Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Neutral

1 Follower

About Daniel23

  • Birthday December 11

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Southern California

Recent Profile Visitors

495 profile views
  1. You know that is almost accurate... But I wasn't hurt by any of it. I am not seeking validation from man (or woman 😉), so my feelings weren't on the line to be hurt. It was more feeling a sort of a frustration with the mindset of those who judge (or discern) others with a different set of principles than they do themselves. It honestly doesn't bother me that you disagree with my interpretation, but the reasoning and the twisting of words behind it is what really got me to the point where I realized there is use in trying to get any one to see what they are not willing to see. I just will focus on sharing the Good News of Jesus! I am sure you can agree with that! 😆👍 Be Blessed, Daniel
  2. No scriptural support as to how I determined that seven sevens were months and sixty-two were years... But this is because they were meant to be given values as the values were intentionally left off. This is not any different than determining that 7 were weeks of years... Both are providing values that weren't included. And when you quote out of context, the statement loses its intended meaning. I don't believe this was an accident. But this is a trend I saw before you did it to my words.
  3. Again we continue with this campaign of confusion surrounded by misinformation. Before I start to address these points, I want to again mention that I do believe my experience to be a revelation by the Holy Spirit. I only want to mention it one more time as I do not want to ever appear to take credit for something that I did not have the capacity to do on my own. All the glory is to God. So that being said, I will refer to it as "my interpretation" only as a matter of convenience and to avoid the feeling that I am trying to beat a dead horse with it. First, I want to say I have studied the Hebrew translation of this and other scripture to try and find potential issues with my interpretation. If you don't already use this site, I encourage you to check it out as I have found it to be a valuable reference. http://www.qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/daniel/9.html#1 Next let me just address a couple statements that you made, which either indicate that you didn't read my last post or chose to try to twist words again to serve a different agenda: You said: Seventy – Heb. `shibiym` seventy. (note - used over 50 times in God`s word) You I am not sure why you included how many times this was used in the bible as this is not in contention. I believe you were trying refute my position that "shavui'ym was only used 5 times in the OT (All in Daniel), but you looked up the wrong word. I stand my original statement of this having a special meaning from Daniel. You said: Here we see that God is giving the land its Sabbath rests over the period that Israel rebelled, (490 years). Thus every seventh day added up to 70 years. Then God required Israel to be disciplined for the full time they rebelled – 490 years. (70 x 7 years) This we see is broken down into 3 measurements. So I am really at a loss here. I don't know where you are getting this from. I didn't see anything of 490 years of rebellion, nor 70x7 anywhere in scripture. God's word to Jeremiah was that the Israelites were to be exiled for 70 years... The rest of this seems like ultra confusion and am concerned over this. You said: Weeks – Heb. `shebuah,` sevened, ie. a week, especially of years. I believe I have seen this definition somewhere, but it is hardly accurate. Below is Strong's definition (you can click the references below to see the words used in scripture), but keep in mind the only use of the word as a Heptad is where the translators incorrectly applied it to Daniel: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7620.htm As a matter of fact, the only place that "shebua" (shavua) is interpreted to mean weeks of years is in Daniel. Which is is strange because the rest of the use of the word is as a literal week... At least that I have found this far. Secondly, I do not argue that shavua is seven days literally. Thirdly, again the use of shavui'ym is a special use of the masculine plural of shavua. But please don't take my word for it... Take the word of God. This is the various uses seven years and weeks in scripture: Exodus 34:22- “Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year.” The hebrew word for "Weeks" in this verse is Shavuot. Leviticus 23:15- “ ‘From the day after the Sabbath, the day you brought the sheaf of the wave offering, count off seven full weeks.” The Hebrew words here for "seven full weeks" is sheva shabatot. ‭‭ Deuteronomy 16:9 -“Count off seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the standing grain.” ‭‭ The Hebrew translation of "seven weeks" was shivah shavuot. Genesis 29:27 - “Finish this daughter’s bridal week; then we will give you the younger one also, in return for another seven years of work.” The Hebrew translation of "week" here was shavua, while "seven years" was shivah shaniym. Leviticus 25:8- ““ ‘Count off seven sabbath years—seven times seven years—so that the seven sabbath years amount to a period of forty-nine years.” The Hebrew translation of "seven sabbath years" was sheva shabatot shaniym, while "seven times seven years" was sheva shaniym sheva. The interesting thing here is if Daniel was speaking about seven years of seven, he could have used either "sheva shaniym sheva" or even easier would have been sheva shabatot shaniym. Also if shavui'ym would have been meant to be used as "weeks of years" as you propose, then he would have said shavui'ym shaniym, or using the proper version of weeks he would have said "Shavuot shaniym". He didn't use either one! So tell me again how I am stretching the word to fit my use and how the "weeks of years" interpretation isn't? As a matter of fact, it would seem to me that the "weeks of years" translation is adding a word to the bible as if God's word needed help. Where the translation I am working off of translates shavui'ym to a literal and undefined seven. Leaving the reader, who understands, to interpret the value of seven. Furthermore, the use of shavua in Daniel I interpreted to be a literal week as was the common use for the word in the Genesis verse above, whereas a plural week was Shavuot. The bottom line here is, I have evaluated your arguments time and time again. Showed you where they are either stretching the word to infer meaning that you want it to mean, or have in some cases misused or misquoted scripture all together. I have not strayed from the word once in my interpretation, but use it to confirm or deny the truth regardless of the source. I take care to evaluate all interpretations with the same measuring stick, never applying scrutiny to one side of an argument that I wouldn't apply to the other. I don't believe that you can say the same. As a matter of fact, you have used scrutiny towards my interpretation of the various aspects of the prophecy that we have discussed and it has withstood all of the scrutiny because it was already validated against scripture. If you applied a fraction of that scrutiny to your interpretation, it would fall apart. As for my interpretation of the seventy sevens, only God knows if I am right. This is not something as cut and dry as the Cyrus decree. However, the math works. But this obviously doesn't matter to you because you don't want me to be right. For whatever reason. That's ok too. I don't you to. I just saw what I believed to be a veil of confusion and thought that I would try to push through it with you. But at this point, this conversation is doing nothing to turn hearts towards Jesus. If you were sincerely trying to understand, this might have been worth it. But in the last few posts it became obvious that you are just trying to prove me wrong. In either case, there is much better use of our time in preaching the good news to those that don't yet understand that they're going to need it... Really really soon. God Bless you and Good luck! All Glory to Our Father in Heaven, Daniel
  4. I Marilyn, I am not sure where you think that I am basing anything I believe off of anything but the bible. I have been most adamant about not taking Liberty with God's word, so to try to throw that in my face is disingenuous and really surprises me. The fact that you might not believe what I say was inspired by God, is not relevant to the conversation. What is relevant is even if it was just a "thought", as you put it, I validated by the Word. You can continue to put your faith in the teachings of man, and I hope it works out for you. I will continue to my trust in God (and his Word) and look for the Holy Spirit to guide me to where He wants me to be. God Bless, Daniel
  5. Please make sure you expand on this... 🙃🙃
  6. I also want to say that the values of "periods of seven years" (or weeks of years) is also a interpreted value not provided by Daniel. So to apply scrutiny to one you would have to with the other. Afterall if Daniel wanted to use 7 times 7 year periods, he would have likely used language similar to Leviticus 25:8: “‘Count off seven sabbath years—seven times seven years—so that the seven sabbath years amount to a period of forty-nine years."
  7. Hi Marilyn, I did not supply scripture to support the years, months and day theory as there isn't any scriptural evidence of that. However, that being said there is no scriptural evidence contradicting this either. This prophecy was meant to be revealed in "the times of the end". It is a riddle of sorts, but if we read it as it was written in its simplest form, then counting sevens would make the most sense. I would argue that if you showed a 1st grade child a list of years listed from one to one hundred and asked them to show you seven "sevens", the would count the units with "sevens" in their digits. Again, Daniel's using the word "shavui'ym" for sevens is significant as it is used only 5 times in the entire OT. I have seen it defined as literally seven, a period of seven, units of seven, or even a calculation of seven. I would argue that it literally means a unit with seven, this for whatever reason makes the most sense to me, but I will acknowledge only because it makes it more convenient. However I don't believe it is necessary to dig that deep into it. The Lord created His word to be read in the context and meaning of specifically for this appointed time, while also making it to be read and understood specifically for the many generations before us. There are no accidents. So when I read the NIV version of Daniel as sevens and the KJV as weeks, it didn't make sense to me and I couldn't reconcile the two. So I dug into it. I tried everything I could to make intellectual sense of these 3 verses 24-27 in Daniel and I felt that veil of confusion over my mind. I knew at that moment there was no way I would ever be able to intellectually make sense of it as Daniel intended. So I said out loud, "That's it God! I quit!". It is only after that moment of surrender that the answer came clearly to mind. Now I know that people, such as Kan, frown on me claiming the Holy Spirit's help, but I don't really care. There is no explanation for what happened. Could I be deceived? Absolutely. But the bottom line is, a simple thought came to mind. "Why don't you try counting sevens?" So I looked at the 62 and started counting them out... 7,17,27,37,47...etc. And when I got to "77" I "knew" that it was two sevens. I wrote it out and it came to 567 years.. Which 567 years from the decree of Cyrus in 539 BC (or 3222 Hebrew) was 28 AD (or 3789). Now I can't quite convey what that experience was like and many will think I am exaggerating, but I can assure you that I wrote out the numbers once and counted them once and up to that point I thought it was the Holy Spirit, but honestly I wasn't sure of it. Well, needless to say, I was astounded when the math lined up and the timeline was in the window of the crucifixion. Next I knew that I had to do something with the seven sevens... (SIDE NOTE: I didn't combine the sevens as I believed that they were separated for a reason, and like Isaac Newton said, "We avoid also the doing violence to the language of Daniel, by taking the seven weeks and sixty two weeks for one number. Had that been Daniel's meaning, he would have said sixty and nine weeks, and not seven weeks and sixty two weeks, a way of numbering used by no nation." So looking at it like a math problem, I structure it like this with "D= Cyrus Decree" and "C=Crucifixtion": D+7x+62y+1z=C So looking back to scripture, I read verse 25 again and it says, "...there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’". I immediately "thought" of months and years. So I read it as if it said, "...there will be seven 'months (with sevens)', and sixty-two 'years (with sevens)'." And I further confirmed when reading Daniel's explaining the time in Daniel 10:4 "On the twenty-fourth day of the first month...". Though he didn't use years in this passage it would have been common to end with "... in the third year of Darius" . So I decided to count the sevens in "months". It came to 67 months or 5 years 7 months. Add this to the 28AD it comes to 33AD (or 3794). If we were to add 7 months to the beginning of the start of 3794 on October 4th, 33AD, we come to Wednesday, April 14th, 34AD. The week to the day before Passover began. Add in the last "seven (of days)", and you have the timeline of Jesus entering Jerusalem, stopping the sacrifice and offering at the temple, telling the Pharisees to destroy the temple (His body) and he would raise it 3 days (setting up the "abomination that causes desolation"), and ultimately His sacrifice on the cross. I will admit that this is a tight time frame (as the only way all 3 values work is this timeline), but it is miraculous without stretching scripture or using complex math to make it work, that it comes within the precise window that is generally accepted (though not entirely void of objections) time frame for all events. You can discern for yourself, but the math definitely works. God Bless You, Daniel
  8. 572 years and 7 months... Plus the last seven as a literal week. you can see how it breaks down on my post. http://daniel23.com/daniel9
  9. Ok... So I am finally back to a PC and can address several different things at once. It became tedious trying to respond and quote specific things from my phone. Before I get started I would like to say that you both seem like good people and at this point I am confident that your hearts are in the right place. Marilyn, you in particular are a special person and you have approached me with nothing but love and respect from the beginning. It has been received and I hope that you can receive my messages with the same. I also want to clarify my post regarding the veil of confusion and Satan's deception. When I said these things I in no way meant it to mean that Satan has a hold on you because if he did it would be obvious for now. What I was speaking on was the collective messages that are taught and accepted by Christians worldwide. These collective messages have taken liberties with the word of God and have built up a picture in the minds of many Christians that are built upon these liberal uses of the Word. While I believe that these interpretations were delivered with the best of intentions, it has lead to what I feel could be disastrous consequences. If I were to take liberty with the perfect and infallible word of God, I would be claiming that God's word isn't perfect at all. That it needed a bit of massaging in order to be received the way he intended it to be received. We can read and interpret God's word, we can interpret meaning where there is no meaning provided. However, when we infer meaning to His word, while rationalizing the dismissal of the meaning that He Himself had provided to us, it is tantamount to exalting ourselves by claiming the Wisdom of God to discern His "real meaning" though it may stand in direct contradiction to other scripture. While I am not saying that is what either of you are doing, it is with this level of caution that we proceed in examining His word as it is written. That being said, in case you wonder how I can say this and yet offer my own interpretation for Daniel's sevens (shavu'iym) is because the sevens were offered as a type of riddle meant to be interpreted at a future date in the times of the end. (Daniel 12:4 and 12:9) The first comment that I would like to address is the following regarding the lack of scripture in my comments: While it is true that my last post lacked any scriptural reference, but that is only because I was on my way home and didn't have time to get into specific details of anything. That being said, my contention with you and Kan is based purely on scriptural evidence to the contrary of your respective positions. So that comment kind of took me off guard because I am very careful to not paraphrase when using the word as authority. If I were to paraphrase the position of the bible, it would be an attempt to give authority to my words rather than the Word standing as the final authority. This is not something I would ever intentionally do as I a grateful submit myself to the authority of His word as it is written. This was a bit confusing for me. I think what you are saying is that Isaiah's prophecy was of King Cyrus prophetically saying that Jerusalem would be rebuilt. So the fact that he issued a decree to rebuild the temple and restored the Israelites to Jerusalem, doesn't matter because it doesn't say "temple" in Daniel 9:25. And Isaiah's prophecy that specifically mentions Cyrus and the rebuilding of Jerusalem, doesn't confirm anything because Cyrus "says" rather than "decrees" that Jerusalem will be rebuilt?? Does this not seem confusing to you? And what about Isaiah 45:13, which was the other scripture I had referenced that you didn't mention: "I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the Lord Almighty.” So Cyrus issued a decree to restore and rebuild a house for God in Jerusalem, He restored the people to Jerusalem, He began the work of the rebuilding of the city, He was prophesied to say to Jerusalem that it would be rebuilt, he was also prophesied to rebuild the city and set the lords exiles free... But yet, no it can't be the Cyrus decree because it has to be this one from Artaxerxes: This verse in Nehemiah 2:4-5 is Nehemiah requesting the King send him to Jerusalem (the city where his ancestors are buried) to rebuild it (specifically its wall). There wasn't a decree attached to this permission. There were two letters from the King, one to the governors of Trans-Euphrates for Nehemiah's safe passage and another to Asaph, to provide timber for the gate, the wall and his personal residence. These were not decrees. Further more, even if somehow we could twist the words enough to make one believe that this was a decree, how would you explain that once Artaxerxes found out that they were rebuilding the city (Ezra 4:12-24), he ordered the work to cease (Ezra 4:23-24). Had he decreed the rebuilding of Jerusalem, not only would he have known about it, but his governors would have known as well. Further in Nehemiah 2:12, Nehemiah says after leaving the king with his 2 letters, "I set out during the night with a few others. I had not told anyone what my God had put in my heart to do for Jerusalem. There were no mounts with me except the one I was riding on." And in Nehemiah 2:16 he says, "The officials did not know where I had gone or what I was doing, because as yet I had said nothing to the Jews or the priests or nobles or officials or any others who would be doing the work." The thing about decrees are they are not secret. I really, really, really don't understand how you can't see this? I don't understand how you get into the very finite details of Cyrus to attempt to ignore what God Himself has said. But yet, squeeze out every ounce of meaning you could possibly come up with to try to stretch God's word to fit Artaxerxes. I really wanted to go through the confusion that has permeated this conversation from the start of my participation in this thread, to hopefully shed some light on the level of denial here as referenced by the confusing, changing, and contradictory responses here: 1. Wrong King... Was Artaxerxes. ("Mistake acknowledged and corrected later) 2. The Correction- Mostly correct. The only thing I would add, as I think it might be a bit misleading, to leave it (highlighted red) as it is. The actual verse for which this statement is based says, "Then the peoples around them set out to discourage the people of Judah and make them afraid to go on building.[a] 5 They bribed officials to work against them and frustrate their plans during the entire reign of Cyrus king of Persia and down to the reign of Darius king of Persia." 3. Correctly identifying the Cyrus decree as the decree from Daniel 9:25, would mess up another prophesy from another chapter... Huh? Should we be trying to stretch God's word to make it fit our understanding of other prophesies... Or should we be stretching our understanding to fit with God's word??? 4. The Decree of Cyrus- Check (Now we're getting somewhere); The work being hindered by Darius??? Oops wrong king again. Again it was Artaxerxes. Then finally it was labeled now as "the empowerment for that decree to be enacted". I am sorry I missed that part in the Bible.. Well sorry that it went on and on, but I wanted to make sure to include everything. I am going to pray that we can start to see what we're missing here and if I am missing something or am delusional, I will pray that this too would be revealed... Because I am starting to feel like I am taking crazy pills here. In any case, Stay Blessed. Your Brother in Christ, Daniel
  10. No I didn't miss it... Just have been driving all day and just responded to the first post I saw. I am going to respond, but at this point not feeling so hopeful because both of you will use the a discerning eye claiming that Cyrus' decree was "only for the temple" but yet use Ezra's words to Artaxerxes as proof of his decree. Does it not even strike you as a bit biased? And to acknowledge that God said Cyrus would say of Jerusalem, "let it be built", but in the next breath say, "but he really just meant Artaxerxes would be the one to decree it". There is no evidence of any of this in the bible. Is our God a God of confusion? I believe in the literal meaning of the bible and where there is figurative meaning (which I believe there are many instances of this) it needs to first be accepted literally. i just feel like I am talking to liberals (which I assume both of you are not) about abortion or gay marriage... That no matter how much facts back up my argument, the facts are twisted to the point where they are recognizable in order to fill a narrative they are unwilling to part with. This may be fine if the facts are in history books, but it's not ok when it is the authoritative Word of God. But I will take another run at it when I get home. But again I am not too hopeful of getting you guys to see past this veil of confusion that separates us. I would like to pose this question to you out of curiosity: I keep banging the drum that you cannot take liberties with the Word of God, subtract or add to what is already there... I know you both don't think that you are doing this, but it is evident to me that you are. That being said, do you think that I am adding or subtracting from the Word? If so could you give me specific examples of where you feel I might be doing this? I ask this earnestly, as I don't want to become party to a self delusion and will honestly weigh your comments against what I have posted thus far and compare that to the Word. Thanks! Daniel
  11. I guess I am having a hard time understanding what the significance is of there being multiple Cyrus' and Nebuchadnezzars, since you identify that proper timeline of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Are you saying that Isaiah was talking about another King Cyrus who would issue a command to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple?? Do you know who this Cyrus is so I can look it up? And where are you getting that the work was hindered by Darius? As a matter of fact it explicitly says that the work was not stopped by Darius in Ezra 5:5 (see my earlier reply) I am at a loss as this keeps getting more confusing and the facts just don't line up. The work was hindered under Artaxerxes, as I posted earlier in Ezra 4:13 "“As soon as the copy of the letter of King Artaxerxes was read to Rehum and Shimshai the secretary and their associates, they went immediately to the Jews in Jerusalem and compelled them by force to stop.” and in Ezra 4:14 it says "“Thus the work on the house of God in Jerusalem came to a standstill until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.”. That all having been said, the fact is that decree of Cyrus was to rebuild AND restore Jerusalem. Obviously the exile had ended (the city was restored with its people) and the construction on the temple began. Sacrifices were being offered. So I really am confused why this is so hard for you to see. Let's break down each "decree" of Artaxerxes one last time and you can tell me where there is an EXPLICIT decree other than just inferring one from information that doesn't support it: Ezra 4:21- The decree to stop work on the temple. Ezra 7:13-20- the decree to "allow" any of the Israelites who volunteered to go back. Ezra 7:14 says that they were sent by the King to "inquire about Judah and Jerusalem with regard to your God" and they were to take with them silver and gold from the temple. There is nothing even hinting at rebuilding anything. Ezra 7:21 - the decree to provide (with diligence) what ever supplies were needed for the temple of God. It says, “Whatever the God of heaven has prescribed, let it be done with diligence for the temple of the God of heaven. Why should his wrath fall on the realm of the king and of his sons?” Again there is nothing in this decree that mentions anything about rebuilding. ‭‭Nehemiah 2:5-9 - This is the closest to a decree that there is in the bible, but it is still not a decree to "restore and rebuild Jerusalem". There are three aspects of this that we can verify without offering guesses that are not biblical: 1. Nehemiah asks the King to send him to Jerusalem so he can rebuild it. The king obliges to grant that request, by sending him. There was no formal decree here. We would have to add to the word of God to say there was. 2. Nehemiah asks for a letter To the governors of Trans-Euphrates to give Nehemiah safe passage. The king obliges. 3. Nehemiah asks for another letter to Asaph, so that he will give him the supplies needed to rebuild the wall and a home for himself. The king obliges. In none of these three aspects of Nehemiah was there anything that could be deemed a decree to "rebuild and restore Jerusalem". I really am trying to understand where you guys are coming from, though it might seem that I am not because I am not coming off these points... But I studied this all in detail prior to looking for a solution that made better sense. There isn't one. Cyrus issued the decree as prophesied by Isaiah, restoring Jerusalem as prophesied by Jermiah. Darius issued a decree for no one to get in the way of Cyrus' decree... Thereby reaffirming Cyrus' decree. Artaxerxes, issued decrees to provide the Ezra and Nehemiah the resources they needed to again follow through with finishing THE decree of Cyrus. Thereby, at best reaffirming Cyrus' decree. I don't know if I can paint a clearer picture than that. It is not complicated by design, but we make it complicated and you already know that I feel this is intentionally deceiving. Why not instead of trying to stick to the status quo in spite of the evidence that it is not biblically valid, why don't you look at the calculation I put forth and argue the merits of that. This would be a much more fruitful conversation. After all, even the scholars themselves can't argue that the Cyrus decree is a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, though they negate it by saying it was only the temple. They won't deny that Cyrus ended the exile and thereby restored the Israelites to Jerusalem. The detail about his specific reference to rebuild the temple, despite God plainly telling Isaiah that Cyrus would be the one to command Jerusalem to be rebuilt and he would build the foundations of the temple (which is historically accurate)... If one were going to rebuild Jerusalem, where else would they start other than the house of God??? The argument against the decree of Daniel being explicitly given by Cyrus exerts an unreasonable level of scrutiny that is not equally (if at all) applied to the Artaxerxes inferred decree. There is something that I want to acknowledge here and it is that if I were in your shoes and this was the only way that it would prove that Daniel's prophecy regarding the Messiah was correct... Then I might have a problem too. However, the interpretation I give is far more accurate and lines up to the date of Jesus entering Jerusalem and His crucifixition at the end on the last seven. But that is the kicker isn't it??? It is letting go of that last seven and not using it towards end times prophecy. Well, that should not prevent us from reading God's word literally and not adding or subtracting anything from His infallible, perfect Word. Daniel
  12. Kan, Each chapter of the Daniel represents a different prophecy these were sometimes decades apart from each other. So it doesn't shift the timeline of Daniel 8, because Daniel 8 is dealing with end times... Daniel 9 is prophesying the Savior. These are not mutually exclusive. As for there being different Cyrus' I haven't found another Cyrus who was a Babylonian King that issued a decree. I actually didn't find another Babylonian King named Cyrus anywhere. If you have some examples of this I would be interested to read on this and the "different" Nebuchadnezzars that existed. This is the first I have heard of this. I appreciate the softening of your tone from previous posts and while I would like to continue the conversation in this tone, I have to say that the problem that I think we're going to struggle with is that you are more interpreting the bible to fit a narrative that you have already accepted as truth. This will be a nonstarter because though I already brought up points why the Artaxerxes decree did not exist or at best was decree inferred from various verses, you haven't seemed to address that. If Artaxerxes could have logically been THE DECREE, I would have never questioned it beyond that. But because it couldn't past muster, I started digging and thus I came on the path I am today. I used nothing other than the word of God (with the help of what I believe was the Holy Spirit) to come up with any of this. I used outside sources for historical data only after the interpretation was done and only to see if it was close enough to be considered a fit. If there is something I am missing, please share it with me... I am after the truth and if my interpretation can be proven wrong... Then I can accept it. God's word is the only authority and I don't want to interpret it in a way that only serves my needs or desires. Because at the end of the day, if I am delusional... I have to answer to God as to why I perverted His word. Thank you for attempting another angle at approaching this discussion... It will be much more productive if we can treat each other as family in Christ... Because He is what is really important! In the Spirit of His Love, Daniel
  13. I am sorry.. I must've missed that part. I thought we were talking about Daniel... When the Angels were discussing when the events would take place. I don't recall anywhere in Daniel where they mention witnesses? Are we reading different bibles? I answered in the spirit of your question. Honestly, I have wrestled with that verse a few times and the only sense of it I could make was in an interpretation that I read somewhere stating it was a "time of times and a half a time" as opposed to "time, times and a half a time". And that is only because of working backwards from now. No magic. No revelation. Just guesswork that is worth about as much as the other interpretations. I would be glad to entertain a real conversation with you, but it has to be based on more than a "gotcha" strategy. Kinda like the Pharisees.
  14. A time of times and a half a time you mean? 2500 years
  • Create New...