[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
I'm sorry, Allen, but I see nothing in common between what you're writing and
what the Bible teaches. Nothing.
"Upon the wing of abomination cometh destroyer, and unto the end desolations
are decreed" in the literal Hebrew of the final part of Dan. 9:27 -- the decree
of desolation falls inside the 70th week, not the desolation itself. The decree
was issued by Christ Himself in Matt. 21:33-45 in the parable of the wicked
husbandmen, which predicts the overthrow of Jerusalem as a consequence of
murdering the Son. The murder of the Son is the "highest point of abomination,"
aka "the wing of abomination," which precipitates the decree that the city
would be destroyed as a direct consequence of this abomination, the worst
miscarriage of justice in all history. Matthew 21 provides Jesus's own
commentary on the event that trigger's God's decree of destruction.
You keep missing the benchmarks that scripture give in favor of your own? eg
Daniel 9:25From the going fourth of the command?to messiah the prince.,?. the
emphasis is the Going fourth of the command or in the Lxx the Answer the
command to rebuild not the completion of the building project or the temple but
specifically to rebuild and restore Jerusalem. In both cases this implies the
start of the project not the completion of the project. ( ie if man A tells man
B to go get or build him a car and man B turns and leaves man A to accomplish
this then man B is going fourth to carry out Man A's Command but this does not
mean that Man B has yet accomplished the command of Man A , only that he has
gone forth to do his work) Note: It states Jerusalem it does not mention the
temple except in the later in terms of destruction. ?9:26 the street shall be
built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times?.Although this is
mentioned in the same verse as the 62 weeks and the 7 weeks it corresponds to
the restoration of Jerusalem in verse 25. The street and
wall are intergal parts of the city not the temple. The 62 weeks is
specifically qualified in the next verse 26 "after the 62 weeks the messiah
shall be cut of the "cut off " has specific reference to the 62 weeks for sure.
This leaves the 7 weeks without qualification unless the street and wall being
build "even in troublesome times" is a descriptor for the 7 weeks. It does not
state that the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks are to be counted consecutively,
although it is possible. However if the sequence in the text is examined here
it appears that the street being build and the wall even in troublesome times
corresponds to the command to rebuild and restore Jerusalem and the 7 weeks,
While the 62 weeks correspond to the messiah cut off. Further this is by
implication that the street being build and the wall "even in troublesome
times" are going to take place on more than one occsion.
A 70 weeks for your people your city; put end to sin; finish the
transgression; seal up vision and prophecy; anoint the Most Holy
B.Going fourth of the command to rebuild and restore Jerusalem until messiah
the prince
C. 7 weeks (mentioned 1st) and 62 weeks (mentioned 2nd)
D The street and the wall built even in trouble some times (mentioned 1st) 7
weeks corresponds to the street and wall which correspond to rebuilding and
restoring Jerusalem. Even in troublesome times indicates more then just once.
E After 62 weeks the messiah will be cut off ( mentioned 2nd) 62 weeks and
cut off directly and specifically correspond
F In the midst of a week corresponding to putting a end to sacrifice and
offering see below for detailed examination.
There is a possibly of two times recorded in scripture after this vision was
given that Jerusalem was rebuild/restored once with specific mention of the
street and wall
!Nehemiah Ch 4,5&6 Specifically mentions the street and wall. which is
specifically mentioned in the context of the restoration of Jerusalem.
!The 2nd possibility is found in John 2:20. Then said the Jews, Forty and six
years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? This
was at the beginning of Jesus ministry if you add three years to this = 49
years which is 7 weeks of years. However the problem with this is this passage
in john is a specific reference about the temple, where Dan ch9 addresses the
city and the wall not the temple. However it is noteworthy that Jerusalem was
rebuilt during the reign of Herod after a earthquake. Further the time of Herod
is mentioned specificaly as a time of trouble. If this is a vague reference to
the whole construction project as it could have taken place simultaneously, if
so then the 7 weeks or 49 years could be satisfied here. If the 7 weeks are to
be taken independently of the 62 weeks then counting from the time mentioned in
John 2:20 is still a difficult position to hold since the 49 years or 7 weeks
corresponds to the streed and wall. His
crucifixion or being cut off has a specific correlation with the 62 weeks, not
the 7 weeks. We are then left with two remaining approaches
1. The 7 weeks and 62 weeks are counted together, although possible this has
difficulties of its own. Namely that the text itself specifies two different
times and corresponds them to different events. If you add up 62 weeks
(434years) with 7 weeks (49years) you end up with 483 years. However, the 7
weeks which has a most important reference by inference is " even in
troublesome times" with emphasis in the same context as the wall and the street
being built. Even in Troublesome times implies more than one occasion which is
consistent with the rest of the text. The time of Herod is also specifically
referred to as a time of trouble. It can not be shown from scripture that the
62 & 7 are to be added up consecutively, this is often asserted, but the text
does not require this nor does it imply that the 7 weeks and 62 weeks are to be
added together. In fact, it specifically highlights and demonstrates two
different and separate benchmarks within this scheme. This is further
enforced by the fact that the outline here is identical to the outline in Ch
12:7
A times, times and Half a time
Time= 70 weeks
Times = 7 & 62 weeks
Half a Time = midst of one week
2.The most consistent application of the text with the least amount of
assumptions is that 62 weeks and 7 weeks are separate and independent
benchmarks for two events. If you add up 62 weeks (434years) with 7 weeks
(49years) you end up with 483 years. However, the 7 weeks which has a most
important reference is " even in troublesome times" with emphasis in the same
context as the wall and the street being built. That is corelated with the 7
weeks. The time of Herod is also specificaly referred to as a time of trouble.
Ref Daniel Ch 8,11&12 . History records that there was a earthquake some 50-30?
years prior to Christ birth where the city was badly damaged. John 2:20. Then
said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou
rear it up in three days? The temple here during the time of Christ is the same
temple of Nehemiah's day Ref: Haggi 2:7And I will shake all nations, and the
desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with
glory, saith the Lord of hosts. 8. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine,
saith the Lord of hosts. 9. The glory of this latter house shall be greater
than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give
peace, saith the Lord of hosts. Herrod had repaired and embellished the temple
as well and possibly expanded the temple courts perhaps that is what is
referenced in John 2;20; note Jesus was in the temple but drove out the money
changers only the priest could be inside the temple sacrifice area although the
outer and or inner courts could be considered " in the temple" as that area was
a integral part of it. Revelation 11: 1. And there was given me a reed like
unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God,
and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2. But the court which is without
the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles:
and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two
months. When the command to measure the temple is Given Specific command not
to measure the Outer court, implication is that it would have been considered
part of it had he been told not measured it as part of the temple if this
command was not qualified as such. Both this and the fact that Jesus is running
out the den of thieves implies that this was the outer court area and not the
sacrificial inter court or the holy place or the holy of holies parts of the
temple area. In any case Herod did not build the temple of Jesus day it was
built by the Jews of Nehemiah's day. Ref Haggi 2:7 We know how long it took to
construct it as well. Ezra 6:15 "This temple was completed on the third day of
the month Adar; it was the sixth year of the reign of King Darius. Ref: Persian
Kings Chronology . Therefore the 46 years of building the temple mentioned in
John 2:20 could be making reference to the embellishments that Herrod added to
the temple that would be part of the temple,
Although this requires assumptions it is strongly implied even within the text
itself. However, if this is a reference to the construction of the
embellishments and courts then those could have been done at the same time as
the rest of the city was being rebuilt after the earthquake that severely
damaged it. However, there is still a 2nd known command to rebuild and restore
Jerusalem & specifically during "troublesome times"( Herrods day ) we just
would not know the exact date of the going forth of that command unless "
untill messiah the prince" is a reference to Christ birth. Then after the
earthquake in Herod's day the command would have been given in 49BC; then the 7
weeks would be satisfied to the birth of Christ. Again the 7 weeks is marked
from the "going fourth of the command to rebuild and restore Jerusalem" "till
messiah the prince", not the crucifixion or "cut off" of Christ that is
specifically marked by the 62 weeks. Note: that the "till messiah the prince" as
a reference to Christ birth is further highlighted by the fact that there are
490 years from Nehimiah Ch 4,5&6 till Christ Birth.
See attached charts
Consummation which is tied to the abominations and desolation/ Destroying the
city& Sanctuary. Confirming the covenant is the consummation by definition and
in context, Where Confirming takes place over the whole week and the
Consummation is the end of that week when it is accomplished. The confirming of
the covenant is tied to and associated here with the destruction of the city
and sanctuary not the death of Christ! This is further understood by the fact
that the law of Moses prophesied that they would be utterly destroyed and
scattered, Jeremiah prophesied a bout a new covenant only until the former had
been fulfilled could the new be fully consummated. Note Jesus stated that "this
is the blood of the new testament" (Christ blood). But here in Daniel is not
discussing the institution of the new testament but rather the confirmation of
the new covenant. The Confirmation of that new covenant was the total and
complete fulfillment of all that was written in the law and
prophets which Jesus stated in the Mat, Mark, Luke parallel that all things
would be fulfilled in that generation. He also makes reference to the
destruction of the city and its desolation here in Daniel 9. Therefore the
confirmation was for one week in the context of the city and sanctuary being
destroyed until the consummation which would have been at the end " Till the
end of the war desolations are determined". The is nothing in the immediate
context that this is mentioned to suggest or imply otherwise. This is not
understood by many who think that the covenant was completed by the
resurrection of Christ however ref: In the Days of these Kings. This kingdom
and the mission of the Christ was fulfilled over a period of time not in a
single day. Also note: The Here in Daniel Desolation is poured out upon the
desolate now the prince is making desolate but it is God who is poring out the
desolation. (Ref: the Golden Cup in Revelation) Also note Jesus statements
before he
assended back to the father" Matthew 28:18. And Jesus came and spake unto
them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. and again in
1Corinthians 15:24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the
kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all
authority and power. 25. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under
his feet. It is Ultimately Christ who is Pouring out the desolation by His
power.
Again it is important to note that Ch12 states that these things would be
sealed up until the "time of the end". Implying that it would be impossible to
understand until the "time of the End" after the events took place and then
only be able to look back for understanding. Therefore forward counting from
Daniel or Nehemiah's day would be nearly if not at all impossible. The 7 weeks
which is discussed more fully below is associated with either the "going fourth
of the command until messiah the prince" or with the messiah "cut off", however
only the 62 weeks is specifically mentioned for the messiah "cut off" . The
street and wall comment with the qualifying statement "even in troublesome
times" implies more than one occasion as well as being associated with the 7
weeks. In any case no mater how these things are reckoned the one week in which
sacrifice and offering are put to a end, which are clearly embedded in the
immediate context of the prince of the people and the
destruction of the city and sanctuary and desolations, does not have a number
of weeks to tie the messiah cut off after 62 weeks and the destruction of the
city. This is to say that the s62 weeks is marked by the messiah being cut off.
Christ died ~33.5 years before the war started or ~36 years before Jerusalem is
destroyed. With the exception of the fact that there is 70 years between the
Birth of Christ and the Destruction of the city there is no number of weeks in
the 62 or 7 weeks to account for the years between Christ death and the
destruction of the city this is further evidence that there are sets of linear
and non linear time here and that the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks are separate and
independent time sets. the 70 weeks vision is sets of time linear and nonlinear
time with multiple associations, although only associations that are clearly
defined in the text are proposed here.
Because Jesus was cut off in the middle of the 70th week, His death caused
sacrifice and oblations to cease. The offering up of the Lamb of God
delegitimized the continued killing of lambs and bullocks on the altar. God
proved His acceptance of the Lamb and rejection of the animal lambs by causing
the temple curtain to be torn from top to bottom, which rendered attendance at
the altar impossible. The Jews, knowing this to be God's sign, nonetheless
repaired the curtain and rehung it, because they thought to hide their sin and
reactivate the sacrifices. God destroyed the temple within a generation of this
event to prevent the Jews from persisting in this continued rejection of the
Christ by superficially continuing something that Jesus had made an end of. The
Romans plowed the temple land under with salt to prevent anything from growing
there, adding insult to injury.
I cannot fathom why you reject that Nehemiah 2 describes the "command that
went forth" to rebuild Jerusalem. Is God not allowed to give commands? Please
show the verse for that idea. Nehemiah credits God for answering his prayer, to
move the heart of Artaxerxes and to write up the "letters to the governors"
authorizing the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The fundamental command was God's, as
Nehemiah knows and acknowledges, but the evidence of it was the written letters
that, FOR THE FIRST TIME, authorized the raising of the battlements of
Jerusalem; previous decrees related only to the building of a house for God
(the temple), not setting Jerusalem back on its feet as a defensible city,
which had been forbidden up until this exact moment. These written commands to
lift the restriction against rebuilding the city and authorizing Nehemiah to
rebuild it "went forth" as Daniel 9 specified. That is beyond dispute. Read
Nehemiah's prayer in Neh. 1 and the results in Neh. 2. If you
say "no decree went forth to rebuild Jerusalem anywhere in that sequence of
scriptures," we have a VERY serious problem on our hands here. Deadly serious.
Martin
P.S. In the middle of a sequence of comments you were making on the book of
Revelation, you suddenly say "each in its own order," which is a sound-bite
gratuitously inserted from 1 Cor. 15:24-28. You imply that "order" means
chronological order. Sorry, no. "Tagma" means order in the sense of "the orders
of society" -- it is a valuation of rank, not sequence. The clumsiness of our
English gives a faulty impression. The full contrast in the passage from which
you pulled this phrase is between Christ, and those that are His -- Christ the
firstfruits resurrected 20 centuries ago, and those that are Christ's when He
destroys death itself. That is the ENTIRE contrast in the verse -- there is no
implied contrast with "those who are not Christ's" in the passage, and
understanding how Paul (a very exacting writer of Greek) structured his
sentence and the thought he's conveying would have prevented much
misunderstanding of this important verse.
Again you are wrong you keep overlooking the plain obvious in search of your
obscured attempts at twisted greek grammar. The meaning of the word is not
solely exclusive therefore you cannot argue that imperative either. This is
true particularly since sequence if events is meant in context by use of
"afterward" as well as the sequence of events outlined in revelation itself
hence first resurrection and latter the rest of the dead.
Revelation 20:4. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was
given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness
of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast,
neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in
their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5. But
the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.
This is the first resurrection. 6. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the
first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be
priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
The orders of Society term "Tagma" is used to make the point of a sequence of
events based on a order regardless of which kind of order not in spite of it.
"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I'm sorry, Allen, but I
see nothing in common between what you're writing and what the Bible teaches.
Nothing.
"Upon the wing of abomination cometh destroyer, and unto the end desolations
are decreed" in the literal Hebrew of the final part of Dan. 9:27 -- the decree
of desolation falls inside the 70th week, not the desolation itself. The decree
was issued by Christ Himself in Matt. 21:33-45 in the parable of the wicked
husbandmen, which predicts the overthrow of Jerusalem as a consequence of
murdering the Son. The murder of the Son is the "highest point of
abomination," aka "the wing of abomination," which precipitates the decree that
the city would be destroyed as a direct consequence of this abomination, the
worst miscarriage of justice in all history. Matthew 21 provides Jesus's own
commentary on the event that trigger's God's decree of destruction.
Because Jesus was cut off in the middle of the 70th week, His death caused
sacrifice and oblations to cease. The offering up of the Lamb of God
delegitimized the continued killing of lambs and bullocks on the altar. God
proved His acceptance of the Lamb and rejection of the animal lambs by causing
the temple curtain to be torn from top to bottom, which rendered attendance at
the altar impossible. The Jews, knowing this to be God's sign, nonetheless
repaired the curtain and rehung it, because they thought to hide their sin and
reactivate the sacrifices. God destroyed the temple within a generation of this
event to prevent the Jews from persisting in this continued rejection of the
Christ by superficially continuing something that Jesus had made an end of.
The Romans plowed the temple land under with salt to prevent anything from
growing there, adding insult to injury.
I cannot fathom why you reject that Nehemiah 2 describes the "command that
went forth" to rebuild Jerusalem. Is God not allowed to give commands? Please
show the verse for that idea. Nehemiah credits God for answering his prayer, to
move the heart of Artaxerxes and to write up the "letters to the governors"
authorizing the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The fundamental command was God's, as
Nehemiah knows and acknowledges, but the evidence of it was the written letters
that, FOR THE FIRST TIME, authorized the raising of the battlements of
Jerusalem; previous decrees related only to the building of a house for God
(the temple), not setting Jerusalem back on its feet as a defensible city,
which had been forbidden up until this exact moment. These written commands to
lift the restriction against rebuilding the city and authorizing Nehemiah to
rebuild it "went forth" as Daniel 9 specified. That is beyond dispute. Read
Nehemiah's prayer in Neh. 1 and the results in Neh. 2. If you
say "no decree went forth to rebuild Jerusalem anywhere in that sequence of
scriptures," we have a VERY serious problem on our hands here. Deadly serious.
Martin
P.S. In the middle of a sequence of comments you were making on the book of
Revelation, you suddenly say "each in its own order," which is a sound-bite
gratuitously inserted from 1 Cor. 15:24-28. You imply that "order" means
chronological order. Sorry, no. "Tagma" means order in the sense of "the
orders of society" -- it is a valuation of rank, not sequence. The clumsiness
of our English gives a faulty impression. The full contrast in the passage from
which you pulled this phrase is between Christ, and those that are His --
Christ the firstfruits resurrected 20 centuries ago, and those that are
Christ's when He destroys death itself. That is the ENTIRE contrast in the
verse -- there is no implied contrast with "those who are not Christ's" in the
passage, and understanding how Paul (a very exacting writer of Greek)
structured his sentence and the thought he's conveying would have prevented
much misunderstanding of this important verse.
On May 22, 2007, at 11:30 AM, Allen Daves wrote:
The other reason the count is wrong is because you have the wrong start
point for the beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy. It begins with Nehemiah's
prayer to God
This is the real point with all error....... Now you say it starts with
Nehemiahs prayer to God but Scripture specifically states from the Going fourth
of the command to rebuild and restore Jerusalem Daniel Ch 9:25 until mesial the
prince You v Scripture .......You said something about being mastered by the
scripture? Ch 5 identifies the completion of the wall which is part of
restoration, now both the prayer and the completion took place in the 20th year
therefore even if one were to buy into your description instead of scriptures
description ow the when it was to be counted both events took place in the 20th
year and still add up to 36 years total. Your point is completely moot even if
it were true. The exact number of months is not given so to attempt to
extrapolate some other time outline external of what scripture states as
somehow voiding the one I have outlined for you based solely on what scripture
does actually state only further demonstrates egregious error in
both reasoning as well as conclusions. As long as men let that kind of
"reasoning" persist they will be forever learning and never able to come to
knowledge of the truth or even the capacity to understand it. The rest of the
70 weeks vision analysis you briefly put forward is just as erroneous.....hint
the 70 weeks benchmarks 1 his birth (70 & 7) 2. His death (62) and 3. The
middle of the week (1/2of one week or 3.5 years) destruction of Jerusalem.
Time=70 weeks Times= 62 & 7 weeks and Half a time= middle of one week or 7
years /2= 3.5 years... If you bothered to sit down as you suggest that I do and
look at what you are saying you would see the error in math is not mine here
nor is the fast, loose and I would add twisting play with scripture.
Allen
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Again 596 BC is 596 years before Christ not 595 years no zero year. If
there were a zero year counted then 596 years before christ would be in
actuality 597 years before Christ and or 70 AD would be actualy 71 AD. Christ
was born in December of 1BC which was at the very most 30 days from January 1
AD that can be proven as well.. I cant help it if people can??t count. But at
the end of the day 596 years before Christ which is what BC stands for by
definition is not 595 years. That would be a contradiction but 596 years before
Christ plus 70 years begging in that same 1 January AD I mentioned earlier is
666 years + 11 months. I know very well the error you are attempting to point
out. The problem is you don?t seem to understand your own error you are not
counting. I don?t say that to be curt but if you will draw out 12 months of
596 years on one side of a time line and 70 year of months on another side of
the time line you will see that Christ was born on December of
BC just days before 1 AD and when you count up 596 years to September AD 70
years you will always have 666 years 596 is not 595. I did not say 595 years
before Christ I said 596 years before Christ. If there were a zero year that
would be 596 + 70 + 1(0 year)= 667...simple arithmetic 596 +70 = 666 on any
number line there is measurment of zero only a line of separation that
separates -1 and +1 it is called zero but zero only separates the + and - it is
not a actual measurment of zero inches. 31 December is the dividing line
between one BC year and the next Year AD......I am afraid the "joke" is on you
guys....:)
Allen
Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 21, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Allen Daves wrote:
Me in blue
You astound me on the one hand with your eloquence and on the other you
"gift" for your lack of understanding and missing any and all verbatim
correlation(s) "Trample via gentiles" "the city"within the relevant text as
well as the context as a whole itself....you seem to piecemeal Revelation
Daniel and Jesus as all separate not related topics and text in sipte of their
specific referenced staments ...see previous?
The mistake is straightforward. Your count is wrong (for several reasons),
because the span of time from 596 BC to 70 AD is not 666 years, but 665 years.
You're doing the count on the assumption there is a Year Zero. I made this
clear, transparent, and gave TWO examples of how this is to be correctly
counted, and even SAID that the 666 year count is wrong, and you still missed
it. I can't help you if you don't pay attention to what I'm communicating.
The other reason the count is wrong is because you have the wrong start point
for the beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy. It begins with Nehemiah's prayer to
God, offered in the month of Kislev, the third month of the civil year, in the
twentieth year of Artaxerxes (455 BC). The references to the rebuilding
occurring in Ezra are baseless (as if the decree emanated from the 7th year of
Artaxerxes, or from Cyrus, which hypotheses fall apart under scrutiny). The
483rd year of the 490 in the set begins at the outset of Christ's public
ministry, the middle of the 70th week occurs when Christ is crucified and cut
off, the remainder of the 70th week terminates at the stoning of Stephen. In
other words, the 490 years overlaps the 70 years, and this circumstance is
fatal to the consecutive treatment they receive in the Powerpoint slides.
Briefly, your 596+70=666 count is wrong because you need to subtract one year
for crossing the BC-AD divide because there's no discretization at that
threshold, and even if you hadn't made that mistake, you're off by more than
three decades by failing to pinpoint the correct terminus a quo for the
beginning of Daniel's prophecy concerning the rebuilding of the wall. Ezra was
only allowed to work on the temple -- he had religious freedom there to
rebuild, but no civil authority to raise up the defenses of Jerusalem, for
which reason the city remained a reproach. I won't go into detail here with the
scriptural proofs for this position, and the refutation of alleged
counter-passages in Ezra, Haggai, and Isaiah, but I'm ready to bring them into
the open if your response indicates this is needful. But I'm very, very
well-armed on this, scripturally.
So, when you write that "Year zero has nothing to do with those
calculations...." you're mistaken. You should have verified this first before
reaffirming the same mistake a second time. Had you sat down with paper and
pencil and just looked at what you were doing, you'd have seen the problem
right away. You merely assumed you were right, and I was wrong. Such
assumptions can come back to bite one, especially after you charge me thus:
"you did not read very carefully." It takes more than a blunderbuss approach
to be a workman approved, not ashamed.
Nobody, and I repeat, nobody, is a master of Scripture unless they've first
been mastered BY the Scripture. You play so fast and loose with verses, it
truly shocks me to see so much boundless zeal put behind such feebly-supported
speculations, at the expense of the straightforward expositions and exegeses of
the passages. You downplay the "jots and tittles" in order to impose
preconceived ideas about context. You merely assume that (1) your take on the
context is correct and that (2) its bearing on Rev. 13:18 is determinative.
Assertion is not proof. What's particularly annoying is that I, too, have made
an appeal to context within Revelation, and you've dismissed it without a
second thought. But you charge ME thus: "you don't even grasp the context of
what is going on and you want to understand it how?" Having taught
verse-by-verse through Revelation as early as 1981 at the seminary level, I
know something about the context of what is going on. For that reason, I have
very little sympathy for the vast majority of popular "thinking" on the topic.
Too many of these folks need to go back and do a little homework before going
to press prematurely.
On the positive side, if (as I think you're saying) you're teaching that God
set up His kingdom prior to 70 AD, I would be in hearty agreement with this
view. That would be the correct take on the final parts of Daniel 2, that
during the ancient Roman Empire God would set up His kingdom, one that would
never be shaken. If this is your view (and it seems to be the case, based on
your slide presentation), you'd be in sharp disagreement with much of
evangelical Christendom, but you'd nonetheless be correct. The setting up of
that kingdom doesn't await some future event: it occurred twenty centuries ago,
and the demolition of the Roman Empire is proof of it (the stone cut without
hands strikes the statue, and it becomes like the chaff of the summer threshing
floors and was driven away by the wind). If I've misunderstood you, and you
don't think God set up a kingdom of any kind at that point, we'd again be on
opposite ends of an issue. Which tends to be a prevailing
situation. As Neville says, there's surely plenty of diversity on this forum.
Martin
Martin G. Selbrede
Chief Scientist
Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc.
8708 Technology Forest Place, Suite 100
The Woodlands, TX 77381
281-825-4500 main line (281) 825-4507 direct line (281) 825-4599 fax
(512) 422-4919 cell
mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / martin.selbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts: