Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: dartuser; jkl1122; asformeandformyhouse
Second point. In my experience I have found that many people project a New Testament understanding back into the Old Testament to "interpret" an OT passage. A passage of scripture can never mean what it was never intended to mean to the original recipient. Luke and Matt were not in existence when Daniel penned the prophecy so Matt and Luke has no bearing on the interpretation of Daniel ...

While I understand Luke and Matthew were not in existence when "Daniel penned the prophecy" - God was and is.  The Bible is of God.

5 posted on 04/07/2005 9:03:00 AM PDT by TheTruthess (love Him - live in Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: TheTruthess

So why would a Jew in 600 BC interpret Daniel outside of the OT context ? Answer: He wouldnt ... nor could he.

How would a Jew in 600 BC interpret the prophecy in Dan 7? Just how it reads. He was quite familiar with Earthly kingdoms, and that is the context of Daniel. How long is the Earthly kingdom? ... it says FOREVER, not 1000 years.

The 1000 years in Rev 20 is not the kingdom, its the kickoff party, the kingdom is forever.


7 posted on 04/07/2005 9:07:52 AM PDT by dartuser (Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: TheTruthess; dartuser; asformeandformyhouse

A real problem with Premillenialism comes when you consider Christ's role as both priest and king. In Zechariah 6:12-13, a prophecy about Christ says "he shall sit and rule upon his throne; and be shall be a priest upon his throne". Hebrews 8:4 says that Christ could not act as priest while on the earth, because He did not descend from the priestly tribe of Levi(Hebrews 7:14). If Christ is unable to serve as priest on earth, yet He will serve as priest and king jointly, then His reign as king can't be an earthly reign.


9 posted on 04/07/2005 9:43:50 AM PDT by jkl1122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: TheTruthess
The Bible is of God.

While you are correct on this, it is a matter of the old covenant vs. the new covenant. The old covenant contained faults...for example, the old covenant could not take away sins, the new covenant does. Hebrews 8:7 says, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."

As Paul wrote, by Jesus being crucified, He was "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Colossians 2:14). In my understanding, the Old Testament is a history of God's old covenant with the children of Israel, the New Testament is what we should live by and it tells us of things to come. But like any good book, you always need to read the first half of the book to understand the rest of the book, and regardless of the names of the authors of the chapters, it was divinely inspired by God and the authors were merely "ghost writers", so therefore the whole Bible is of God, as you say.

12 posted on 04/07/2005 10:05:09 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson