[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: "Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 18:07:52 -0500
On May 24, 2007, at 5:33 PM, Allen Daves wrote:
The angel in Daniel Ch 10:. Note it is given in the third year of
Cyrus ..........Ch 11:1 is given in the 1st year of Darius the mead...
Allen, this is the FIFTH time I'm calling you on you to read the
passage. Fifth time. Please don't make it a sixth and seventh.
Chapter 11:1 is NOT given in the 1st year of Darius the Mead -- the
Angel is still in the middle of his speech to Daniel, which he began
to speak just minutes earlier in the middle of Chapter 10, which on
your own admission is dated to the third year of Cyrus (as Chap. 10:1
clearly states). You're looking at the Angel's comment about when he
first started to act, and you then assume that the comment provides
the date he's speaking to Daniel. No. The comment is INFORMATION
the Angel is giving to Daniel about when the Angel had acted YEARS
EARLIER.
If I say, "On August 3 of 2002, I pointed out to Fred when I
graduated from college. It was in May of 1974 that I graduated." --
it doesn't mean the second sentence was uttered in May of 1974 -- it
was uttered on August 3 of 2002. THIS is what you keep missing, five
times in a row. Please read the passage continuously, from Daniel
10:1 through the beginning verses of Chapter 11. I'm begging you
this time: "redeem the time, for the days are evil." Surely you can
spare several minutes to crack open a Bible and read through this
sequence and see WHO is talking and WHAT he is saying and to WHOM he
is saying it. I know that if you actually look at the passage,
you'll see the mistake you keep making.
As far as the Great Tribulation (thlipsis megalae), there's no
question in my mind that it occurred in the time frame you describe
(the siege of Jerusalem led by Titus, and all the events surrounding
that overthrow of the city). So I'm not disputing that one iota.
I'm disputing that Dan. 9:25 refers to this period. The fact that
Dan. 9:26 refers to the desolations as being decreed/determined isn't
disputed either. We're on the same page there. But there is no basis
for the gratuitous stretch to make the troublous time of v. 25 refer
to the later events -- Herod died while Jesus was still young, and
there was no wall-building going on after Christ was cut-off. There
is ZERO fit here. So, as I said, while I agree with your general
position, your details are garbled and not arranged correctly.
I already acknowledged (in detail) the nature of the construction
project that Herod imposed on the temple. This was NOT a
restoration, because there was nothing wrong with the temple
architecture requiring any restoration whatsoever. Zech. 4:4-10
teaches that Zerubbabel would bring forth the capstone thereof with
shoutings crying Grace unto it -- not Herod. What Herod did was
strictly a vanity project -- to make a name for himself by being able
to boast that the temple was refurbished by him. NOTE that Nehemiah
and Ezra turned down having any Edomites (Idumaeans, as Herod was)
work on their projects. Herod's tampering with the temple the Jews
had rebuilt was unsolicited, unnecessary, and an outrage (second only
to the murder of the male infants of Bethlehem). But further
fortification of the city walls was NOT allowed by the Roman
procurators: the last thing they needed was for Israel to revolt and
hide behind battlements any more enhanced than they already had since
Nehemiah finished the perimeter. (Israel ultimately revolted anyway,
and look where it got them.)
Martin
Other related posts:
