Posted on 06/20/2010 5:14:46 PM PDT by Ken4TA
I'm sure of that! Holding "water" would make that viewpoint very liquid, similar to most "millennial" theories. Thank God that I'm not a "Pretorist". Like ALL millennial theories, they do hold some very correct thoughts about the "end times" subject.
How about some "CONTEXT" concerning the verses you used to base your "water" acrostic? That would be very helpful to know.
A good one! Have you ever read the booklet, "Living in an ObamaNation" put out by the GrassFire group of the T.E.A. party? It's eye-opening to say the least!
PS: This is off topic, so don't really expect me to respond to any questions on it :-)
This is an old arguement... framed once again....post- pre- etc. opinions differ. These are future event...and is yet in the future. That is where my research and study of both sides of the issue have concluded.
Further this writers opinion would certainly lead to people delaying their decision for Christ....God says “today is the day of Salvation”.
I copied and pasted the contents of Daniel directly from biblegateway.com; NASB version. (Incidently, biblegateway.com has a huge number of translations available online, inc. Greek; no matter what your escatological persuasion this site is a gem)
Jesus CONFIRMED the COVENANT that the Jews were under!
WHICH COVENANT? The Mosaic covenant or the New covenant of Jeremiah 31?
The first 69 weeks of this prophecy can be traced ... TO THE DAY, ... TO THE DATE ... and this was fulfilled LITERALLY ... I'm sure you have seen several expositors chart out the days from the decree. But now you are bringing in something foreign to the text to claim that the first 3 1/2 years of the 70th week spans Jesus ministry up to His death, then the 2nd 3 1/2 years is the apostles work. Where are your time markers in any passage that suggest the apostles confirmed the covenant for 3 1/2 years? There is nothing in the text of Daniel, Matthew, Acts, et. al. that shows the apostles were part of some 3 1/2 years to complete the fulfillment of Daniels 70th week.
At this point you have abandoned any dedication to a consistent literal hermeneutic (which you were content to use for the first 69 weeks). For example, where is your textual evidence that the time span between Jesus death and the conversion of Cornelius was 3 1/2 years? Isn't that critical to your argument? That the apostle confirmed the covenant to the Jews ... when that was complete they started to convert Gentiles? Seems like it is ... but correct me if I am wrong.
I could go on and discuss more evidence that the "He" in Daniel 9 is not Christ but the "put an end to sacrifice" is more than enough to raise a red flag concerning your interpretation here.
We could talk about all the "reason" statements ... "to finish the transgression, to make an end to sins," ... none of which has been completely fulfilled. Did the work of Christ form the basis for this eventual fulfillment? Absolutely!! ... but in no sense has the nation of Israel fulfilled these "reason" statements. The only thing you can say about all these "reason" statements is that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has provided the basis for the fulfillment of this prophecy given "to your people ... your holy city." Its ultimate fulfillment remains in the future.
Hmmm...then you haven't done ALL the research by any means. Many well-known and some not so well-known have discussed this subject over the past few centuries. Their writings are available, but seemingly never read and commented on. Going back into history one finds multiple writers and preachers, including translators of the Bible, that have taught the same thing this series of articles have to say. Look them up:
John Wycliffe and his associate Walter Brute, John Oldcastle, John Huss, Martin Luther, Andreas Osiander, Nicolaus Von Amsdorf, Philipp Melanchthon, John Calvin, John Knox, John Napier, Huldreich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, Theodor Bibliander, Alfonsus COnradus, William Tyndale, Nicholas Ridley, John Bradford, John Hoopere, Hugh Latimer, Thomas Cranmer, Thomas Becon, John Jewel, Edwin Sandys, William Fluke, King James himself, Sir Isaac Newton, Johann Albrecht Bengel, John Wesley, Leroy Froom, Jonathan Edwards, John Cotton, Cotton Mather, etcetera and etcetera. Look over the Ante-Nicean Fathers to see what they have to say about the second coming of our Lord.
It is ironic that Christian bookstores display and promote all kinds of futurist materials with gaps and guesses, speculation and sensationalism, and yet the customers might have a very difficult time to find a book on the age-old historicist views held over the centuries by many Christian leaders - some of which are mentioned above. The articles being posted by Curtis Dickinson give information that is not even considered by most millennialists for many reasons. Despite whatever difficulties of interpretation exists, we do not believe that ignoring all that has happened in history and attempting to place all of these things into the future provides a satisfactory answer. While these articles do not supply an answer to every single possible question, they do supply information as to what the historicist viewpoint is and what it is based upon from the Scriptures. Follow them along as they are posted and you will see the whole subject matter explained as it comes up. Ignore them and one will not be able to correctly define the viewpoint we stand by. That's a sad situation and commentary on critics.
Further this writers opinion would certainly lead to people delaying their decision for Christ....God says “today is the day of Salvation”.
Hmmm...I could say the same for many of the statements made by millennial theorists. However, Curtis definitely says that "today is the day of salvation"..."NOW is the time"..."There is not salvation in the FUTURE!"..."So don't put it off, your eternal life is at stake!" These statements occur in many of the articles he writes - check them out, there are 300+ of them!
I recommend that you use some good Bible software, cut and paste Matt 28 and Luke 21 into a 2 column table in Word, and then do a side by side comparison of the two sections. There are too many differences to harmonize to claim they are speaking of the same event. Even the questions are different.
I know of the site - it's on my favorites list. Check out the Greek - there is no way it can be translated or interpreted to mean "make". The context of Daniel's 70 week prophecy contains no indication that a covenant is broken in the midst of the week, period.
WHICH COVENANT? The Mosaic covenant or the New covenant of Jeremiah 31?
The Mosaic, naturally; that's the covenant that was in force when Daniel wrote, and the covenant the Jews were under when Jesus started his ministry. The New Covenant covers all mankind, and those in it are those who repent and turn to Christ Jesus for salvation. Another was of refering to the New Covenant is that it is like the covenant God made with Abraham. Study it; it is salvation through faith, the faith Abraham exhibited.
Where are your time markers in any passage that suggest the apostles confirmed the covenant for 3 1/2 years? There is nothing in the text of Daniel, Matthew, Acts, et. al. that shows the apostles were part of some 3 1/2 years to complete the fulfillment of Daniels 70th week.
The 70th week say the covenant would be confirmed. It gives no indication that it won't last 7 years. Again, the problem is the word "he" - futurists take the "he" as anti-christ, historicists take it as Messiah. Futurists take it that Messiah dies at the end of the 69th week, but the verse say AFTER. What comes after 69? Does one have to wait some 2,000 years or so before one can continue counting? I say no - it is successive, and thusly fulfilled.
The only thing you can say about all these "reason" statements is that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has provided the basis for the fulfillment of this prophecy given "to your people ... your holy city." Its ultimate fulfillment remains in the future.
That I disagree with what you just stated is, to me, a denial of what Christ finished! You're telling me that His sacrifice was not completely fulfilled! Baloney! He finished everything He came to accomplish, period. Don't you believe that deep down in your heart? I won't say what I'm actually thinking of your statement - that would be too much for you to take. Anyway, you're wrong, dead wrong!
A Composite of the Four Gospels - Check it out! This is a side by side comparison of the Gospels. I use it quite often in my studies.
For purposes of deception and to try to discredit prophetic Scripture so those who might accept Christ as Savior after being told about what is to come and how to avoid it will not do so because they have read the lie that all of the prophecies have already been fulfilled.
You don't think Satan's going to just sit back and let people be educated and saved, do you? : )
Is this composite Gospels a software program or a hardcopy of a text?
Also, I didn't see any LXX text up at Bible Gateway ... but did find an online version of Dan 9.27 ...
27. καὶ δυναστεύσει ἡ διαθήκη εἰς πολλούς καὶ πάλιν ἐπιστρέψει καὶ ἀνοικοδομηθήσεται εἰς πλάτος καὶ μῆκος καὶ κατὰ συντέλειαν καιρῶν καὶ μετὰ ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα καιροὺς καὶ ἑξήκοντα δύο ἔτη ἕως καιροῦ συντελείας πολέμου καὶ ἀφαιρεθήσεται ἡ ἐρήμωσις ἐν τῷ κατισχῦσαι τὴν διαθήκην ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἑβδομάδας καὶ ἐν τῷ τέλει τῆς ἑβδομάδος ἀρθήσεται ἡ θυσία καὶ ἡ σπονδή καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων ἔσται ἕως συντελείας καὶ συντέλεια δοθήσεται ἐπὶ τὴν ἐρήμωσιν
I did a quick translation, looked at a few other peoples translations, did a quick comparison of several English versions, and come to the conclusion that the distinction between "make" and "confirm" cannot be pushed. There is enough expert opinion for either translation; as the lexical data suggests. Unfortunately I am partially fluent in the Koine and have no skills with the Hebrew text; exactly what is needed here. Perhaps there is someone out there that could help.
I think you are hanging yourself out on a flimsy limb insisting it must be translated "confirm" and then building a sizeable case on that assumption. ... Now on to the meaty previous post.
It matters little to those intent on spreading "The Myth" ... but lots of hard work was performed behind this summary; esp. the translation work of Rhodes at Tyndale. They continue to translate ancient manuscripts and find plenty of support for the early church origins.
Thanks again.
The Church's opinion, or the opinion of Just Some Guy? I'll stick with the Church.
Hmmm...the way I read this literally is: "And he shall strengthen the covenant with many one period of seven; and in half of the period of seven shall be lifted away sacrifice and libation offering, and upon the temple an obomination of the desolations will be; and until the completion of time, completion shall be given unto the desolation."
Verse 27 in the NIV seems to try to mimic the LXX: "He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven'. In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and of offering. And on a wing of the temple, he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
The NIV did add some theological bias to their translation which is not indicated in the LXX, which I sorta question. However, they supposedly examined the Hebrew behind it. I'd rather trust the Hebrew scholars (the 70) who knew their own language and translated it into the Greek. That is the version the Jews of Jesus' day used and quoted from. I'm sure you can see the spin the NIV puts on the Greek.
I think you are hanging yourself out on a flimsy limb insisting it must be translated "confirm" and then building a sizeable case on that assumption. ...
I think the "limb" I'm on is not so flimsy as many would like it to be. The Greek doesn't say MAKE, but STRENGTHEN - big difference there! "he shall strengthen" is one compound word in the Greek, as you should be able to see. And there is no 'article' between "strengthen" and "covenant" in the LXX version. In fact, the rendering of 9:27 is significantly at varience with the LXX that I have in front of me. For instance, the one you posted has 9 occurences of the article καὶ while the one I have has only 5 occurences. Doesn't really mean that much, but added to the other variences is make quite a difference. I'm not in the mood right now to go over it word for word with you, but trust me, the Greek version you posted is at varience with the version I have. Let's leave it at that for the time being.
Now on to the meaty previous post.
Which one is that?
BTW, did you really translate the above? If you did you should have realized that it does not say exactly what Daniel's verse does. I forgot to add that to the previous post sent to you. After translating it I find it amazing that you found it online.
Again, as I have pointed out, the Greek text is not particularly troublesome (other than the slightly different words used in the different texts), the verb in question is a normal third declension future active in the 3rd person singular. The lexical data doesn't argue for any preference for "confirm" over "make" since two texts use two slightly different words ... a simple multi-translation search on biblegateway will show that half the English versions translate "make" and the other half translate "confirm." So its best NOT to build a huge argument on one or the other.
The context of Daniel's 70 week prophecy contains no indication that a covenant is broken in the midst of the week, period.
I'm not so sure about that.
The Mosaic, naturally; that's the covenant that was in force when Daniel wrote, and the covenant the Jews were under when Jesus started his ministry.
In what way, and more importantly, why ... did Jesus death confirm the Mosaic covenant? And why, according to your logic, would Jesus need to confirm a covenant that was being done away with? And the apostles sure didnt testify to the Mosaic covenant in their ministry. Your explanation really makes no sense at all.
As I have said before, the 483 years can be pinpointed with the Jewish calendar and the decree in 445 BC. That takes you to a day that was likely the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem before the passover (the triumphal entry), which fits the context of "Messiah the prince" ... Your problem is that the triumphal entry was only a few days before his death, certainly not 3 1/2 years after the 69 weeks.
And again the time markers are non-existant for the apostolic ministry being 3 1/2 years to close the prophecy.
The New Covenant covers all mankind, and those in it are those who repent and turn to Christ Jesus for salvation
So where in Jeremiah 31, do you see that? That stretches the boundaries of reason. The New Covenant was given to the Jewish nation, but they rejected the Messiah, and because of that we Gentiles have been given a provision whereby we can enjoy the benefits of that New Covenant ... i.e., we have been grafted in. But in the future God will fulfill that covenant with the whole nation of Israel, He must, or His promise is false. μη γενοιτο!
You're telling me that His sacrifice was not completely fulfilled!
Nonsense, I said nothing of the sort. We are talking about the fulfillment of the Dan 9 prophecy, not the finished work of Christ.
He finished everything He came to accomplish, period
Agree, but what he came to accomplish was not the restoration of the kingdom yet. Look at what Acts 1.6 says ...
So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
And before you start with the "the disciples didn't understand the kingdom" ... remember after his resurrection He "beginning with Moses and the prophets explained to them the things concerning himself in all the scripures." There is no way that the status of the restoration of the kingdom could be misunderstood at this point, that is why they asked the question, they understood that it is in Gods plan to restore the kingdom. The apostle were looking for the fulfillment of the prophecies in Jeremiah that were expounded upon by Daniel.
If we take your understanding on things ... Jesus response to the apostles question in Acts 1 should have naturally been ... "YES!" "Yes, the kingdom is now, Im going to sit on the throne of that kingdom, and rule from heaven!"
Anyway, you're wrong, dead wrong!
Sorry, your arguments lack any substance and are filled with inconsistent theology and, more importantly, inconsistent dedication to a consistent literal hermeneutic.
Anyway ... I cant wait to get to Matt 24.
You do that ...
I forgot to mention before that the section of Daniel we are talking about is not in Hebrew ... its in Aramaic.
ἡ διαθήκη
lol ... You mean this non-existent article? The one just before διαθήκη? Is that the one thats not there?
I did a google search on LXX text for Dan 9:27, found 2 texts. No lexicon online though so I had to use my copy of Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.