Jump to content

Steve_S

Servant
  • Content Count

    4,727
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,680 Excellent

About Steve_S

  • Rank
    Royal Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Recent Profile Visitors

13,926 profile views
  1. Rev 13:16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, Rev 13:17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
  2. Steve_S

    3-1/2 year trib/ NOT 7

    Firstly, this is a prophecy, so there is obviously special significance to the content. We have the benefit of being able to look back in history and see specifically what people destroyed the sanctuary and the city - it was the Romans. The romans were certainly not Jesus' people, but were indeed pagans. Secondly, we need to remember that there is a 27th verse in which a desolater is specifically mentioned. There were no verse numbers or even chapter numbers when this prophecy was given. The division by verses was done by men who had a difficult task of trying to make all of this able to be easily referenced. What this really is alluding to are two separate people across one specific passage of prophecy, one being the Messiah and the other being the desolater.
  3. Steve_S

    3-1/2 year trib/ NOT 7

    That's quite a broad stroke to paint folks with. I think the fact that the romans are the ones who literally destroyed the city and the sanctuary leads to it being far more than an assumption. There is no comparison between a struggle for power within Jerusalem at the time of the siege and what the romans ultimately did to the city and the temple. The romans did not "complete the destruction" - they performed the destruction. The temple was intact when the roman armies entered the city and titus wanted it preserved so he could loot it. It was burned on the night they entered that part of the city. They ended up having to dig through the rubble for quite a long time for gold, etc. Simply put, I believe the most literal reading of the prophecy only lends itself to the roman legions themselves. That sort of destruction was prophesied by Jesus as well when He said "not one stone will be left upon another." The Romans are who fulfilled both in the most literal ways possible.
  4. Steve_S

    3-1/2 year trib/ NOT 7

    Often times with biblical hebrew the words have to be determined by context. This exists in virtually ever language though. An example: The main issue isn't that it's used in other ways, as I mentioned above (in my original response to you), it is. But the general understanding in virtually every translation of the bible of this word is destroy. You posted a few verses where it is not translated destroy, yes, but I could post nearly 100 where it is indeed translated as "destroy." The most used and most normal meaning of the word is "destroy" according to every source I can find. What i'm asking is by what authority or on what premise to you base the idea that it should not be translated as "destroy" here? It's an incredibly important question, because virtually every hebrew to english bible translator for about 500 years disagrees with you (I myself am not an expert).
  5. Steve_S

    3-1/2 year trib/ NOT 7

    Greetings! I must fairly strongly disagree with you on the usage of "shachath" (שָׁחַת). In actuality this word is translated as "destroy" two thirds of the time that it arises. It's translated as "destroy" in probably the five most literal translations of the bible (KJV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, YLT) along with virtually ever other translation really. In short, the vast majority bible translators for a solid 500 years have nearly unanimously agreed that this should be translated "destroy" in this verse and also translate it as "destroy" a solid majority of other verses in which it is used. This includes people with premil, amil, postmil, historicist, preterist, etc. etc. etc. philosophies. I did a fairly diligent search and I couldn't find it translated as ruin anywhere, though admitted my search methods are imperfect! I would be willing to take a look at it if you could provide some examples of this word being translated as something other than "destroy" at anywhere near the same rate that it is translated as "destroy." I have a very difficult time believing the civil war of Eleazar ben Simon is a fulfillment of this prophecy, both on theological and historical grounds.
  6. Steve_S

    3-1/2 year trib/ NOT 7

    One problem (the main problem) that i would point out is that at the time that they destroyed Jerusalem and the Sanctuary they were firmly pagan and remained so for another three hundred years. In other words, if they became Christ's people (which is debatable in and of itself, because this is not at all anywhere mentioned even peripherally in scripture), they were certainly not so at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. With this I would have to disagree as well. If the cross occurs immediately at the end of the 69th week (when Messiah is cut off), then that would place Christ's ministry firmly within that framework of the 70 weeks prophecy. The second coming is definitely at the end of the 70th, which isn't specified within the prophecy itself, but nonetheless the second coming would certainly be in view as well, particularly if you take the entire counsel of the scripture into account. I do, however, agree with you that the great tribulation itself is only the final three and a half years of the 70th week. I do believe that the entire 70th week is yet future, though.
  7. Steve_S

    3-1/2 year trib/ NOT 7

    Greetings and Welcome to Worthy! I'd like to ask a couple of questions. Firstly, How can the 70th week overlap the 69th week? In succession, there are 7 weeks, 62 weeks (Daniel 9:25), and then one week. Messiah was cut off after the 7 and 62, not halfway through 70. Just to understand, is your implication that "cut off" means the beginning of His ministry, rather than the end? Secondly, If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that in this context, the "prince who is to come" is referring to Messiah? If that is the case, when did his people destroy the city and the sanctuary?
  8. It doesn't affect my sleep one way or another. In the prophecy you quoted it literally mentions the king of babylon two times as the executor of God's punishment. This prophecy was perfectly accurate, as are all prophecies given by God, and was directly fulfilled in the years leading up to and then culminating in 587 B.C. when Nebuchadnezzar's armies razed Jerusalem.
  9. The context obviously changed to the ammonites in verse 28. The remainder of the prophecy is very obviously regarding the (then soon to be) destruction of Jerusalem by the babylonians.
  10. Eze 21:28 "And you, son of man, prophesy and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD concerning the Ammonites and concerning their reproach,' and say: 'A sword, a sword is drawn, Polished for slaughter, For consuming, for flashing— Eze 21:29 While they see false visions for you, While they divine a lie to you, To bring you on the necks of the wicked, the slain Whose day has come, Whose iniquity shall end. Eze 21:30 'Return it to its sheath. I will judge you In the place where you were created, In the land of your nativity. Eze 21:31 I will pour out My indignation on you; I will blow against you with the fire of My wrath, And deliver you into the hands of brutal men who are skillful to destroy. Eze 21:32 You shall be fuel for the fire; Your blood shall be in the midst of the land. You shall not be remembered, For I the LORD have spoken.' "
  11. Steve_S

    Mark of the beast

    An excellent idea :). This underlying Greek word here for "worships" or "worship" (προσκυνέω - probably best transliterated proskyneo or something along those lines) is actually used in multiple tenses throughout the scriptures. What tense specifically? There is no specific tense attached to proskyneo to my knowledge. As noted above, it is used, unmodified, in more than once tense and for the purposes of this short word study... Past - Matthew 2:11, 8:2, 9:18, 14:33, 18:26, etc... In fact, it is used in the past tense as often or more often than it is used in the present tense. The problem really isn't with the word or the translation of it. The texts says what it says. I'm a firm believer that one can get a general understanding of the the message a passage is trying to get across by simply reading the passage. This passage says folks that worship the beast and receive his mark will not be going to heaven. This is not a theological statement, it is a prophetic statement. There is no theological argument here, only a one of prophecy. As far as I'm concerned, whether or not one can be saved after taking the mark is a meaningless hypothetical, because we know for an absolute fact that none will. Here's another prophecy: 2Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 2Th 2:10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 2Th 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 2Th 2:12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. These two things are quite clearly connected. What's the lie? The claim of the man of sin to be God (2:4). Who gets sent strong delusion? Those who did not receive the love of the truth. What happens to them? They are condemned for it. So here's the real question. Will those who have been sent a "strong delusion" directly from God Himself (as a result of their rejection of His truth) repent and turn towards Him? That would be quite a strong willed person!
  12. Steve_S

    a confused cookie

    The good news is that we have a means by which to be reconciled to God and it doesn't matter who you are, where you come from, what you've done, or what you've been through. The very reason Jesus died and was resurrected is so that we would have an avenue of reconciliation to God. God is all about restoration and the offer from Him is there. Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Joh 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
  13. Steve_S

    Mark of the beast

    Rev 14:9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, ", If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand Rev 14:10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." This seems to be a fairly straightforward scripture. If one receives the mark of beast, they go to eternal torment. There seems to be absolutely no way around that. We are told explicitly that anyone who worships the beast will end up in this situation. It is prudent to heed such warnings in my view.
  14. Killing in and of itself is not a sin. Murder is definitively a sin. There is a biblical distinction between the two going back to the torah. Even in the instance of centurions. They were never told to leave the military or not participate in battle, just not to mistreat others or misuse their authority.
  15. I'm not sure one can make an argument that lethal weapons are biblically banned. Even the disciples had swords among them and Jesus did not rebuke them for having them either, indeed He asked specifically about them and seemed to want to ensure that they possessed them (though He did rebuke peter for using it to chop off someone's ear). In antiquity swords were not weapons used for hunting or for kitchen cutlery. It was probably a gladius, the roman short sword, and its sole purpose was to inflict damage on other humans. I'm not promoting the idea that Christians go around armed to the teeth, just stating that there is new testament mention of being armed for defense. Luk 22:36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. Luk 22:37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS.' For the things concerning Me have an end." Luk 22:38 So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." Lest we make the assumption that Christ was speaking metaphorically about purchasing a sword, the disciples produced two physical swords and He told them that would do. Even in the instance of Peter, the primary rebuke was not that Peter used it, but that He used it to attempt to prevent Christ's purpose (a purpose which in that moment peter did not understand). Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. Joh 18:11 So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?" Mat 26:51 And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Mat 26:52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Mat 26:53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? Mat 26:54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?"
×