wretchedMember Since 31 Dec 2012
Offline Last Active Today, 08:18 PM
- Group *Independent Fundamental Baptist
- Active Posts 516
- Profile Views 2,345
- Member Title Senior Member
- Age 51 years old
- Birthday August 14, 1963
Are you IFB?
Posted by Standing Firm In Christ on 19 December 2014 - 11:30 PM
Further research reveals that the doctrine was said to be invented by either Luis De Alcazar, or by John Henten (also known as Hentenius)... both Roman Catholic Jesuits.
Posted by Steve Schwenke on 18 December 2014 - 10:09 PM
As to the eschatology threads, for the most part they are a waste. The main contributors are obviously in debate mode, not discussion mode. Each side firmly committed to putting forth their view as the only possible acceptable view while at the same time firmly committed to attacking opposing views.
Therefore, these threads are always argumentative and combative. They serve no good because of the antagonism they breed.
There have always been those within IFB holding to slightly or more broadly different eschatological views. That was part of the "independent" aspect and eschatological views were not considered a fundamental matter.
Unless there are those willing to actually discuss eschatology with open minds, giving serious consideration to views presented and giving serious examination to whatever view currently held to see if it holds up, needs modified or may perhaps be wrong, there is little profit in getting into the subject here.
The highlighted portion of John's post is the source of my frustration. I joined this forum (and a few others) not to debate, but to be a source of encouragement and help. My expectation with other members is to do the same.
There are some people who have legitimate questions regarding eschatology that should be answered, but it is impossible to get a SOUND answer on this forum because of the many various systems of interpretation present.
The frustration comes out because our side has taken great pains to show the many problems with preterism, partial-preterism, a-millenialism, etc., and in great detail. Our posts are not given any SERIOUS examination, but are blithely dismissed by a misappropriated verse, some undocumented historical reference that is questionable, or some ad hominem against a mythiical "inventor" of the futurist viewpoint.
I have given suggestions for reading and study, only to be told that after "trying" to read a little bit, it seemed to confusing, so they ditched it. Well, that attitude does not demonstrate any serious consideration from the other side. I HAVE seriously considered the other side, and find it full of holes, which we routinely point out. That is why I reject the opposing view point - it raises more questions than it answers.
There are some aspects about eschatalogy within the futurist point of view that we COULD have good discussions on, but anytime somebody starts a thread on end times events, the preterists high-jack the thread, and off we go again.
That is exactly why some of us have loudly protested the inclusion of professed preterists (or partial preterists) on the forum, since the vast majority of us are futurist in our beliefs. All they do is stir up strife and confusion, all in the name of trying to "teach" the Scriptures, and the rest of us are not allowed to have a rational DISCUSSION of varying aspects of a system that we can largely agree on.
Yes, frustrating indeed.
Posted by John81 on 18 December 2014 - 09:19 AM
I won't go into any detail here so as not to disrupt the thread, but there is little difference between the Geneva Bible and the KJB. The translators of the KJB used and reviewed the Geneva Bible (as they did some others) in the translating of the KJB.
The real problem with the Geneva Bible is with regards to the notes. While most of the notes are sound and acceptable to most of us, there are those dealing with the issue of predestination and election which have a "Calvinist" take. That's why non-Calvinists didn't like the Geneva Bible, because of those notes which gave a "Calvinist" explanation to certain verses. That's also one of the reasons King James wanted a new Bible for English people and insisted there be no notes.
Posted by Jordan Kurecki on 17 December 2014 - 06:21 PM
Repent, in itself, cannot possibly mean to turn from or feel sorry for sin... Unless you are willing to call God a sinner "And God REPENTED of the evil that he said he would do unto them and did it not." Jonah 3:10.
Look up the word repentance in the KJV. God repents more than anyone else in the entire bible. Repent simply means to change your mind. If we had to 'turn from' or 'be willing to turn' from our sins to be saved, that would be works salvation. Anyone who teaches lordship salvation, or repent of your sins salvation is an heretic out of hell.
Turning from your sins is works.
"And God saw their WORKS, that they turned from their evil way." Jonah 3:10
it depends upon what you mean by turn from your sins, if you mean stop those sins, then yes that's a work, but you have to repent of sin in order to be saved, in that you must be willing to change your mind about sin as something that you desire to be saved from, The Rich Young Ruler went away from Jesus sorrowful because of his sin of covetousness, he should have turned from his covetousness and turned to Christ for salvation, instead he went away sorrowful because of his love of possessions.
Some people love their sin too much to really turn to Christ, this love of sin and refusing to turn away from it keeps people from being born again.
You absolutely have to repent of sin to be saved, no one will be every truly be saved without the Spirit convicting of sin and a turning to Christ for salvation.
By the way, the bible says repentance is a gift from God.
2Ti_2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
Repentance is a grace that God offers to all who will choose to accept it, any person can repent of their sin if God draws them in conviction... many reject this drawing unfortunately, but accepting his drawing and the repentance is not a work.
Posted by heartstrings on 17 December 2014 - 06:05 PM
Works will result from true repentance; but repentance can only take place in the heart and only by free will.
Maybe this will explain better: repentance can't happen without turning to Jesus in faith.. I've heard some say that you "Take God's side against yourself".
See Luke 18:13. You will find, in this verse, a man dealing with sin, righteousness and judgment.
Posted by Steve Schwenke on 16 December 2014 - 11:46 PM
Pastor Markle explained v. 24 within the context of the entire passage.
Apparently you prefer to pluck the verse from its explanatory context.
(somehow, I am not surprised.)
V. 24 summarises the force of the prophecy. The succeeding verses may be "explanatory context" but they cannot be interpreted in a way that destroys the primary context. See my reply to Scott.
The distinction that you are failing to comprehend is that the way God deals with a corporate nation - any nation, whether it be Jew or Gentile - is far different from the way God deals with an individual - any individual, Jew or Gentile. An individual can experience the New Birth - salvation through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. A nation as a corporate body cannot be "born again." If the saved individuals within a given national entity have enough influence and political power, they can help shape that nation's moral compass and direction.
We can agree so far.
America is adrift because we have lost our Spiritual, Christian, and Biblical foundations. God's judgement will fall on our nation because our nation as a corporate entity, beginning with our political leadership - federal, state, and local - have abandoned the Biblical plan for governing, and have encouraged unbiblical behaviour in exchange for more tax money and less blackmail - whether real or political.
I agree in general terms, particularly when a nation's leadership acknowledges the Law of God as being of perpetual & universal application, & allows freedom to preach Christ, & convert & live as Christians. That is changing fast, but I don't think God's dealings with corporate nations is relevant to this discussion. The present nation of Israel falls under the same condemnation as American (& Britain.)
God's dealing with the corporate nation of Israel as a group is different from the Gentiles simply because God expects more from them - they are God's chosen people, they were given the written word of God, and they were given the promises and unconditional covenants of the OT, which have yet to be fulfilled in their entirety.
Does that still apply? It was certainly true until the leaders of the nation rejected first their Messiah, then the Apostolic Gospel. The Gospel has now gone out into all the earth. The promises & unconditional covenants of the OT can only be perfectly fulfilled in the NH&NE, not the future millennium as commonly taught. The eternal blessings will not be interrupted by a worldwide rebellion as in Rev. 20. There are many prophecies of a glorious future for Israel. None are of a temporary earthly kingdom.
Consider, e.g. Isaiah 11 & 12. That is a prophecy of Christ on earth, looking on to the spread of the Gospel through all the earth, ultimate on to the time when even the animals will live in peace. And read Eze. 36 - that is a permant & wonderfully blessed state. Surely the end to which God is working through Jesus Christ & the salvation he accomplished. The NH&NE is the perfect fulfilment of prophecy.
It is as clear as day for any Bible reader, UNLESS, you spiritualize everything into a NT context.
That, of course is the key to understanding OT prophecy! "Spiritualising" is not corrupting or allegorising. It is understanding the OT in terms of Jesus & his saving work, & saving purposes. We have the Holy Spirit to teach us the mind of Christ. 1 Cor. 2:11-16 1 Cor. 3:1
We are to "rightly DIVIDE" not "rightly GLUE" everything together. Things that are not the same are not equal. Israel is not the same as the Church. Never has been - never will be. And that is the basis of your confusion on end times prophecy. We recognize that distinction. You try to blend the two distinct entities together.
We have to RIGHTLY understand before we can rightly divide. Note Eze. 26:24-29 with the oft-repeated covenant promise: And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God. God is calling & restoring his people, beginning at Pentecost. Paul claims that covenant promise for Gentiles also - 2 Cor. 6:16
Is the true "Israel" the present nation, largely comprising, & led by leaders who reject Jesus as their Messiah? Or is Israel those who welcome the Gospel who have a unity in Christ with believing Gentiles? You claim Israel is not the church, yet at Pentecost 3000 Jews formed the church. Acts 2:47 At first the church only comprised believing Israelites. Stephen speaks of Israel being the church. Acts 7:38
Jesus speaks of one who recognised him as the Son of God; [thou art] the King of Israel as an Israelite indeed. John 1:47-51
True, believing Israel IS the Church & comprises both Jew & Gentile as one believing, redeemed people of God. Acts 3:22-26
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
V. 23 makes it clear that those Jews who reject their Prophet/Messiah are NOT God's people. Acts records that many thousands did believe. These comprised the Church.
1. How much you miss in Bible Study!!! It is an established pattern throughout Scripture that the Lord reveals a Big Idea, then adds more detail to that idea later, and then more later, and then more later.
Verse 24 gives us the "big picture." The rest of the passage fills in the details.
(Actually, this is a common practice in ALL good literature!)
2. Who says that the 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ ENDS with a rebellion? How little you grasp of the futurist interpretation of Scripture. There is an ATTEMPT at a rebellion, and that ATTEMPT at a rebellion is demolished by GOD ALMIGHTY. This demolition puts an end to all Satanic attempts to usurp the Kingdom forever. Thus, the "ruling party" who successfully thwarts this feeble attempt at an overthrow REMAINS IN POWER. This "ruling party" is NATIONAL Israel, headed by Jesus Christ, thus fulfilling all of the promises made to Israel in the OT in a very REAL and LITERAL sense.
Re 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
Re 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
3. Spiritualizing the Old Testament IS in fact "corrupting" it because it robs the OT of a LITERAL FULFILLMENT. The Atonement of Christ on the Cross for the salvation of the individual sinner, whether Jew or Gentile, is only ONE FACET of the New Testament. There is still a whole bunch of stuff that has yet to be fulfilled. The promises God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob regarding the land, and physical blessings, do not transfer to the Church. They are unique to National Israel - the physical line of Abraham.
The promises we receive through Christ are SPIRITUAL, not physical. The promises God made to Israel are BOTH.
Your quotation of II Cor. 6:16 is clearly shallow - the covenant promise with Abraham was for LAND. The covenant promise with Israel was PHYSICAL BLESSINGS in the land God promised Abraham. The covenant promise God made with David was for an eternal kingdom over PHYSICAL NATIONS ON THIS CURRENT PLANET.
John 1:47 is irrelevant - Jesus was speaking to a JEW. (Duh!)
In Acts 3, Peter is preaching to JEWS about their crucified KING.
the church does not replace Israel. The Church has no rightful claim to Israel's promises.
It is Rightly Dividing, not Wrongly Gluing.
Posted by OLD fashioned preacher on 16 December 2014 - 10:03 AM
"Fundamentalist", "Missionary", "Sunday School" are good terms but not "Biblical" (not saying they are improper for a Christian) and therefore dispensable. "Christian", "Disciple", "Aged", "Holy Ghost", "Saint" are terms used in Scripture and should not be shied from.
"Fundamental" describes what kind of Christian you are, "Christian" defines who you belong to.
You can refuse to be called a "Fundamentalist" as a label without changing what you believe and without denying the Lord. You cannot refuse to be called Christian as a label without denying the Christ even though you don't change what you believe because you are denying the ownership.
Posted by Ukulelemike on 16 December 2014 - 09:28 AM
Christian is also my problem. I don't want to be called a christian because I know many who call themselves christian and i would never listen to, watch, wear, or go whre they do and i do not want others to lump me with them. I am a Biblisist.
Well, and herein is the issue. Christian is a proper biblical term, why would you cease from using that? Just because someone else who doesn't act like a Christian uses the term? Saint is a proper term, but the Catholics have soiled it; Fundamentalist is a good term, but now everything evil under the sun is called fundamentalist. Time and again, we run from proper terminology to describe ourselve, because someone says "Boo".
So the big question is, When will we cease letting the world and the wicked define us? When will we stop running and stand our ground and take back what is ours? The wicked took the rainbow, first by the new agers, then the gays; the satanists took the goat, which is described as one of the holy animals of God; They misuse proper words and terms and twist them, and we run to something else. When will we stop running? Yes, our faith is a race, but it doesn't mean to run from the battles. I say, its time we took back what is ours by the hand of God, and stop letting the world tell us what we can and can't be.
That'll preach, brethren!
Posted by Steve Schwenke on 13 December 2014 - 10:33 PM
I reposted my response to DaveW in response to Scott's post. I have read it, several times. It would be unwieldy to post an in-line response, so I raise specific points. In this case, it seems clear that Dan. 9:24 speaks of 70 weeks as a specific period of time, & details the saving work of Christ.
From my perspective, you have not made any direct attempts at responding to Pastor Markle's post. Here is a tremendous opportunity for you to dissect his points, and allow him to respond to you in kind. Your failure to have an open dialogue with him directly on this issue does not speak well of you, in my book. I cannot for the life of me understand why you would pass up such a great opportunity...
I guess the same thing goes for Geneva and Invicta.
You guys simply cannot say that our position has not been presented clearly, thoroughly and Scripturally.
So the next time this topic comes up, I will just put a link back to this forum and let you deal with it then.
Posted by Standing Firm In Christ on 12 December 2014 - 10:14 AM
Of course, there is a chance they will stand up immediately and manifest what spirit really prompted them to fall. LOL
Posted by Pastor Scott Markle on 09 December 2014 - 10:06 AM
(Note: This posting is somewhat lengthy; however, those who generally follow my posts will not find this to be much of a surprise.)
Concerning Daniel 9:24-27 –
“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”
As the context of Daniel 9 reveals, this prophetic utterance was delivered unto Daniel, who had been confessing the sins of his people Israel and praying for the Lord’s mercy upon his people Israel. Indeed, when the angel Gabriel delivered this prophetic utterance unto Daniel, he specifically indicated that the focus of its revelation concerned Daniel’s people Israel and Daniel’s holy city, Jerusalem, as per the opening line of verse 24 – “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy [that is – Daniel’s] people and upon thy [that is – Daniel’s] holy city [Jerusalem].” Furthermore, the angel revealed that these “seventy weeks” were determined by the Lord God upon Daniel’s people, the Israelites, and upon Daniel’s holy city, Jerusalem, for a six-fold purpose as signaled by the six infinitive phrases that complete verse 24.
This six-fold purpose of the Lord our God concerning Daniel’s people, the Israelites, and Daniel’s holy city, Jerusalem, are as follows:
1. “To finish the transgression” – Herein the word “transgression” is singular, indicating that it refers unto the entire rebellion of the Israelites against the Lord their God as a single unit of sinful fault. Indeed, the Hebrew word that is translated by the English word “transgression” indicates a breaking away (or, departure) from a relationship or covenant with another. Thus these “seventy weeks” are determined by the Lord God in order to bring about a completion to the sinful departure of the Israelites away from Him. As such, we could expect that after these “seventy weeks” are concluded, the Israelites will never again depart from the Lord.
2. “To make an end of sins” – Herein the word “sins” is plural, indicating that it refers unto the individual activities of sin that the Israelites might commit against the Lord their God. Thus these “seventy weeks” are determined by the Lord God in order to bring about a completion to the sinful activities of the Israelites against Him. As such, we could expect that after these “seventy weeks “ are concluded, the Israelites will never again commit sins against the Lord.
3. “To make reconciliation for iniquity” – Herein the word “reconciliation” indicates the ideas of atonement and forgiveness and of reconciliation thereby. Thus these “seventy weeks” are determined by the Lord God in order to bring about His forgiveness upon the Israelites for their sinful departure from Him and for their sinful activities against Him, and to bring about thereby the reconciliation of the Israelites unto Himself and unto His blessed fellowship.
4. “To bring in everlasting righteousness” – Herein the phrase “everlasting righteousness” reveals the spiritual condition into which the Lord God intends to bring the Israelites through His work of reconciliation. He intends to bring them into a spiritual condition of “everlasting righteousness,” not into a condition of righteousness from which they might again fall, but into a condition of righteousness from which they will never fall again. Indeed, this is the spiritual condition into which the Lord God will bring the Israelites at the completion of these “seventy weeks.”
5. “To seal up the vision and prophecy” – This phrase appears to indicate that all of the Lord’s prophetic utterances concerning the Israelites (especially concerning His judgments upon the Israelites) will be brought to their conclusion through the completion of these “seventy weeks.”
6. “To anoint the most Holy” – Herein the phrase “the most Holy” refers to the Most Holy One, the promised Messiah of Israel. According to the New Testament Scriptures, we learn that this Most Holy One, that the Messiah, is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Thus these “seventy weeks” are determined by the Lord God in order to bring about the literal anointing of the Lord Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords over all the earth. As such, we could expect that the literal return of our Lord Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords (See Revelation 19) will occur at the completion of these “seventy weeks.”
Now, in this context the phrase “seventy weeks” may be literally understood as “seventy sevens,” wherein the English word “weeks” is employed for the idea of “sevens.” The reason that the English word “weeks” is so employed is because a week is the most natural grouping of seven when we encounter the element of time sequences. However, the Hebrew idea of “sevens” is not limited only to a group of seven days, but can refer to any grouping of sevens within the sequence of time. With this understanding in mind, we move to verse 25, wherein greater detail is revealed concerning the first sixty-nine of these “seventy weeks” (or, seventy sevens).
The opening portion of verse 25 reveals that the first sixty-nine of these “seventy weeks” will encompass the time period “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince.” Thus these first sixty-nine sevens will begin with “the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem” after their seventy years of captivity by the hand of the Babylonians (See Ezra & Nehemiah). Thus also these first sixty-nine sevens will conclude with the coming of “the Messiah the Prince.” Now, the distance of time between these events are known by historical record to be greater than a period of sixty-nine literal weeks. Rather, we understand by the historical record that the distance of time between these events encompassed a multitude of years (indeed, 483 years). Therefore, we are brought to understand that the “seventy sevens” of this context are a reference unto seventy groupings of seven years each.
Now, the report of verse 25 is not presented with a simple designation of threescore (sixty) and nine “weeks” (sevens), but with the dividing of two parts, the first being “seven weeks” (seven sevens) and the second being “threescore and two weeks” (sixty-two sevens). This seems to indicate that something of significance will also occur at the completion of the first “seven weeks” (or, forty-nine years) of these sixty-nine weeks (sevens). Even so, the closing line of verse 25 appears to reveal what this “thing” of significance is – “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”
Since verse 25 has recorded the beginning and the ending for the first sixty-nine “weeks” of the “seventy weeks,” we would now logically expect verse 26 to report the events of the seventieth and final “week” of these “seventy weeks.” Indeed, human logic would move us to expect that the seventieth and final “week” of these “seventy weeks” would follow immediately after the first sixty-nine “weeks” are completed (since the number seventy does follow immediately after the number sixty-nine). However, this seventieth and final “week” of these “seventy weeks” is not actually and specifically mentioned until verse 27. Rather, verse 26 gives a report concerning events that occur “after” the “threescore and two weeks” (after the first sixty-nine “weeks”) without making any specific reference to the seventieth and final week.
What then are these events that occur after the first sixty-nine “weeks” (483 years), without any specific indication that they fall in the seventieth and final “week” (7 years)? Verse 26 appears to give report concerning three things, saying, “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.” Herein the preposition “after” does not indicate that these things occur at the end of the first sixty-nine “weeks” (483 years), but indicates that these things occur after the first sixty-nine “weeks” (483 years) are already concluded. Furthermore, it is worthy of notice that verse 25 did not specifically state that the first sixty-nine “weeks” would conclude with the cutting off of the Messiah the Prince. Rather, verse 25 simply indicated that the first sixty-nine “weeks” would extend “unto the Messiah the Prince” (and thereby conclude), without specifying the activity of the Messiah the Prince to which it was referring. (Personally, I believe that verse 25 is referring to the beginning of our Lord Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry as initiated by His baptism.)
So then, what are the three things which verse 26 indicates occur after the conclusion of the first sixty-nine “weeks” (483 years)?
1. The Messiah will be cut off in death, not for His own sake, but for the sake of others. According to the New Testament Scriptures, this would be a prophetically reference unto the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross.
2. “The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city [that is – Daniel’s holy city, Jersusalem, as per the contextual statement with which verse 24 began] and the sanctuary [that is – the temple in Jerusalem].” Now, in this statement there are two elements of information that are worthy of notice in relation to the context. The first of these elements of information is that there is “a prince that shall come” unto the Israelites and unto the city of Jerusalem who is not referenced as their Messiah. The second of these elements of information is that this “prince that shall come” is not the one himself who comes against Jerusalem in the event of verse 26 to destroy the city and the sanctuary (temple) therein. Rather, it is the people of which he will be a part that come against Jerusalem in the event of verse 26 to destroy the city and the sanctuary (temple) therein.
3. “The end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.” This statement appears to indicate that the destroying of the city Jerusalem and of the temple in Jerusalem will end with utter desolation upon the Israelites, and that the Israelites and the city of Jerusalem will continue to suffer ongoing desolations thereafter.
Finally, with verse 27 we come to the concluding verse of this prophetic utterance and to the specific reference unto the seventieth and final “week” (7 years) of these “seventy weeks.” The opening line of this verse indicates that some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many” (apparently among the Israelites, since that is the focus of this prophetic utterance as per the opening statement of verse 24). In fact, this “he” will “confirm” this “covenant” with these Israelites for a period of “one week” (that is – a period of one seven, or of seven years). Then this verse indicates that in the middle of this seven year period (after 3.5 years), this “he” will “cause the sacrifice and oblation” of the Israelites “to cease” (apparently ending his seven year “covenant” with the Israelites). Finally, this verse indicates that this “he” will bring a form of desolation upon the Israelites and the city of Jerusalem, and that this “he” will do so for the purpose of “the overspreading of abominations” upon the Israelites and the city of Jerusalem. Indeed, this verse indicates that this desolation will continue upon the Israelites and the city of Jerusalem “until the consummation” (until the completion) of the seventieth “week,” and thereby of the “seventy weeks.”
So then, who is this “he” of verse 27? Grammatically, the closest antecedent to this pronoun in the context is “the prince that shall come” who was mentioned in verse 26. Furthermore, in the context there is no other reference to “the prince that shall come” of verse 26 in order to explain who he is and why he matters and was mentioned at all in verse 26. As such, I would contend according to these principles of grammar and context that the “he” of verse 27 is “the prince that shall come” of verse 26. Now, it is again worthy of note that this “prince” is not referenced in verse 26 as being the Messiah, but that he is in some way related to the people who would destroy the city of Jerusalem and the sanctuary (temple) therein in the destroying event that is prophesied in verse 26.
In conclusion, let us consider the grammatical and contextual gap that is presented in this passage between the conclusion of the sixty-nine “weeks” and the beginning of the seventieth “week.” Verse 25 clearly speaks concerning the beginning and conclusion of the first sixty-nine “weeks,” and verse 27 clearly speaks concerning the beginning of the seventieth “week.” However, the events of verse 26 are presented between these other two records. Indeed, as we have already noted, verse 26 does specifically indicate that the events which it records occur after the sixty-nine “weeks.” Yet verse 26 makes no specific reference whatsoever to the seventieth “week.” Furthermore, verse 27 specifically makes reference to the beginning of the seventieth week, and then reports concerning events that will proceed from that point. Yet verse 27 does not specifically indicate that the events which are recorded in verse 26 are included in that seventieth “week.” As such, we may understand from the flow of the grammar and the context that there is some form of gap in time between the first sixty-nine “weeks” (483 years) as recorded in verse 25 and the seventieth and final “week” (7 years) as recorded in verse 27, and that the events of verse 26 will fall within that gap in time.
Posted by DaveW on 09 December 2014 - 05:09 PM
There is a lack of research evident, a lack of understanding of words, terms, and sentence structure, and a simple denial of plainly stated facts.
If this set of replies does not seal this in everyone's mind, then it is obvious that this false teachers has achieved part if his goal of deception.
Wait for further installments from him on other subjects.
Posted by Steve Schwenke on 06 December 2014 - 10:00 PM
I am studying Scripture, NOT Preterism. Where Scripture prophecy is made, we look for its fulfilment, as fulfilment authenticates the prophet.
We therefore should look for the fulfilment of Gabriel's 70 weeks prophecy to be fulfilled in 490 years. I have shown how to understand that prophecy. God could have summarily destroyed Jerusalem at the end of the 70th week when Stephen, in the power of the Holy Spirit, denounced his accusers as "uncircumcised." However he graciously allowed them the duration of "this generation" to repent - as Hebrews underlines. There is not the slightest Scriptural justification for splitting off the 70th week.
Likewise Jesus' Olivet prophecy explains things that will happen that are not of prophetic significance, while giving specific warning signs so the Jerusalem Christians would know when to flee the doomed city. Comparison with of Dan. 9:27 , Mat. 24:15-16 , Luke 21:20-22 shows that the "abomination" is related to the armies - probably the eagle standards. Luke 17:37 Paul in 1 Thes. 2:14-16 refers to the Olivet prophecy. As the temple would still be standing for another 20 years, there seems no reason to see the temple in 2 Thes. 2 as other than the existing, doomed, temple in Jerusalem.
When Jesus warned the women of Jerusalem to weep for themselves & their children at the coming destruction, Luke 23:27-31 , he was quoting Isaiah 2:19 which John saw would be fulfilled during the 6th seal. Rev. 6:15-16
It seems that 30 years later the Jews were mocking the Apostles about Jesus' unfulfilled Olivet prophecy - 2 Peter 3:3-5 - so Peter reminds them of the certainty of past prophecy of the flood - fulfilled after 120 years. He reminds them that God is longsuffering, giving time for repentance. 2 Peter 3:9-10 He does not specifically refer to the destruction, but reminds them there will be a final day of judgement. However in the previous chapter he warns them of swift destruction as in the days of Noah & Lot, alluding to Jesus' prophetic warnings.
I strongly recommend you to read your Bible, carefully observing what it says, without imposing an interpretation system. Keep to the truth of the Word.
Scriptural Justification for "splitting off" the 70th week has been covered very thoroughly in several of the many threads on Daniel 9. It is justified, regardless of your rejection of our explanations. Our explanations cover every aspect and angle of it, and allow the Scriptures to be interpreted in a very real and literal sense.
Really? Let's see about that...
v. 20 talks about fleeing on the Sabbath day....why would any Christian be worried about fleeing on the Sabbath day? Christians do not observe the Sabbath at all. The Law-Keeping Jews DID, and even persecuted Paul for not keeping the Sabbath. Obviously, this statement is not aimed at CHRISTIANS.
v. 21 says that this period of "tribulation" would be the worst period of time EVER. So then, if this is to be understood literally, there has never been a period of intense persecution worse than this 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem??? WOW! That is a r e a l s t r e t c h.
v. 27 mentions the "coming of the Son of Man." so the Lord Jesus Christ returned at this very time??? (70 AD?)
See, that's why I can't take this preterism seriously. OBVIOUSLY the Lord did not return to the earth in 70 AD, but that is what the passage demands. It is the very reason that we reject preterism - He has NOT returned, thus the prophecies of Mt. 24 point to a FUTURE EVENT.
The "abomination" spoken of is "PROBABLY?" You don't know? But you are SURE it cannot be a future event, because it MIGHT be something else???
Another great, big WOW!
The "abomination" is CLEARLY the Antichrist, who marches into the Most Holy Place, and seats himself on the Mercy Seat, and declares himself to be God. This matches perfectly with the prophecies of Daniel 9, Rev. 13, and II Thess. 2. It is most certainly NOT any "army." Your very statement admits that your theory is pure conjecture.
Oh, by the way, JERUSALEM is not mentioned ANYWHERE in Rev. 6. Just wanted to clear that up for you.
You are INTERPRETING Rev. 6 in light of your preterism. You accept preterism as true, and then READ IT INTO passages when it does not exist. Jerusalem is not in Rev. 6. This is another classic example of PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
Yes, we keep hoping that you will follow your own advice!!!