[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 05:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Me in Blue
Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 24, 2007, at 9:44 PM, Allen Daves wrote:
?At that time ( hereod to AD 70) there will be a time of trouble? There is
clearly a time frame and a time within that time frame. Now the time from is
from Herrod to ~AD 70 but the time that is within that time frame (a time of
trouble) is at the end of that time frame, but it is still part of ?that
time?.. I keep trying to get across the fact that it is discussing a time
frame not just a time although there are specific benchmarks with in that time
frame that are themselves benchmarked by sets of time. Events that are
beanchmarked/ correlated by and in sets of time that all mark or point to a
time frame.
Okay, Allen, maybe we're just having a communication problem here (but, then
again, maybe not). I have NO problem at all with this interpretation of Daniel
12:1, and never did.
BUT... I don't connect this with Daniel 9:25's discussion of the building of
the wall. THAT is gratuitous and arbitrary.
Arbitrary..!?
1. The most troublesome time was set up by Herod himself personally...?
2. Dan 9:25 states from the going fourth of the command to rebuild and
restore Jerusalem till messiah the prince?Herrod did that..? How could Herrod
not relate to Danile 9:25?? Street and wall also pertain to restoring Jerusalem
which took place in both Nehimha's day as well as Herrod's.
The similarity in terms isn't near enough to overcome the dissimilarity in
the other predicates, which decide firmly against the alleged parallel.
There is no similarity to troublesome times and Nehimah except that
troublesome times is associated with the street and wall which is mentioned in
Neh ch 5 but Rebuilding and srestorign Jerusalem is also associated with
troublsome times?Any argument about similarity to troublesome times or any
relationship to Nehemiah can be made even more directly with Herrod? Repeat,
you cannot associate Nehemiah to the time of trouble in Dan 9 any more then
Herrod ?..why ?.. If there was no mention in Nehemiah in ch 4,5 &6 about the
wall or steet there would be no way to correlate or assume any similarity to
Nehemiah with any kind of time of trouble any more so then Antiochus Epiphanies
or any other difficult time in the Jewish history. With Herod we have even
secular history as well as scripture that tells us about his restoration
efforts. 9:25 rebuild and restore Jerusalem ??The street and wall are
discussing the same thing as rebuilding and restoring Jerusalem in Dan
ch9:25?Herod did that?? So the same metric you used to associate Nehimiah with
troublesome times in Dan 9 Identifies Herrod also because he rebuilt and
restored Jerusalem and that is associated with ?troublesome times as well???You
can?t restore or rebuild the city without the street and wall..if they need
repair...? We would not know about the street and wall of Nehemiah?s day if
Nehimiah had not given it too us. It is only found in scripture. With Herrod
we have in scripture a direct correlation to a time frame that will include a
time of trouble. Herod was personally responsible for that ?time of trouble?
mentioned in Ch 12 as well as Jesus comments ??.. who is also was going around
trying to kill the messiah ; given the candy store away to the Romans as well
as forsaking th covenant with God ..If Nehemiah was troublesome times because
it mentions a wall, well this time frame set up by this king ( Herrod) that
is specifically to take place ?at that time? ?..?a
time of trouble such as never was? then Herrod who is responsible for the
most troublesome time as well as rebuilding and restoring Jerusalem is just as
if not more similar then even Nehimaih. .. "troublesome times" in Dan ch 9
cannot be argued as having a more distant relationship to Herrod then to
Nehemiah?s day. Because the only way anyone could claim that Nehemiah?s day has
anything to do with ch 9:25 is not that nehemiah even metions troublesome times
but rather the fact that the text refers to the wall which is associated to
troublesome times. However steet and the wall & rebuilding and restoring
Jerusalem are both associated with troulesome times. Therefore, Herrod has a
Jjst as much claim if not a even closer relationship to any sort of troublesome
times, for that reason as well as the fact that he set up the most troublesome
time ever?? .
Nehimais rebuilt and restored Jerusalem so did Herrod.. what?s not to
understand? Daniel ch 9 discuss the street and the wall and rebuilding &
restoring Jerusalem ..those are part of the same thing not two entirely
different activities?.which are associated with ?even in troublesome
times???.....why are you having such a hard time understanding ?....Any
arguments you make for Nehemiah in regards to troublesome times, because of
his mention of a wall and difficulty in construction do to the neighbors,
applies to Herrod even more so because he rebuilt and restored Jerusalem as
well and was personally responsible for the most troublesome time ever..... He
set it up in the first place....
BUT then again, I have no problem connecting 12:1 (certainly its main ideas
and focus) with Dan. 9:26. Or verse 24 or 27, for that matter. Those relate to
the great tribulation. Never disputed that once. We're in lockstep on those
parallels.
What I said was that the "distress of time" of Dan. 9:25 is simply not the
same thing as the "time of trouble" in the second half of 12:1, because the
NATURE of the trouble in the first case related to the building (the building
itself was jeopardized by the trouble impinging upon it). The term "even" used
by KJV translators reflects the fact that the connecting particle is
"epexegetical" and not copulative (in other words, it explains something about
the building process and things that stood to influence it directly, and
adversely).
If I took your last post at face value, you're essentially saying the Romans
told Herod to have at it and fortify the wall to his heart's content.
History records that he in fact did do just that.that is why it took the
Romans so long to breach the city..it had been fortified by herrod ... In fact
he even fortified masada and other locations for himself....?
Although I don't hold this to be the rebuilding predicted by Daniel (it was
finished centuries earlier), I must add that if I DID think this was the
rebuilding mentioned by Daniel, it was obvious Daniel was a false prophecy. No
trouble adversely affected such a project, nor stood to jeopardize it, on your
own testimony. (However, the verses you pulled concerning Herod's construction
activities made reference to the temple. The word "wall" doesn't even appear in
the gospels -- a pretty serious hold in the theory that claims scriptural
support that the Bible expressly indicates that the wall was being rebuilt. Of
course, Nehemiah fulfills the bill perfectly,
You cannot associate Nehemiah to the time of trouble in Dan 9 any more then
Herrod ?..why ?1. ther is no menitonof a time of trouble that associationis
only made in cotext to rebuilding and restoring the city. If there was no
mention in Nehemiah in ch 4,5 &6 about the wall or steet there would be no way
to correlate or assume any similarity to Nehemiah with any kind of time of
trouble..
2. Herod rebuilt and restored the city as well and Dan 9:25 specificaly
mentions that any metric you attmept to apply to troublseome times & ch 9:25 to
Nehimiah Appies to Herrod even more some.. more troubles asribed to him and
just as much City restoration and such.....
notwithstanding your curious attempts to discount the most complete
historical record of a construction project ever committed to Scripture.)
No, what is curious is the fact that folks have allowed years of consensus
on Nehemiah as being part of ch 9, (I agree on that as well) turning to a
indoctrination almost dogma that it somehow it only and could only apply to
Nehemiah...!? They have created blinders for themselves. That is why they
can?t see the forest for the tree (all they can see is Nehemiah)
I'm glad we got over the hurdle concerning the time difference between
Gabriel's speech in Daniel 9 and the events of Daniel 10-12. I never said that
there couldn't be textual parallels across that divide (I've already
acknowledged some) -- BUT I also affirmed that Gabriel said that HE (GABRIEL)
was sent to answer Daniel's questions and prayers about the city, and that
Gabriel had fully done so. There was NOTHING missing in Gabriel's response --
NOTHING. If something WAS missing and was filled in by the OTHER angel years
later, then Gabriel, "who standeth before the throne of God," was a big fat
liar. I'm incapable of reaching that point of despair, and so I will defend to
the death that Gabriel is a completely reliable guide. How could it be
otherwise with the elect angels, given what Psalm 103:19 says: "Bless the Lord,
ye His angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening
unto the voice of His word." I think that Gabriel's description is
perfect, lacking nothing: you can take it to the bank.
Martin
Other related posts:
