[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Me in blue new charts attached I hope for the sake of simplicity........
regaurdless of your various postions............folks bother to print store or
whatever with the charts so that I do not have to keep expaining over and over
as well as the fact that a photo is worth a 1000 words ..
Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Most people read ?troublesome times? and think that is some generic
figure of speech, it is not but that is why they miss it because they fail to
define it as the bible defines it. And the bible defines those ?troublesome
times? and puts it in specific context with the days of those kings from
Herrod in Danile ch 8,11,& 12 to the destruction of Jerusalem via Jesus in
Luke 21.
?There are two occasions for the street and wall once was in the days of
Herrod ~16 years before Christ 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
is not Nehemiah?s temple for scripture state that it only took 4 years to
finish (Ezra 4:24 see Persian kings chart) this 46 years in John is Herrods
improvements after the quake of ~40BC? the troublesome times the other is
Nehimiah ch 5 in 490 BC both must be accounted for. Nehimiah is common to
Daniel with the wall and ?even in troublesome times? is synonymous to Herrod
and or the days of these kings in which the kingdom would be set up. This is
how you know it is 4 times sets not just three????. For far too long ?scholars?
have missed the forest for the tree, even though the text specifically mentions
4 times sets they assumed three even though in the same format as the other
narratives that discuss some of the same events namely
TIME = 70 weeks
TIMES = 62 & 7 weeks
& HALF A TIME = middle of one week
Again, no and no and no. The Bible DOES define the troublous times: ENTIRE
CHAPTERS are devoted to describing it in Nehemiah.
Nowhere does Nehemiah ever mentions "Troublesome times" much less define
it! Daniel, Jesus and revelation do specifically and they are all correlated to
each other. as well as the fact that Times times and half a time aare corelated
to the saem events mentioned in Danile Ch 9 70 weeks..................The
problem here is you cant get over what you think the text talks about rather
then accepting what it plainly and actually states. If you are going to talk
about "troublesome times" might help to actually address the scripture that
mention it otherwise if you are going to generalize " trouble some times a
"assign" it to Nemimiah then you are still left without a argument against its
application to Daniel Jesus and revelation as well. In any case Danile Ch 12
is discussing the same things as ch 8 & 11 see the parallel charts i provided
that prove it. The discussion in all those are related to the 1.time of the end
2.troublesome times 3. as "setting up " the "abomination
of desolation" 4. "the daily scrifices".
Why do you say that information is not biblical? That was the ONLY time that
the wall was built after the exile. The only time!
I did not say that infomration was not biblical ....but that was not the
only time the street and wall were worked on Herrod did that well and history
records it after a quake in ~40 BC and Jesus is discusin all the renovations
with his deciples in John 2:20 thoes are not Neimiahs or ezras....and Herrod is
mentioned in the same context as Daneil ch 8,11 & 12 that mention those
"troublesome times" or "time of trouble".....you miss the fact that ch 12 is
not a "island to itself"....?
Your problem is you ignore specific ref and context while imposing your views
on what the text does not state presumable due to your own position. Now the
only way to demonstrate its meaning is to show how and where it uses identical
terms or concepts.. There is no "troublesome times in Nehemiah without assuming
that first...any more then the flood narrative was troublesome times, or in the
days of Antiochus Epiphanies. Maybe he is discussion all trouble sometimes till
the messiah if you take your approach of assuming the Nehemiah is the
troublesome times that the text never mentions, then you have no logical
argument to prevent that ..could be......... but you should always start with
what you have not what you do not have. Start with where he actually mentions
"trouble times" and a time of trouble. True that the street and wall pertain to
Nemihiah but trouble some times in the same context you cannot claim logic by
ignoring one to make a point on the other ( rob Peter
to pay Paul) Daniel places the setting up of the abomination of desolation by
a king from the third empire and times of trouble where Jesus talks about "
abomination of desolation in AD 70 both are common to in the days of these
kings when God was to set up his kingdom. One is "set up" the other is seen
"standing where it out not"
And it was a troublous time (sword & trowel, remember) where Nehemiah even
feared for the lives of his people during the building of it, due to Sanballat
and Tobias's machinations and plottings against him. This whole "forget what
the eyewitness, Nehemiah, said about the troublous times surrounding the
wall-building, I'll show you what the Bible actually says about it" is brazen
disregard for the Bible, not honoring of the Bible. I'm sorry to be so blunt
about it, but you're simply not catching on.
1. Start with scripture that acculay mentions trouble some times not define
this as somthing scripture never states... alot of times were "toublesome"
second dont ignore the times it specificaly dose define and correlate
troublesome times....all you are doing is adding something to neimhia while
taking that very thing from Daniel Jesus and Revelation
2. scripture does not say the street and wall would be built it states that
"even in troublesome times it would be built" there is more then one occasion
implied in the "even" and ibecomes Imaritive once the times that the street and
wall were repaired as well as the bibles outline of the "troublesome times" is
allowed to do the speaking.
Second, you arbitrarily take a statement from Daniel 12:7, NOT spoken by
Gabriel, NOT an answer to Daniel's prayer concerning Jerusalem, which Daniel
learned would be destroyed again, and simply, with total arbitrariness, insert
it into Daniel 9 as if it was the most natural fit in the world, and that the
true meaning of Daniel 9 awaited this conversation (years later!) with someone
other than Gabriel, to grant you the license to mix-and-match scriptures as you
see fit.
1. Daneil ch 8,11 & 12 that mention those "troublesome times" or "time of
trouble".....you miss the fact that ch 12 is not a "island to itself"..it is
correlated to other chaptes via verbatum statments and other events.....?
2. Danile Ch 9,11 & 12 were all given in the same year they are related
contextualy as well as chonologicly..
Allen, this is no safe harbor: Gabriel told the truth about the WHEN. He
left nothing out. There are no "four" periods into which the 490 years is
determined: only three, and only ever were there three subdivisions of the main
span of 70 sevens. Note, by the way, that seventy years is TEN sevens, or TEN
weeks, and we look in vain for this term in the passage. It doesn't exist.
You simply made it up. I don't think you have the right to do that. I don't
know why you're doing it, but it makes no Biblical sense.
I guess we're back at the far end of the tether again -- hope we meet back in
the common ground at the center soon. I dislike having to take such a contrary
position, but you leave me no choice. You appear to think that repeating a
wrong strategy enough times makes it a right strategy. It only becomes doubly
and trebly wrong for having not been hitherto corrected.
I've encountered folks who say "God uses incorrect grammar." I hope you're
not one of them. If you're not, I'd think you'd want to take His word
seriously. The Septuagint isn't an infallible guide by any stretch -- God
inspired the Hebrew words, and the Septuagint deviates from them quite a bit.
Note the difference between the Hebrew and Septuagint Greek of Job 38:22 -- the
Hebrew reads "knowest though the ordinances of the heavens?" while the
Septuagint reads "knowest thou the turning of the heavens?" Those are NOT the
same thought. As has been well said, the word "translator" derives from the
root word "traitor" -- someone who betrays the correct meaning of a thought in
the process of migrating it to a target language.
God's gramer is good your twisting of it from time to time is sad,
particulaly when you asstert imparitives and exclusions that do not exist for
words and phrases . This text was not meant to be understood untill after the
fact. it is not written to be understood eaisly. ther problem is not the
gramer the problem is you force a given reading on it as well as other things.
You elsewhere make a point about the age of the folks watching the rebuilding
who wept at the modest dimensions of Ezra's foundations compared to Solomon's.
In this, you misunderstand the distinction between Ezra's raising of the
temple, versus Nehemiah's building of the streets and walls and battlements.
These are two different things, and Daniel 9 deals with the latter, while
Cyrus's decree (followed by the decree of Artaxerxes in the seventh year of his
reign) deal with the temple. You're mixing these up almost routinely, then
slipping in data about the temple of Herod, when the question had to do with
the walls and city built by Nehemiah, not the Ezra temple and its refurbishing
by Herod (which I've already discussed at length herein).
I know Ezra is latter then Nehemiah that is my point! You need to go re read
the text and then look at the chart. The order of the kings as well as the time
the text gives for each of them. You cant change the time frame between
nehimiah and Jesus without streaching the time from NEBs 19th year to Ezra's
temple constrcution and the text now without any streaching is already 101
years another 53 years is not posible for them to have seen the first temple
(plus to be able to remember it.....weill tack on anohter 10 years or so for
that).
Martin
Other related posts:
