ARGOSY

Yes, its what the bible is saying in verse 1 and in verse 2. The land only appears in day 3, so right up to day 3 the entire surface is an ocean. Before day 1: "the earth was formless and empty,darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters Also before Day 1: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. Day 1: God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. Am I missing something? Maybe I am. A Jewish day starts from the evening, so there's a dark earth, and waters, then there's light, and only then does the first day start as evening falls. That is not before day 1. Those things are ON day one. The creation and separation light from darkness all occur and complete the first day. Day one starts in verse 2 with nothing but emptiness and chaos. As for "evening," I need to clarify something. The Jewish day starts at sundown. "Evening" from an ancient Jewish reckoning, began at noon. They didn't differentiate the way we do between afternoon and evening. So the evening began at high noon and the morning starts at midnight and goes through until noon. Evening to morning isn't "sundown to morning." Even as you describe it, it changes nothing. The earth, the waters , the darkness all existed. THEN the light exists, its only when the light appears that a day can start (at noon as you say). Its impossible for the dark earth to be created during day one, when day one only starts when the light appears. Its an absolute contradiction. The text, whether analysed in depth, or whether we read it quickly to get an impression, is clearly stating the the formless dark watery earth existed before the first day and night. You can try and squirm out of it, but every one who is honest with the text can see as clear as daylight (excuse the pun) that the bible does not hold a YEC position. Planet earth existed for an unknown period before creation week began, it was dark and so there were no days to count then. We only start counting days when the light appears.

They tested rocks they knew were younger than the older basalt rocks. The younger rocks were known not to be millions of years old and yet the test yielded erroneous resultes known to be such. That's the point. The results can't be trusted. If anyone is interested, Here's an article that takes issue with the previously mentioned Grand Canyon tests and results done by the answersingenesis people- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html Who is right? There has been a discovered trend that affects all radiometric dating, the greater the penetration of the magnetic field, the slower the decay. Obviously this means that with a complete blockout of any penetration of the solar wind and cosmic rays there would be a massive speeding up of decay. During the period 200AD and earlier the magnetic field was 1.5 times stronger , this would nearly completely block out solar wind/cosmic derived particles like muons. ie the decay rate was a lot faster back then if we do a logical projection. Science maintains a head-in-the-sand approach to this logical projection of the relationship between penetration/decay.

If those are your only two objections then that's easy: The wording means to "strengthen a covenant", surely Jesus' 3.5 years of ministry continually strengthened the covenant God had to send a Messiah to set specifically the Jews free? And in the future there will be another 3.5 years when Jesus is strengthening the covenant of the true Messiah to the Jews. And your own wording about the timing of the "cut off" agrees with my view, he was cut off 3.5 years after the 69 weeks. This fits in with the word "after". ie the coming of the anointed one occurred in the autumn of 26AD, this was 69 sevens (year 483). After this he was cut off, 3.5 years later he was crucified. Your view puts the crucifixion in the gap between the 69th and 70th weeks which means you have left out the crucifixion from Daniel's special 490 year Jewish period. Its outside the 490 years which is ridiculous in my eyes to place the crucifixion outside the significant 490 years of special times for the Jews.

The prophecy is unbroken alot are going by hersey and not what is in the bible The he is Jesus that confirms the covenant and there is no 3.5 years of tribulation Hi Izzel, if you look at my post again you will see that I didn't go by hersey (heresy or hearsay?). I quoted from the Amplified bible and from the Jewish bible, both list two characters in Daniel 9:27 , not one character. The following verses indicate a 3.5 year period until the second coming: Daniel 7:25 the little horn persecutes the saints for 3.5 years until Jesus comes (time, times and half a time) Daniel 12:11 refers to 1290 days from the abomination until the resurrection (3.5 years) Matthew 24 Jesus mentions the tribulation starts with Daniel's abomination, and ends with the second coming Rev 12 refers to 42 months of persecution Rev 13 refers to 42 months of the beast's rule and persecution There definitely is a future tribulation period of 3.5 years. Its is 1260 years and 1260 years the days are prophetic and again you are including the 490 years iand mixi ng up the prophecies I'm not mixing up the prophecies. I believe there are certain shortcomings with your view. You have not explained why your 1290 days = 1290 years is superior to my view that 1290 days = 1290 days. You also have not explained the other verses concerning 42 months and time, times and half a time. All these verses point to a 3.5 year period, you need to strengthen your argument to justify why your position is stronger than my position. Hi ARGOSY and welcome to worthy. I believe you are correct. All of the evidence points to 3 1/2 years. Time, times and half a time = 3 1/2 years forty-two months = 3 1/2 years 1260 days = 3 1/2 years But, you're on your own, as far as the rest of this discussion goes. Cheers Thanks for the agreement. Have you any reasoning behind regarding the antichrist as the one who confirms the covenant. I have just listed 5 reasons why I believe its Jesus.

Looking through this thread, I don't see enough evidence for the "he" being the antichrist. In v25 we have a prince who will come. (Jesus) In v26 we have a prince who will come. If you want to change the identity of the second prince you need very good reasons to do so, please explain why. Most people use the explanation that the Romans destroyed the temple, and so the new prince had to be a Roman one, but if you look at the Hebrew word it means destroy/corrupt/rot/mar. During 66AD to 70AD the zealots were corrupting the temple through their disgusting behaviour (rape, murder, desecration, cannibalism). The zealots were Jews/Galileans , the people of the prince corrupted the temple, then the Romans destroyed it like a flood. The "he" then refers to the prince Jesus, he confirmed the promised "Anointed One", "son of David" when He was baptised, then 3.5 years later he was the last sacrificial lamb, putting an end to sacrifice. In addition, the 7 year peace treaty view completely fails to acknowledge that MOST translations separate the identity of the "he" that confirms the covenant from the one/desolator who sets up the abomination. So on 5 counts I believe Jesus fits the "he" better than the antichrist 1) v26 does not say "another prince to come", my view fits the grammar 2) My view acknowledges the greater evil of the zealots that led to the disunity, corruption and destruction of the temple 3) My view regards the anointing of Jesus (Jordan River) as the coming of the anointed one, its more accurate timing of when the anointed one appeared publicly to Israel 4) The fact that Jesus himself confirmed a promise, had a 3.5 year ministry, and was the last sacrificial lamb fits v27 perfectly 5) My view fits into most translations that separate the identity of the two characters in v27

The prophecy is unbroken alot are going by hersey and not what is in the bible The he is Jesus that confirms the covenant and there is no 3.5 years of tribulation Hi Izzel, if you look at my post again you will see that I didn't go by hersey (heresy or hearsay?). I quoted from the Amplified bible and from the Jewish bible, both list two characters in Daniel 9:27 , not one character. The following verses indicate a 3.5 year period until the second coming: Daniel 7:25 the little horn persecutes the saints for 3.5 years until Jesus comes (time, times and half a time) Daniel 12:11 refers to 1290 days from the abomination until the resurrection (3.5 years) Matthew 24 Jesus mentions the tribulation starts with Daniel's abomination, and ends with the second coming Rev 12 refers to 42 months of persecution Rev 13 refers to 42 months of the beast's rule and persecution There definitely is a future tribulation period of 3.5 years. Its is 1260 years and 1260 years the days are prophetic and again you are including the 490 years iand mixi ng up the prophecies I'm not mixing up the prophecies. I believe there are certain shortcomings with your view. You have not explained why your 1290 days = 1290 years is superior to my view that 1290 days = 1290 days. You also have not explained the other verses concerning 42 months and time, times and half a time. All these verses point to a 3.5 year period, you need to strengthen your argument to justify why your position is stronger than my position.

The prophecy is unbroken alot are going by hersey and not what is in the bible The he is Jesus that confirms the covenant and there is no 3.5 years of tribulation Hi Izzel, if you look at my post again you will see that I didn't go by hersey (heresy or hearsay?). I quoted from the Amplified bible and from the Jewish bible, both list two characters in Daniel 9:27 , not one character. The following verses indicate a 3.5 year period until the second coming: Daniel 7:25 the little horn persecutes the saints for 3.5 years until Jesus comes (time, times and half a time) Daniel 12:11 refers to 1290 days from the abomination until the resurrection (3.5 years) Matthew 24 Jesus mentions the tribulation starts with Daniel's abomination, and ends with the second coming Rev 12 refers to 42 months of persecution Rev 13 refers to 42 months of the beast's rule and persecution There definitely is a future tribulation period of 3.5 years.

Hi. This is my first post on this forum and I'm looking forward to many interesting discussions. My views are not always orthodox but as we are entering the end-times I feel its necessary to revisit assumptions we may have had in the past. I believe the last seven is split. Most translations have TWO characters and not one in Daniel 9:27. Most translations refer to "he" who confirms the covenant, and one/desolator who sets up the abomination. If this is what the Amplified bible says, we should sit up and take notice: And he shall enter into a strong and firm covenant with the many for one week [seven years]. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease [for the remaining three and one-half years]; and upon the wing or pinnacle of abominations [shall come] one who makes desolate, until the full determined end is poured out on the desolator Jewish bible: He will make a strong covenant with leaders for one week [of years]. For half of the week he will put a stop to the sacrifice and the grain offering. On the wing of detestable things the desolator will come and continue until the already decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator Jesus confirmed the covenant, the Jewish period was interrupted at the crucifixion which opened the way for the gentiles, but there is still one more 3.5 year Jewish period left before the second coming. The antichrist/abomination will commence the final 3.5 Jewish years known as the great tribulation.