[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 17:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Me in Blue
"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Sorry, you are right I keep on writing Daruis .?...got him on my mind i
guess....ch 10 was given in the third year of Cyrus... Yes, that was my bad
..However, when ch 10 was given in now way shape or form affects the
relationships I have outlined for you. .
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.
I understand the point you are trying to make but it is still in gross
error as well...
1. Daniel is not all given in Chronological order so there can be no argument
based solely on textual placement. See ch 6
2.The construct is the same as ch 9 for when the event is taking place
3. If that angle spoke to him in ch 10 in the 3rd year of Cyrus, there is
nothing that would have prevented that him from doing so earlier..............
OR it is now in the third year of Cyrus that Daniel is writing about what he
had been given by that same angle few years earlier....( A consolidated account
that includes Daniels present in the third year of Cyrus as well as a earlier
on.....
4 .Scripture names all those kings in ch 11:2 and there are only the five
kings listed there total. In short There is no 4 kings after Cyrus.. And the
chronological problems I addressed with the foundations of the temple earlier
would still rip any other construct to pieces....... . in short the argument or
any based on it is inconsistent with the text itself on multiple grounds..
Summary: Again you are attempting to force a meaning that is not imperative
nor can be demonstrated as such against a position that can be demonstrated and
is consistent with the text.
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.)
1. mark 13:1 and John 2:20 now the reference is to buildings of the temple
which are not soely the temple itself, however in any case herod did restore
the city and fortifications .........Rome allowed Herod to do pretty much what
he wanted as long as he gave tribute to them.. History records that as well as
his restoration of Jerusalem and building of many fortifications.. that is not
in question even in secular historyWhat are you talking about?
2. Herod is directly respossible for that troublesome time wich ws the most
trouble
3. it was "at that time (Herod) ....a time of trouble" Dan12:1 such as nver
was agin you are missing the big pitchure it is part of a larger time frame not
just Ad 70 war.. note: "tried and make white" in Ch 11 & 12.. and "11:34 help
with a little helpen"...John 16:7
4. " Dan 12:1At that time.." the time of trouble"...your people shall be
delivered"....."Luke 2:30 For my eyes have seen thy salvation"
Again if Neihimiah wall yes trouble ok...Herod city wall ect... yes....
trouble even more so.....why are you having such a hard time the same arguments
you make for nehimah apply to herrod even more so....?
You keep making assertions a things can not be demonstrated even though I
give specifics that can be to outline when the events take place and how you
can know that.
Allen
PS If that is the 5th time you have called me on that and i did not catch it
then...well I guess................Martin gets 5 points :)
Martin
Other related posts:
