Replies

Your problem is that the "He" cannot refer to Christ ... as the sacrifices did not literally stop in the middle of your 70th week with the death of Christ ... they literally stopped 40 something years later with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD! At this point you must abandon your literal interpretation of the 70 weeks of years and replace (theres that word again) a normal literal interpretation with something else. "He" in verse 27 cannot refer to Christ, despite your grammatical insistence.

Actually, that grammatical explanation is not mine; it came from a college professor who teaches the Greek Koine language to students: he is not the only professor who does so, for I checked more than one before adding their explanations to the notes I keep on this issue.

What I responded to those who question Curtis' article is entirely to brief to do justice to the subject. I have omitted the weight of argument which could be presented from leading Bible scholars who reject dispensationalism concepts in favor of harmonious end-time teachings. If your really interested in what others have to say on this subject you may find some value by reading the various books written by those of all persuasions on this topic.

My desire is not to just answer or reply to critics but to edify the readers of these threads, to clarify the subject and to strengthen faith in the gospel of redemption and the blessed hope, to the glory of Jesus Christ our Lord who reigns in the hearts of those who believe in him in the present.

But; theres a but.

Definitely! There always is, regardless of a persons viewpoint; and that person who is really partisan will respond in the negative virtually all the time - these posts prove this comment.

I think we're done here ... but I really do wish you well in your quest for the truth, you will certainly not find it in the preterism of Curtis.

Okay, if you say so. However, others may not agree. As for Curtis' articles, I have communicated to him that I don't always agree on everything he writes. I doubt very much that I ever agree with everything anyone writes; I examine, figuratively with a microscope, everything anyone puts forth as the truth - as you have found out :-) God bless you for your interest in the topic.

Actually, that grammatical explanation is not mine; it came from a college professor who teaches the Greek Koine language to students

Not sure why you would consult a Koine Greek expert when the original language of Daniel is Aramaic ... I suppose he would comment on the Septuigent ... but that is one language removed from the original. But that doesn;t matter, each of us can produce expert testimony to support our positions. I have read most dispensational authors ... like you, some I agree with ... and some I think are out to lunch. I have also read Ladd, Gentry, Sproul, and have even painstakingly made my way through some of DeMars material; which isn't easy to do without stirring up righteous anger.

Well said ... our purpose in continuing the dialog is that same. At each point, as you have, my intent is to compare and contrast not only the doctrinal differences, but how those particular theological positions are arrived at ... when I see something I disagree with, and I feel passionately about it ... I will cry foul and explain why.

I see you have posted another article ...