[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: "Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:06:56 -0500
On May 23, 2007, at 2:18 PM, Allen Daves wrote:
On May 23, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Allen Daves wrote:
I know Ezra is latter then Nehemiah that is my point!
Martin's reply: Well, then, you know something that not a single
Bible scholar knows: that the 7th year of Artaxerxes occurred after
the 20th year of Artaxerxes. Truly amazing.
This is why I cannot accept what you're saying most of the time: it
is too obviously mistaken.
Allen's response:
WRONG WRONG WRONG who told you that? Do you bother to read the
scripture or do you just take it from a commentary?
No, I got it from Ezra 7:7, which says that the events narrated there
occurred in "the seventh year of Artaxerxes," while Nememiah 2:1 says
that the events there begin "in the 20th year of Artaxerxes." Why
are you putting "wrong" in capitals three times? As to who told me
that, Ezra 7:7 and Nehemiah 2:1 told me that -- not a commentary.
Nehemiah follows Ezra in time. You say that "Ezra is later than
Nehemiah." Then you call me wrong. You're turning this into a farce:
you're the one not bothering to read the scripture. And you accuse me
of not reading it?
On May 23, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Allen Daves wrote:
2. Daniel Ch 9,11 & 12 were all given in the same year
Here you're mistaken again. Daniel 9:1 begins in the first year of
Darius, while Daniel 10:1 takes us to the 3rd year of Cyrus, after
the regime change predicted with Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin (the hand
writing on the wall). Dan. 11:1 does NOT take us back to the first
period at all, because the statements are out of the mouth of the
angel who is relating WHEN he started to answer Daniel's prayer, as
the angels advises Daniel at 10:12. The angel is informing him that
he (the angel) has been working on Daniel's behalf for years now,
since the first year of Darius before the regime change to Persian
rule. It's a history lesson, not a re-setting of the time marker of
composition. It'd be like someone saying in 2007 that "I've been
helping you since you first asked for help in 2002" and then
claiming the sentence was written in 2002. No, no, and, uh, no.
So, here we go: I said that the visions were several years apart,
you say the passages all occurred in the same year.
You obviously do not read the scripture ..?
ch 9:1
ch 11:1
ch 12 is continued from ch 11 see also the Ch8 11, & 12 parelles
for corelations with those.
You claim is mistaken. You didn't bother to read the passage you
claim to such expertise on. You really should consider reading
these passages of Scripture, rather than your own charts. You'd
get farther along in understanding that way.
Recap: the entire sequence Daniel 10 through 12 were visions given
in the third year of Cyrus. None of it was given in the first year
of Darius, but chapter 9 WAS given in the first year of Darius.
Allen, you're misleading the forum readership with your continued
misstatements.
the misleading here is not coming from me what are you talking
about i have ginve book ch and verse for all my dates and times..?
see also atttached charts
The only one not reading the Scripture, Allen, is you. Your nose is
in your charts. Your charts are not divinely inspired, Daniel is
divinely inspired. You read NOTHING about what I said about Daniel
11:1 -- it is in the middle of an Angel's speech to Daniel, where the
Angel recounts when he started to act year earlier. You think that
the Angel's comment means the passage was written in the first year
of Darius. No, 11:1ff is the continuation of the Angel's speech that
the Angel began go deliver in Chapter 10, which is CLEARLY given as
having begun in the third year of Cyrus (10:1).
At this point, I won't look at your charts anymore. They appear to
soften the brains of those who examine them. Beyond that, they're
hard on the eyes.
My patience is being strained. When Jesus's anger was kindled against
the money-changers, He threw them out, because "He was consumed with
zeal for His Father's house." How much more should we reprehend the
meaning-changers?
Absolutely aghast,
Martin
Other related posts:
