[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: "Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:22:24 -0500
Again, Allen, some of what you say is correct, and some of it is not.
The rebuilding "in trouble times" is exactly what Nehemiah documents:
Sanballat and Tobias attempting to derail the building with demonic
plots to undermine the effort. This is where the phrase "sword and
trowel" first arose: they had a trowel in one hand to build the wall,
and a sword in the other hand to defend against attacks.
The Herodian temple isn't the same structure as the one built under
Ezra -- as Flavius Josephus documents, the Idumaean kings continually
refurbished the second temple until every piece of it had been
replaced -- Herod the Great even took away the original foundations
laid by Ezra. When people wrongly think that an alleged "third
temple" is still in the world's future, they fail to recognize that a
third temple is exactly what Titus destroyed in 70 AD.
The 483 years extend from the command to build, which I've already
(following the Bible's own history of the event) identified with
Nehemiah 1 & 2.
You assume that the phrase "unto an Anointed One, a prince,"
"Messiach the prince," refers to the birth of Christ. But, of course,
Daniel knows what "anointing" is, and he even says that one of the
six things to be achieved in the course of this prophecy's
fulfillment is the "anointing of a holiness of holinesses," or "the
anointing of the most Holy One." Jesus wasn't anointed at His birth,
He was anointed with the oil of the Spirit at His Baptism. Zechariah
4 explains how the Spirit of God constitutes an infinite resource of
oil (supplied in the vision by two olive trees), representing His
Spirit. Christ's public ministry as The Anointed One began with this
anointing, in correlation with Daniel 9. It didn't begin with His
birth. (One would wonder why not start with His conception, then.
After all, John the Baptist in Elisabeth's womb leapt for joy at the
presence of the pre-birth Christ in Mary's womb. Was John the Baptist
too stupid to realize that Christ hadn't yet come, by "birth"
definition? I think John knew what was significant when he was on
hand to baptize Jesus and witness His anointing by the image of the
dove coming down on His head.)
It's not that I miss the benchmarks you provide, it's that you
provide the wrong benchmarks. You've never shown the scriptural
benchmarks that I've provided, which, by the way, are IN the relevant
texts in question, are wrong -- the ONLY reason they're wrong, when
push comes to shove, is because they conflict with your theory which
you're somewhat attached to, perhaps more than you ought to be.
As for why the first 69 weeks of Daniel are broken into groups of 7
and 62, you're free to guess if it doesn't damage the text. But
you've attempted to damage the text with your guess, so I must
recalcitrate -- the periods are consecutive, the wall was completed
centuries before Herod the Great, and that's just an inconvenient
fact that must be confronted. The first 49 years in the sequence led
up to a Jubilee Year, for which Nehemiah prepared the people during
his ministry which (note well) included the extermination of usury
among the Jews -- a lesson apparently long since forgotten.
I reject, outright, your continued claim that the scriptural
benchmarks I provide are simply "my own" and distinctive unbiblical,
while your benchmarks are characterized as sound and biblical. I've
argued from nothing but Scripture from the outset, taking the
passages as they stand written, with ZERO intent of re-routing the
texts to conform to a Procrustean bed. You insist so often about time
periods like "36 years" and the alleged biblical significance of the
time period from Christ's birth to AD 70. WHERE, precisely, in
SCRIPTURE, do we see such numbers as "from birth of Messiah to
destruction of Jerusalem is 70 years," or "from end of exile to
beginning of 70 weeks prophecy is 36 years." I invite ANYONE to
search for "36" or "thirty six" in the Bible, for example, and see
how the bucket comes up empty. But to judge from your chart, that 36
is plain and easy to see in Scripture. However, it is a raw
assertion, an apparent implication of of your theory, and not taken
out of a text of Scripture at all. Put some meat on these bones if
you want me to interact with it seriously. Otherwise, I'm under no
obligation to indulge something so apparently capricious. Just give
me the verse where this 36 year gap is PLAINLY AFFIRMED. That's all
I need, not twelve multi-color paragraphs that include no
chronological information suitable for securing that result. My
assumption is that continued receipt of such technicolor ramblings is
evidence of hand-waving. However, a suitably concatenated argument
on your part will be duly respected.
Lastly, the phrase "ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of
the truth" is a verse Paul applies to women, not men. Should I feel
insulted? Just wondering. :)
Thanks,
Martin
On May 22, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Allen Daves 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.
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
<70_2.JPG>
<BC Appendix.jpg>
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:
