Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: fishtank; xzins

It all depends on what the definition of “Is... real” is.


12 posted on 10/05/2009 1:22:51 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: BibChr; fishtank; xzins; topcat54
When you see these types of statements at the beginning of a polemic you can be sure what follows is a thin argument, “full of sound and fury etc.”

“But it is a reason for subjecting them to a rigid scrutiny. This we have sought to do, and the result is we have come to the conclusion that, not only are they destitute of support in the Word of God, but they are directly contrary thereto. This we shall endeavor to make clear.”

“For we are bound to reject any and every interpretation which is not supported by the Scriptures.”

“The interpretation we are discussing has no basis whatever in the Scriptures. It is entirely a work of the imagination, resting upon nothing but unprovable assumptions”

The writer then sets out his rule governing his interpretation of the importance of sequential time periods.

“Where periods of time are given beforehand in the prophecies of the Bible they always mean that the time-units composing the period named are continuous. This must be so, else the prediction would serve only to deceive those who believed it. We have no other way of describing and limiting a period of time than by stating the number of time-units (hours, days, months, or years) contained therein. It is therefore a necessary law of language that the time- units be understood as being connected together without a break”.

However during the course of his polemic he recognizes he has a major problem that could destroy his whole argument so he separates the destruction of Jerusalem:

“The words "for the overspreading of abominations" are very obscure, and many suggestions as to their meaning have been offered. We shall not discuss these, for the reason that the Septuagint translation gives a clear rendering, and our Lord's adoption of it puts the authoritative stamp of His approval upon it. According to that version "the abomination of desolation" was to be upon (or to come against) the temple, that is, for its destruction. In other words there was to come an agency or force (which God terms an "abomination", which was to make the place a "desolation."

“The Lord Jesus Christ used the same expression when, in warning His disciples of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem by the armies of Titus, He said: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand), then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountain, " etc,”

from the crucifixion by two pages in his manuscript hoping, I suppose, the reader has a short term memory problem or is not really focused after wading through the previous nonsense:

“At this point in our exposition it appears desirable to notice a question which has arisen in the minds of some in regard to the fraction of the seventieth week remaining after the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, whereby the predictions of verse 24 (of Daniel 9), as well as those of the first half of verse 27, were fulfilled. To some it seems that our exposition leaves three and a half years not accounted for if, however, we give attention to the terms of the prophecy we will clearly see that it affords no warrant for such a question. Those who ask it have evidently failed to take into consideration the fact that, in this prophecy, the unit of the time measure is a heptad, not a year. If we think of the Seventieth "Week" as a period of seven years, then it would indeed appear as if there were three years and over which were not accounted for by the exposition. But if, on the other hand, we take the prophecy as it is given, that is to say, in heptads, not years, then it will be clearly seen that all the seventy heptads are accounted for. For our exposition simply follows the terms of the prophecy, which are quite plain and which locate certain events "in the midst of" the last heptad, but do not locate any events at the end thereof. If, therefore, any part of the determined period is unaccounted for, it is the prophecy itself, and not this writer's exposition thereof, that is chargeable. But the fact is that the prophecy accounts first for sixty-nine heptads (which reached "unto the Messiah") and then it accounts specifically for the one remaining heptad, and for the whole of it, by telling what was to happen in the midst thereof. Thus the prophecy (and the exposition which simply follows it) leaves no part of tile prophetic period unaccounted for.”

Let’s see now, if Messiah is cut off in the middle of the 70th “heptad” (30 A.D.) and Jerusalem is destroyed sometime during the 70th “heptad” (70 A.D.) that would mean that this writer’s “heptad” has an unaccounted for gap or it means anything he wants it to mean or its Daniel’s fault.

30 posted on 10/05/2009 6:36:15 PM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | 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