; therefore also, neither of these passages speaks concerning the children of Israel being delivered from any of their enemies, not to mention all of their enemies and those that hate them.  In fact, even concerning the New Testament believer, in John 16:33 our Lord did not promise deliverance from all of our enemies, but actually taught that we most certainly would experience tribulation in this world.  Furthermore, Romans 8:36 teaches that we New Testament believers “are killed all the day long” and “are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”  Yes, Romans 8:37 declares that “in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.”  Yet this is not because we are delivered from these experiences, but because although we must suffer these experiences, none of them “shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (See Romans 8:39)  Even so, the method of precise detail reveals the faultiness in the method of loose generalities.

    In answer to the second question, even Brother Day must admit the following:

    ____________________________________________

    Throughout this discussion-debate it has become apparent to me that the primary disagreement between Brother Day and myself is not over Daniel 9:24-27, but is over the method of Bible study itself.  Therefore, with my conclusion to this concluding post of the discussion-debate, I wish to provide a warning unto the members of the audience.  The Lord our God desires that we should study His Holy Word according to the principle of precise detail, “rightly dividing” precisely in accord with the precise pattern that God the Holy Spirit has inspired.  Indeed, in Deuteronomy 8:3 the Lord our God teaches the truth that we do not live by physical food alone, but “by every word” that has proceeded out of His mouth as recorded in His Holy Word.  In Matthew 5:18 our Lord Jesus Christ indicated the importance of every “jot and tittle” in God’s Holy Word, indicating that not even one of them would pass “till all be fulfilled.”  Even so, any Bible study or Bible teaching that follows a method of loose generalities, wherein things that are not precisely presented in God’s Word as the same are claimed to be the same, should be rejected as faulty.  Indeed, when a Biblical position teaches us that there is “no need to study every detail” of the truths and promises of God’s Word concerning a matter, or that there is no need to ask concerning specific details of truth on a matter because it would be superfluous to do so, then that position of belief should be viewed with spiritual suspicion.  

  2. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic Source of Doctrine   

    Well now, if God's Holy Word speaks to a subject at all, then there is Biblical doctrine (teaching) concerning that subject.  Let us just consider the first one -- predestination.  The King James translation employs the verb "predestinate" four times (Romans 8:29, 30: Ephesians 1:5, 11).  Therefore, there is a Bible doctrine of predestination.  Whether or not that Biblical doctrine is the same in its details as the Calvinistic doctrine is another matter, but there certainly is a Biblical doctrine thereof.
  3. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic Shepherding the Flock - Audio Sermons - I Have Set Thee A Watchman   

    Brother Smith,
    If this is comfortable place for you to do so, then you may ask your questions here in this thread.  In this manner, the questions and the answers may provide help to others also.
    (Concerning the rss autofeed - It is the autofeed page here at Online Baptist that has not been working for months.  Months ago I contacted Brother Matt about the problem, but he was unable to find a fix.  This is the reason, not only that my blog posts are not autofeeding, but also that Brother David W. Cloud's and other's postings are also not autofeeding anymore in the "Baptist RSS Autofeed" page.)
  4. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic Comment On Current Debate   

    Brother Ken,
    1.  Concerning the English word "flood."
    The English word "flood" is a part of the English word family that is based in the English word "flow."  As such, the basic meaning for the English word "flood" is "flowing over, or overflowing."  In common communication the word "flood" usually refers to an overflowing of water.  However, the English word "flood" can also be used for an overflowing of other things, such as -- a flood of money, or flood of problems, or a flood of customers, etc.
    2.  Concerning the Hebrew word "nahar."
    I do not believe that this Hebrew word has any direct relevancy to our study of Daniel 9:26, since this is not Hebrew word that was employed under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit in Daniel 9:26.
    3.  Concerning the Hebrew noun "sheteph."
    The basic meaning for this Hebrew noun is the same as the basic meaning for the English word "flood," that is -- "overflowing."  As you have noted above, this Hebrew noun is employed six times throughout the Old Testament Scriptures.  
    In Job 38:25 the word clearly refers to the overflowing of waters, as follows -- "Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder."  
    In Psalm 32:6 the word also refers to the overflowing of water; however, in this context this overflowing of water is employed as a picturesque figure for an abundance of circumstantial troubles, as follows -- "For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him. Thou art my hiding place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance. Selah."  (verse 6-7)
    In Proverbs 27:4 the word clearly does not refer to the overflowing of water, but to the overflowing offense and damage of sinful anger, as follows -- "Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?"
    Daniel 9:26 is the passage in question and under discussion.
    In Daniel 11:22 the word clearly does not refer to the overflowing of water, but to the overflowing of "arms" (that is -- not of the body parts, but of armed forces, as in Daniel 11:15, 31), as follows -- "And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant."
    In Nahum 1:8 the word appears in its context to refer, not to the overflowing of water, but to the overflowing of the fire of God's fierce and furious indignation and judgment, as follows -- "Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him. The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him. But with an overrunning flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies."
    So then, from an examination of the five passages other the one in question (Daniel 9;26), we learn that the Hebrew word "sheteph," although referencing an overflowing, does not necessary refer to the overflowing of water.  What then about Daniel 9:26?  In order to understand the intended meaning in this passage, we must consider the context.  First, the context of Daniel 9:26 itself clearly is speaking concerning the destructive force of armies against Jerusalem.  Second, the only other usage of this Hebrew word in the broader context of the entire book of Daniel (Daniel 11:22) employs the word in relation to the overflowing of armed forces.  Third, the verb form ("shahtaph") of this Hebrew noun is also employed four times in the book of Daniel (in Daniel 11:10, 22, 26, 40), wherein it is translated as "overflow" three times and "overflown" one time.  In every one of these cases, this Hebrew appears also to be referencing the overflowing of armies and military forces.  As such, through this contextual study, I am moved to conclude the Hebrew noun "sheteph" is employed in Daniel 9:26 also in reference, not to the overflowing of water, but to the overflowing of armies and military forces.
    Brother Ken, I pray that this will be of help to answer your question.
     
  5. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic Shepherding the Flock - Audio Sermons - I Have Set Thee A Watchman   

    A couple of "likes," and a positive comment.  Let me ask you brothers - Do you desire that I should continue to post my sermons on Online Baptist in this fashion.  Or, would you rather just track my sermons through my web and blog site - www.shepherdingtheflock.com and our church website - www.melvinbatistchurch.com?  (Note: The sermons that I post through my blog used to automatically post also on Online Baptist through the rss autofeed; however, the autofeed has not been working for months.)
  6. Pastor Scott Markle added a topic in The Lounge   

    Shepherding the Flock - Audio Sermons - I Have Set Thee A Watchman
    I am trying something new.  If it works, you will know.  If it does not work, then this posting will have nothing more therein; and this thread will be dead before it began.
    IT DID NOT WORK.
    ________________________________________________________________
    I will now engage in a different method.  It is not one that I prefer, and I will not likely engage in such again.  However . . .
    1.  http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=122014144854
    2.  http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1220141519118
    3.  http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12201416184
    4.  http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1220141619424
    5.  http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1220141638520
     
    • 6 replies
    • 109 views
  7. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic Problem with automatic merging of postings.   

    Even after 22 hours from my last posting, if I attempt another consecutive posting, it automatically merges my posts.  In the case of some threads, at times I am "bombarded" by various individuals from various directions.  How can I individually and appropriately answer each of these individuals if my postings continue to merge automatically, and that even hours later?
  8. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic Comment On Current Debate   

    Brother Day,
    I wish herein to express a thank you, to express an agreement, to express a disagreement, to ask a further question, to express greater Biblical precision, and to express a form of reproof. 
    Indeed, I had already read your sermon before my earlier posting.  Concerning the thank you -- I wish to thank you for how swiftly and clearly you delivered your answer to my above questions.
     
    Concerning the expression of agreement -- With these two answers I would be in full agreement.  I would only add that some of those Old Testament prophetic utterances also speak concerning events that would occur after the "these days" about which Peter spoke in Acts 3:25, such as those prophetic utterances concerning our Lord Jesus Christ's second coming, such as those prophetic utterances concerning the final resurrection, etc.
    Concerning the expression of disagreement -- I cannot agree that every single prophetic utterance in Daniel 9:24-27 was about the "these days" about which Peter spoke in Acts 3:25.  Daniel 9:25 speaks prophetically concerning the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and concerning troublous times of that rebuilding.  These things actually were fulfilled hundreds of years before the "these days" about which Peter spoke in Acts 3:25.  Even so, not every prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 was to be fulfilled in those days.  Now, if it is possible that some of the prophetic utterances in the passage concerned matters that were to be fulfilled hundreds of years before the "these days" about which Peter spoke, then it is also possible that some of the prophetic utterances in the passage might concern matters that were to be fulfilled hundreds of years after the "these days" about which Peter spoke.  As such, Peter's declaration in Acts 3:25 is no precise evidence at all that all of Daniel 9:24-27 was being fulfilled at that time in those days.
    Concerning my further question -- It appears from the above answer and explanation that you believe that all of the individual covenants that God made along with all of their precise, individual details (such as with Abraham, with the children of Israel at Sinai, with David, and in His promise of a new covenant with the children of Israel) are really just parts and pieces of a single over-arching covenant (which you appear to entitle, "The Covenant Relationship of God with His People").  Am I correct in this understanding concerning your position concerning the covenants?
    Furthermore, it appears from your above statement, "No need to study every detail of the promises concerning the restoration of Israel, nor to propose a future millennial fulfilment. We have a New Covenant relationship now . . . .," that you believe that the precise, individual details of God's promises concerning Israel's restoration are no longer relevant because they have been replaced by the New Covenant in Christ.  Am I correct in this understanding concerning your position? 
    Concerning the expression of greater Biblical precision -- Precisely that for which Daniel prayed in His prayer of confession and supplication was, "O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain . . .," and, "Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake.  O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name . . .," and, "O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name." (See Daniel 9:16-19)  Indeed, precisely that for which Daniel prayed was the Lord's forgiveness upon the children of Israel such that He might turn away His anger and fury from the city of Jerusalem and might cause His face of favor to shine upon the temple in Jerusalem.  In fact, Daniel himself reported in Daniel 9:20 that for which he was praying, saying, "And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God."  Herein Daniel himself indicated that he was confessing the sin of his people Israel, but that he was praying for the holy mountain of God, that is -- not so much for the people, but for the city of Jerusalem and for the temple in Jerusalem.
    Contextually, that which motivated Daniel's prayer for these things was His reading of Jeremiah's prophecies concerning the Lord's promise that He would limit the captivity in Babylon unto seventy years. (See Daniel 9:2)  This may be found in Jeremiah 25:11-12 -- "And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.  And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations."  Furthermore, this may be found in Jeremiah 29:10-14 -- "For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.  And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.  And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive."
    Concerning the form of reproof -- Earlier in this very thread, you yourself (along with Brother "Genevanpreacher" and Brother "Invicta") engaged in significant reproof against me for employing the phrase, "some covenant," in an explanation concerning Daniel 9:27, rather than "the covenant."  With that significant reproof, it was strongly argued that the definite article "the" indicates a specific, singular covenant (with which I fully agree).  However, now you declare that "it is superfluous" for us to discern what that specific, singular covenant is.  So then, the definite article "the" was not superfluous at all, but quite significant when it came to reproving me.  However, now the definite article "the" is not really that significant, but is actually superfluous when it comes to seeking for your position to be precise on which specific, singular covenant the definite article "the" is intended to specify.  This seems like a contradiction and a double standard.
  9. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic Comment On Current Debate   

    Ah, yes, your latest posting in the discussion-debate thread.  I had already considered your presentation in that posting, and it is one of the very reasons that I stated what I did above -- that "maybe I am simply dense, for to this day I am still unable to discern exactly the point that you are seeking to make with this passage [Acts 3:24-26]."  However, at your above challenge, I consulted and considered that posting yet again.  The relevant portion of that posting seems to be the following:
    It appears from the opening lines of this presentation that you believe that Acts 3:24-27 reveals the fulfillment of the phrase in Daniel 9:27 -- "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week."  Even so, your connection between this statement of Daniel 9:27 and the declaration of Acts 3:24-27 appears to be that they both employ the phrase, "the covenant."  However, as I have considered again your presentation on Acts 3:24-27 above, I still am unable to find any clear and precise answers to the questions that I posed above (except maybe for my question #5).  Indeed, since your connection between Daniel 9:27 and Acts 3:24-27 appears to be the mutual use of the phrase, "the covenant," a clear and precise answer to my question #4 above is especially important for me to engage the matter (that is -- "4. Which specific 'the covenant' do you believe that Peter was referencing in Acts 3:35?").  In fact, this raises yet another confusion for me.  Again maybe I am dense; but throughout all of your postings both in the discussion-debate thread and in external threads, I am still unable to determine exactly which specific "the covenant" you believe is being referenced in Daniel 9:27.  Brother, it might be of help to me if you would more directly and precisely answer the specific questions that I have posed concerning this matter --
    1.  Do you believe that this passage (Acts 3:24-27) is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of the Old Testament from Samuel forward was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?
    2.  Do you believe that this passage (Acts 3:24-27) is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?
    3.  Do you believe that this passage (Acts 3:24-27) is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?
    4.  Which specific "the covenant" do you believe that Peter was referencing in Acts 3:25?
    5.  In what way do you believe that this "the covenant" reference relates precisely to that which is presented in Daniel 9:24-27?
    In addition, 6.  What specific "the covenant" do you believe that Daniel 9:27 is referencing?
  10. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic Comment On Current Debate   

    Yes -- specifically (1) because God the Holy Spirit arranged for Daniel 9:25 specifically to mention the ending of the first 69 "weeks" of years, and (2) because God the Holy Spirit arranged for Daniel 9:27 specifically to mention the beginning of the 70th and final "week" of years, and (3) because God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:26 and all of its prophetic utterances to be placed between verse 25 and verse 27, and (4) because God the Holy Spirit arranged for verse 26 not to make any specific reference whatsoever at all unto the 70th and final "week" of years.  Since God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:27 specifically to mention the beginning of the 70th and final "week" of years, then that which He arranged to precede that mention must necessarily come before the beginning of that 70th and final "week" of years.
    Except that my argument is not based on the "simple positioning of the verses."  Rather, it is based upon (1) the specific revelation of those verses in union with (2) the specific arrangement of those verses (as per my comments above).
     ____________________________________________________________________
    Indeed, Brother Day, you have presented this passage a number of times throughout our discussions.  However, maybe I am simply dense; for to this day I am still unable to discern exactly the point that you are seeking to make with this passage.  If you might express more clearly and more precisely how this passage relates to the Biblical information in Daniel 9:24-27, I would be in a better position to respond with understanding.
    1.  Do you believe that this passage is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of the Old Testament from Samuel forward was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?
    2.  Do you believe that this passage is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?
    3.  Do you believe that this passage is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?
    4.  Which specific "the covenant" do you believe that Peter was referencing in Acts 3:25?
    5.  In what way do you believe that this "the covenant" reference relates precisely to that which is presented in Daniel 9:24-27?
  11. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic Comment On Current Debate   

    Well I must have misunderstood, because I thought that you originally presented those arguments in the discussion-debate thread (here) against my grammatical and contextual presentation concerning the use of the coordinating conjunction "and" at the beginning of all the independent statements in Daniel 9:26-27.  Furthermore, I thought that you then presented those same arguments in response to Brother Ken's ("MountainChristian") question (here) specifically concerning my understanding of the conjunction "and" in Daniel 9:26-27, as follows:
    For a poorly educated man like myself, Pastor Scott seems to go out of his way to grow my understanding of English to improve my understanding of the Holy Bible.  How does understanding the English language make Pastor Scott wrong? Did "AND" at the beginning of a sentence prove his interruption [interpretation - spelling correction by Pastor Scott Markle] incorrect? I'm missing something, could one of you point it out. [emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle]
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Maybe you missed it, or maybe you have simply forgotten; but this charge against me has been previously explained in this very thread a number of months ago (here), as follows:
    Brother "Genevanpreacher,"
    In the portion of my posting that you quoted, I employed the modifier "some" twice.  In the first instance, I employed it to modify the word "he," as per the following -- "The opening line of this verse indicates that some 'he' . . . ."  In Daniel 9:27 the pronoun "he" refers to a definitely specific individual.  However, the verse itself does not specifically define who this specific "he" is.  Furthermore, in the previous verse of Daniel 9:26, we find two possible antecedents for this pronoun "he."  Since it was not my intention in my original posting to engage in the extensive discussion required to specify the correct antecedent for this pronoun "he," I employed the modifying "some" in order to communicate both the specific definiteness of the "he" and the lack of a specific definition within the verse for the "he."
    In like manner, I employed the word "some" to modify the word "covenant," as per the following -- ". . . that some 'he' will 'confirm' some 'covenant with many' . . . ."  In Daniel 9:27 the use of the definite article "the" as a modifier for the word "covenant" indicates that this covenant is a definitely specific "covenant."  However, again the verse itself does not specifically define what covenant this specific "covenant" is.  In fact, the definition for this specific "covenant" is not provided anywhere throughout the entire context of Daniel 9:24-27.  Now, I myself believe that an extended study throughout the entire context of the Book of Daniel would provide us with the means to determine the definition of this specific "covenant."  Yet since it was not my intention in my original posting to engage in that extensive study, I employed the modifying "some" in order to communicate both the specific definiteness of "the covenant" and the lack of a specific definition within the verse and the immediate context.
    I suppose that I could have communicated my point more clearly if I had employed the phrase "some specific" instead of just the modifier "some."  As such, my sentence would then read, "The opening line of this verse indicates that some specific 'he' will 'confirm' some specific 'covenant with many' . . . ."   
    Furthermore, I would add that when I employed the word "some" in my explanation, I did not include it within the quotations as if it were a part of the Scriptural text.  Finally, I would point out that the first dictionary definition for the adjective "some" is "1. being a certain one not specified or known."  Even so, my use of the adjective "some" in my explanation is precisely in accord with the Scriptural information that is found in Daniel 9:27.  Both the "he" and the "covenant" of the verse are singular and specific.  However, the verse itself does not specifically define who that singular, specific "he" is or what that singular, specific "covenant" is.  Further contextual analysis is required in order to discern the definition for that "he" and that "covenant" (which was not at all the purpose for my opening, introductory posting).  Indeed, I presented this further contextual analysis later in the discussion-debate thread (here), and thereby demonstrated my recognition concerning the specificity of both the "he" and the "covenant" in Daniel 9:27.
  12. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic Comment On Current Debate   

    Brother Ken,
    I have not forgotten your request.  A more thorough (since you seem to appreciate this, at least a bit more than others) answer is in preparation and is forthcoming (prayerfully before the end of the week).
  13. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic Comment On Current Debate   

    The coordinating conjunction “and” does not automatically indicate “a sequence of events.”  It is a coordinating conjunction.  As such, it indicates the coordination between two grammatical elements, that they are in some fashion related to one another.  This coordination (or relationship) may be in different forms depending upon the context.  However, one of those forms certainly is that of “sequential progression.”  In fact, two of the dictionary definitions for the coordinating conjunction “and” are as follows: “5. As a consequence or result” and “6. Then; following this.”  Now, these are only two of the ten dictionary definitions.  However, these clearly indicate that the coordinating conjunction can indeed indicate a sequential relationship.
     
    None of this is at all relevant to Daniel 9:24-27, since this all concerns the Greek language, whereas Daniel 9:24-27, being in the Old Testament, was originally inspired in the Hebrew language.
     


    This is the second time that Brother Day has presented this passage as an attempt to support his contention concerning the coordinating conjunction “and.”  The first time he presented it in the discussion-debate thread, and I chose to ignore it as possessing no relevancy to the matter of Daniel 9:24-27.  However, with this second presentation, I feel compelled to respond with a contextual examination of the use of the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of the independent statements (clauses) in this passage.  Viewing this passage by a listing of the individual independent statements (clauses) in Mark 10:32-36, we find the following:

    1.  And [sequential after the previous paragraph] they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; 
    2.  And [sequential after statement #2] Jesus went before them:
    3.  And [sequential after statement #3] they were amazed;
    4.  And [sequential after statement #4] as they followed, they were afraid.
    5.  And [sequential after statement #5] he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, saying,
           6.  Behold, we go up to Jerusalem;
           7.  And [sequential after statement #6, within Jesus’ report] the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes;
           8.  And [sequential after statement #7, within Jesus’ report] they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:
           9.  And [sequential after statement #8, within Jesus’ report] they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him:
         10.  And [sequential after statement #9, within Jesus’ report] the third day he shall rise again.
    11.  And [sequential after statement #5 and the previous paragraph] James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.
    12.  And [sequential after statement #11] he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?


    According to the earlier context of Mark 10:17, the Lord Jesus began a journey (apparently, as per Mark 10:32, unto Jerusalem), but was stopped by the one whom we call “the rich young ruler.”  Then Jesus engaged in a conversation with this “rich young ruler.” (See Mark 10:17-22)  Following that, Jesus engaged in a conversation with his disciples about the rich entering into the kingdom of God. (See Mark 10:23-27)  Following that, Jesus answered a question that Peter presented unto Him. (See Mark 10:28-31)  Following that, Jesus reengaged his journey unto Jerusalem; therefore, the conjunction “and” at the beginning of the sentence that begins the new paragraph (at the beginning of Mark 10:32) signals a sequential progression from the events of the paragraph before it.

    The next independent statement (clause) of Mark 10:32 then indicates that as the Lord Jesus and the disciples began the journey, Jesus walked more vigorously out ahead of the disciples.  Thus the conjunction “and” at the beginning of this independent statement signals a sequential progression in the events.  The next independent statement (clause) of Mark 10:32 then indicates that in response to the Lord’s more vigorous walking out ahead of them, the disciples began to be “amazed.”  Thus the conjunction “and” at the beginning of this independent statement also signals a sequential progression in the events.  The next independent statement (clause) of Mark 10:32 then indicates that as the disciples continued to follow after the Lord’s vigorous travel pace, they transitioned from being “amazed” to being “afraid.”  Thus the conjunction “and” at the beginning of this independent statement also signals a sequential progression in the events.  The next independent statement (clause) of Mark 10:32 then indicates that the Lord responded to the disciples fear by stopping to present a revelation concerning what was about to “happen unto Him.” (See also Matthew 20:17)  Thus the conjunction “and” at the beginning of this independent statement also signals a sequential progression in the events. 

    In Mark 10:33-34 we then find the Biblical record of our Lord Jesus’ revelation and report unto the disciple, presented grammatical as a quotation of the Lord.  The first independent statement (clause) of this quotation does not begin with the conjunction “and,” but with the verb “behold.”  However, every other independent statement (clause) of our Lord’s quoted revelation and report does begin with the conjunction “and” (#7-10 on our listing above of the individual independent statements).  Furthermore, for each of these four independent statements (clauses) of our Lord’s quoted revelation and report, the conjunction “and” at the beginning of the statement (clause) signals a sequential progression concerning the events that the Lord was revealing and reporting.

    Then Mark 10:35 begins a new paragraph, wherein James and John seek to ask a favor of the Lord for themselves.  Thus the conjunction “and” at the beginning of the first independent statement (clause) of this new paragraph, as presented in Mark 10:35, signals a sequential progression from the events of the previous paragraph.  Mark 10:36 then records that after James and John made their request for a favor, the Lord asked them concerning what favor they would desire Him to do for them.  Thus the conjunction “and” at the beginning of this independent statement (clause) of Mark 10:36 also signals a sequential progression in the events.

    In fact, throughout this passage every time that the coordinating conjunction “and” is found at the beginning of an independent statement (clause), it actually signals a sequential progression in the events.  Even so, whereas Brother Day sought to provide this example as an argument against my understanding for the use of the conjunction “and” at the beginning of the independent statements (clauses) in Daniel 9:26-27, this example actually supports my position, rather than opposes it.
     


    I have already responded to this as follows:

    It is true that the rules of English grammar forbid the use of common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences in formal writing.  However, the language in which God the Holy Spirit inspired the Holy Scriptures was not English.  Rather, the original languages of Holy Spirit inspiration were Hebrew (for the Old Testament) and Greek (for the New Testament).  Now, in both Hebrew and Greek it is grammatically acceptable and common to use a common conjunction at the beginning of sentences.  Even so, out of reverence for Holy Spirit inspiration and for the sake of translational accuracy, the translators of the King James translation included these conjunctions at the beginning of sentences (and even paragraphs) in their translation.

    So then, it is true that the customary English grammar rule concerning formal English writing, that a sentence should not begin with a common conjunction, is not followed in the King James translation of Biblical Scripture.  However, it is both accepted and common to employ the common conjunction at the beginning of an English sentence in non-formal English writing.  Furthermore, when this occurs, that common conjunction at the beginning of the sentence possesses a regular and recognizable grammatical meaning, which is also true when such occurs in Biblical Scripture.  However, in the King James translation of the Biblical Scriptures, conjunctions are commonly found at the beginning of independent sentences, not because Biblical Scripture is considered non-formal writing, but in order to maintain translational accuracy from the original, Holy Spirit inspired Hebrew and Greek writings.
     


    I myself would NEVER dare to engage in this “exercise,” for it would require me to “take away” words from the Holy Scriptures that God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired to be included in the precise grammatical arrangement that He intended.  I do not believe that I possess any authority from God so to “take away” from the words that the Holy Spirit inspired.  Nor do I believe that I know better than the Holy Spirit, such that I might “correct” His grammatical arrangements.  Rather, I believe that every single word (including the conjunction "and" at the beginning of independent statements-sentences) which God the Holy Spirit inspired in the precise grammatical arrangement wherein He inspired it possesses precise significance for that which He intended to communicate within God's Holy Word.  I WILL NOT engage in an exercise that requires me to make changes thereto.

  14. Pastor Scott Markle added a topic in Support / Help Desk   

    Problem with automatic merging of postings.
    Ok, lately when I post more than one post consecutively in a thread, my postings are automatically merging.  
    When I am engaged in a discussion with more than one individual within the same thread, I certainly do not want this automatic merging to happen.  I want to be able to respond separately to each individual with whom I am engaging.  Can someone help me to fix this problem.  (Note: Everything worked fine earlier on the Friday afternoon of August 14, 2015; but it began to automatically merge my posting later in the evening on the same Friday of August 14, 2015.)
    • 3 replies
    • 102 views
  15. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic Comment On Current Debate   

    And I am just as sure that there is a "gap," not based upon the teaching of the Brethren or upon the authority of silence, but upon the authority of the Holy Spirit's arranged "betweeness," that is -- in that God the Holy Spirit arranged for the first 69 "weeks" to be directly mentioned in Daniel 9:25, in that God the Holy Spirit arranged for the 70th and final week to be directly mention in Daniel 9:27, and in that God the Holy Spirit arranged for Daniel 9:26 and all of its prophesied events to be between the two.