[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 00:50:26 -0500
On May 24, 2007, at 12:12 AM, Allen Daves wrote:
Bad times for sure.... but i am interested and trying to draw the
attention to a more direct correlation of scripture
Funny, that's what I was doing! The direct correlation has to do
with the REBUILDING of the street and wall that Daniel predicted and
that Nehemiah completed. You think the direct correlation isn't tied
to the rebuilt wall, but to the term "troublous time." As I said
before, the English word "troublous" doesn't appear but once in the
KJV, so there IS no exact match for you. I have an exact match in
regard to the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls, though. I also
illustrated that Daniel chapters 10-12 occurred years after Gabriel
delivered God's answer to Daniel's prayer concerning the city
Jerusalem. Earlier, you kept quoting Dan. 11:1 without paying
attention to the fact that it was in the middle of a speech that the
angel began to speak to Daniel in the 3rd year of Cyrus (the speech
starts in chapter 10, continues into chapter 11, but is one
continuous unbroken statement by the angel --- he is merely providing
a historic detail as to when he first began to respond to Daniel's
petitions).
Therefore, the associations being the same
But I reject that the associations are the same -- at least in the
convoluted way you approach these passages. I'd have had more
confidence in your position if you hadn't glitched so bad by
extracting the wrong time period by misunderstanding Dan. 11:1, but
once this error was manifest, you pretty much lost me.
Now, there MAY be possible associations, but this broad brush
assertion doesn't cut it -- especially when premised on a wrong date
for the emanation of the prophecy. The sequence was NOT all delivered
in the same year, as you asserted. But you've three times reasserted
the same error. I'm kind of hoping I won't see Dan. 11:1 requoted --
wrongly -- a fourth time in support of the unsupportable. You need
to get a contextual head-start to know what Dan. 11:1 means -- you
have to start reading the passage beginning at 10:1. I'm starting to
think you're deliberately avoiding this, because you routinely -- and
apparently deliberately -- leave out Dan. 10 when you discuss the
question. It might be okay for horses to wear blinkers to run a
race, but nobody should shut out the testimony of the verses leading
up to a target verse. It's bad form.
Martin
P.S. You cited, with obvious approval, your use of the Septuagint.
You're aware that I don't trust the Septuagint. I gave the example
of its alteration of Job 38:22. Well, now, here is something even
more alarming. I'm going to show you the Hebrew, then the Septuagint
Greek, for Daniel 9:25. Pay close attention:
HEBREW: Know therefore and discern that from the going forth of a
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto an anointed one, a
prince, shall be seven weeks: and threescore and two weeks, it shall
be built again, with street and moat, even in distress of times.
SEPTUAGINT: And thou shalt know and meditate over, and shalt be
gladdened, and shalt find commands to be answered, and shalt build
Jerusalem a city to the Lord.
You'll note that the Septuagint doesn't leave a single clause of the
original Hebrew intact. The various weeks for calculating the
chronology of the prophecy have disappeared. The Messiah has been
removed from the verse. The words "even in troublous times" have been
omitted.
So, tell me again: why did you bother to follow the Septuagint, when
it is so miserable a guide to what God wrote?
Other related posts:
