[geocentrism] Re: 666 middle ground....?
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Yes, I think even here we have much in common even if we don't agree on alot.
we, at least I am just a stickler for our various view points subtle or not,
and are both willing to defend them vigorously...and thats ok ... ( the nature
of debate/ discussion i guess)......
I have included a zipped web page that seems together some of the relevant
issues atleast to me. as it relates to comming and Judgment and the thousand
years.. but as for cues yes, I take the Revelation remarks about quickly and
soon very seriously as well as the fact that the temple was not destroyed yet
for John is told to measure it and that the gentiles would future tense trample
it for 42 months wich is assocated with the destruction of Jeruselem in AD
70............. The chart demonstrating the kings and the beast that was and
is not and yet is important too for it id's " there are 7 kings 5 HAVE FALLEN 1
IS and the other HAS NOT COME and the best that was and is not and yet is the
8th and is of the seven"......... Also to note that Jesus states he would come
in that generation see attached web page to see correlation for that as well as
his remarks about them sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes take
a look and we can discuss this maybe others will
be interested as well..?
Allen
PS I often suffer from.."O Lord give me Patience now!"
"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Okay, Allen, we're getting somewhere. I happen to think the partial preterist
view of Revelation, which is almost invariably tied to the early date
hypothesis, has a lot to say for it. So, while I don't adopt the view, I'm
very respectful of it. I think that this approach to Revelation is particularly
good at taking John's time cues about immediate subsequence very seriously, at
face value, and you have to respect that. That's the primary reason I'm not a
futurist -- because one MUST take into account the clear statements that the
events in Revelation aren't postponed 20 centuries but kick into gear almost
immediately.
So, at long last, some (apparent) common ground. Unless you prove me wrong
about that supposition! :)
Martin
P.S. There are four primary schools of thought concerning Revelation and how
to treat its prophecies: Preterism, Futurism, Idealism, and Historicism. The
Preterist believes most of the book is ancient history and spoke to the events
leading up to 70 AD, i.e., God's divorce of Israel. The Futurist believes
virtually none of the book has happened yet -- it's off in the future. The
Idealist believes the book depicts the great conflict between Christ and His
enemies between His first and second advents, but without the sequence of
visions necessarily dictating historic chronology but rather big-picture
thinking. The Historicist agrees with the Idealist that Relevation speaks to
the entire period between the first and second advents, but insists that the
book provides sequential information that can be tied to history (e.g., the
rise of Islam is envisioned in Revelation 9, for example).
The Preterist has no problems conforming with John's assertion that "the time
is at hand." The Futurist must weasel out of these clear, repeated statements.
The Idealist and Historicist agree with the Preterist that the events begin
immediately, but they don't attempt to squeeze them into a tiny span of time
between 66 and 70 AD.
The Futurist is opposed to the early date of composition for Revelation
because it wreaks havoc on his theory. The Preterist is opposed to the late
date of composition for the same reason. The Idealist and Historicist can work
with either option: they don't have a dog in that fight, since the "canvas"
they see for Revelation is centuries wide, rather than being less then a decade
in duration, as generally required in preterist and futurist thinking.
I myself am in the Idealist camp, but have (as I've said) strong sympathies
for the Preterist school of thought, because it does justice to significant
points made by John. My preference for the Idealist school is because, in the
balance, the Idealist school has fewer problems and conflicts
intra-scripturally. I've published book reviews of some of the best preterist
scholarship (e.g., Gentry's "The Beast of Revelation," Chilton's "Days of
Vengeance"), and was requested (by the publisher!) to do critical reviews of
these books because they knew I'd be a fair judge of their content and merit,
despite not adopting the preterist view. I was complimented by Gentry for the
high caliber of my critical book review, in fact, and how thought-provoking it
was for him as an author. There's evidence he plowed back some of this feedback
into his larger work, "When Jerusalem Fell," considered the best statement to
date defending the early date of composition for Revelation. -- MGS
On May 22, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Allen Daves wrote:
In Blue
"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Allen,
No, I don't intend to be overly obtuse over rounding things a bit. I think
that if Rev. 13:18 referred to 666 years, I wouldn't scrabble over a few months
one way or another. So, I'm not holding you to an overly critical level of
hyper-precision, which would be both imprudent and ungracious. My fundamental
problems lie elsewhere, but yes, I'm interested in middle-ground with you,
because looking at the bigger picture, as I said before, I'm in strong sympathy
with some of the implications of your position, but I strongly object to how
you arrived at them. One of the things I teach my Bible students is that using
the wrong scriptures to support a correct position tends to cripple the
position, because one need only knock down the wrongful scripture citation,
which then casts doubt on the doctrine that was alleged to hinge on that verse.
This is why care needs to be taken. You're not playing with a human document,
but God's Words that He breathed out into the "graphe," the
Scriptures.
Here's my take: you believe that the count in Rev. 13:18 is of years. I
don't. I see no support for it, nowhere, neither in any chronological measure
provided in Revelation, nor in Daniel, nor in Jeremiah, and I'm intimately
familiar with all the passages you keep quoting back to me.
The Key to any argument is first to know what the context is inorder to
know the how to count only then can you know how to count it. Since there is
only one man reckoned as a beast we are now limited in the ways we are able to
count it.. First what are we counting then how can we count it......prophecies
outlines if we let it 666 years or 666th year from the head to the feet ( feet
always wear the name of what ever head they are attached to hence "Mystery
Babylon") this is the only number or count that we can demonstrate from
scripture related to this man/ beast and is perfectly in line with the textual
prophecies about these things..could it all be a coincidence...perhaps but then
again evolution states we are all just coincidence As for how can we know, i
think the argument is shut and closed anything else is "possible" but only a
number of years demonstratable with this man and beast wich are about even in
the context of rev the destruction of Jeruselsem so context
is key..I know and admit that Scripture does not states years but that is the
point it does not state anything about how to count it It is silent on that
mater it can only be understood once the "what" is known. When the what is
known then and only then can how be deduced or understood from scritpure.
Therefore, I don?t see how arguing the fact that it does not state years is
relevant when it does not state anything at all about the count except wisdom.
We both agree, I think, that must be from scripture & or God. Scripture gives
us a outline that maps 666years or 666th year and is consistent with all other
prophecies. In fact makes all demonstratable and sing like a chorus...:) in
short the key is the what then we can eliminate or find the method of the count
and this count can be demonstrated as consitaint with the other counts so all
is accounted for...:)
So, in the interest of something more constructive in the way of dialogue,
let's hear what YOU think is the date of composition of the Book of Revelation.
see attached .....basicaly I can "prove" as so far as anything can be proven,
that it was written before AD70 llok at the charts i give a more specific
date.........There are plenty of other arguments for this that are not even on
these charts regaurdless of where you personaly stand I bet you already know of
some of the others and ill let you comment a little before i go into it any
further......There are generally two options available: it was written under
the reign of Domitian, circa 95 or 96 AD (the so-called "late date" theory), or
it was written under the reign of Nero before the downfall of Jerusalem (the
"early date" theory). I'll be able to better gauge what you're driving at if
you reveal which of these theories you've adopted. Some of what you're writing
suggests advocacy for the early date, particularly
you're repeated citation of Rev. 1:3 that "the time is at hand," indicating
that the events of Revelation would be unfolding very shortly after the date of
composition. (Which, by the way, is grammatically defensible.)
I bet there is common ground somewhere for us yet :)
Respectfully,
Allen
Respectfully,
Martin
On May 22, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Allen Daves wrote:
Might we all be engaging in an unnecessary splitting of the proverbial hair
.........if just on this point of years?
I am not claiming that 665 years and two months is 666 years although it
would be the 666th year ..... same net effect since 666 is "the number "...and
numbers and years are listed in the OT in both ordinal and cardinal forms (eg.
6 years v 6th year)..... However, in any case, I am stating that since
scripture does not outline the months exactly it only does so in years. I can
only tell you 666 years in round numbers. I don't know if it was 666 years and
two months or three months or if it were 7989 months which divided by 12 is
665.75 years which if you asked most people would say if you asked them how
long has it been?.......well lets see.... I reckon its been about 666years now.
But that whole issue is moot since we don????t know all the intermediate
months. I would venture to guess that it was probably 666 years and some months
but since I do not know that for sure and since you can't prove it one way or
the other it is a moot issue. If theoretically Neb could have
come to throne on 1 January of 596 or perhaps 90 days earlier, therefore to
Sept 23 AD 70 is only days from an exact 666, or a whole year, or 2/3 into the
70th year rounding to the year is not only appropriate it is the only honest
thing anyone can claim. Since you can??t know exactly to argue it is somewhat
moot. The only thing that can be demonstrated is 596 BC to sept of AD 70 th
year =666 years or 666th year take your pick. The claim stands 596 BC Neb of
Babylon to AD 70 = 666 years to the year not the month. I have already
demonstrated that this is what is to be counted therefore to argue that my
point is somehow erroneous is to argue about what you do not have while
ignoring the only textually given outline for the only demonstrated and
directly related number to the only man reckoned as a Beast found anywhere in
scripture. That man and beast are doing the same things that are referred to in
the text of 666 the number of the man/best .......Believe me I have
understood your point even before this debate but it is realy moot and
requires a far more difficult explanations for something that can?t even be
shown exactly, rather then just rounding to years since that is as close as the
outline gives and or you can get anyway because the text oulines years not
months ..........
However if you and Neville want to say September 23 of 597BC go ahead, and I
will understand what you are attempting to reconcile (although 666th year has
the same net effect) but I doubt anyone else would without a lot of
complicated and I would argue unnecessary argumentation since you would have to
explain in effect how one year is reckoned as only ~90 days rather then just
rounding to the nearest year with a + margin of error as I did ....?
Allen
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: The Gregorian calendar is
correcting is meant! You who keep getting so wound up around 666 years
apparently to the very month, day and hour I never stated or implied that I
keep bring out the fact it outlines a number of years not months since it does
not I can only give you round years and sept AD 70 is still considered the 70th
year. 596 + a month or can still considered 596 years..at the end of the day
only a total for years is given so I can only be as accurate as the outline I
gave you 596 BC before Christ and AD 70 is 666 years I don?t know nor did i
claim the exact number of months I even gave + 11 months so I have covered
every bit part of the outline to as much detail as possible but I will say it
again 666 years + 11 months just as i stated at the beginning so you objection
here is misguided.
"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 22, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Allen Daves wrote:
I did not say 596 years before Christ as Martian or anyone else "counts" I
said a real actual 596 years before Christ BC by definition of the term
Honestly now, if you label your chart with "596 BC" and "70 AD," do you think
people should know you don't mean the actual years as they appear on a
Gregorian or Julian calendar? That you have your own unique measurement
system, based on a proposed actual birth of Jesus, but didn't disclose it in
advance to avoid confusion when you put your labels on the chart? You don't
use long-established labels and expect people to read your mind that they don't
mean what they say.
"Definition of the term" -- okay, you have the right to create your own
definition, but since the rest of the world knows AD and BC according to
calendars in use for centuries, you need to disambiguate. Further, I fail to
see how you avoid the problems regarding the chronology in Luke with your
model. The birth of Christ is usually pushed farther back in time because of
the political scene Luke described as extant during the period of the Nativity.
You assert, but don't address the problem with the model. Unless, of course,
you're willing to throw Luke out of the canon. Is that a tenable option for
someone who is obviously as concerned with Scripture as you are? Clearly not.
But ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away -- it merely makes it loom more
prominently in the minds of observers watching how you handle the problem.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" doesn't always work as a
strategy.
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
<image009.jpg>
<image005.jpg>
<image007.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:
