Search the Community

I hear you bro. I've seen some Meetings degenerate into a shouting match and the elders didn't react. The Lord was greatly dishonored. And to get the saints to spend time with the lord so that they can bring something to the Meeting once a week is very difficult. To make the transition from the modern silent and orderly meeting to one where a dozen contribute will take at least five years. But to your statement about our Lord Jesus above, you have made your point. But is this not what has happened anyway? According to Ephesians Chapter 4 the HEAD supplies each member so that that member can supply other members. If these members remain silent, our Lord has been silenced. I have been in many Meetings where the Leading Brother has known that a gifted brother was present. To preserve his preeminence, he never invites the gifted brother to speak. Is this not silencing the Head? Let's say that we have a particularly unruly Meeting. Of the 20 brothers and sisters who spoke, it was obvious that 15 had nothing to contribute and were not inspired. Added to this, a sister took it upon herself to teach a doctrine while a brother kept butting in. How shall we remedy this? Shall we 1. silence all but one? Or, 2. shall we not seta side a year where a gifted brother speaks something about order and God's way in the meeting. In 1st Corinthians 3 God gives a warning that anyone who "mars" His Assembly, He will in turn "mar" (lit.Gk.). If the brother started His message with this verse every Lord's Day, and gave an example, like those taking the Lord's table unworthily, or lying to the congregation that they are gifted and ending like Ananias and Saphira, it might take 3 months but the Holy Spirit would be quietly doing His internal work. Raising boys, especially teenagers, can take this much grit too. That's why an Overseer MUST be married and MUST have children. The grammar of 1st Timothy 3:1-5 leaves no room for anything else. I think that we must NEVER give up God's way because of difficulty. Of course I am aware that you can lose the battle. If the Assembly don't want to, you can't do anything. But we have a promise. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (1 Co 11:19) The Greek word for "heresies" does not mean false doctrine. It means "making a political party". If God is with you, and you introduce the way of 1st Corinthians 14 and Ephesians 4, you will have opposition. You can pray and persevere. If you have been "approved" you will win and have a Biblical Meeting. If God waits to see what men will do, you will probably lose. This does not mean that you were not well pleasing to God. David also had to run for his life. Again, I say, I understand your point above and, as an ex-military man, I value order. I am also aware that disorder dishonors God. But with young ones, God takes into a account that there will be three years of diapers. As a closing thought I propose that quenching the Holy Spirit by silencing the gifted ones is the greater evil than a rowdy Meeting. King James Version (WORDsearch Edition). (n.d.). . WORDsearch.

I have answered this theory of yours before - and you did not comment. But I will do it again. "The LAST trump" is the LAST trump for CHRISTIANS, The people who Paul addresses in 1st Corinthians 15:50 is "WE" - the Church. Israel is gathered AFTER the Church and they are gathered at the call of a Trumpet (Matt.24:31) and this Trumpet is AFTER the Christians are resurrected. But to Israel it is not the "LAST" trumpet because during the millennium they will be under the New Covenant, which has the Law, and the Law contains the Feast of Trumpets. Israel will feast this feast for a thousand years - so there is not talk of the "LAST" Trumpet for Israel. 1st Corinthians 15:22-26 contains the following sequence: 1. Christ's resurrection 2. THEN those who are Christ's "AT HIS COMING" 3. THEN Christ must REIGN until all enemies are subdued. Since one of them is Magog, and there is a huge slaughter at Hamon-Gog, death is not defeated yet. 4 THEN at the White throne is death defeated as Hades is emptied This sequence spans 3,000 years. In John 5 you started your quote at verse 28. You should have started at verse 25. The sequence then is different. The text reads; 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation King James Version (WORDsearch Edition). (n.d.). (Jn 5:24–29). WORDsearch. Verse 24; Some will hear the gospel and go from death to eternal life Verse 25; These, though they die physically, will live. The "voice of the Son of God" is a "Shout" (1st Thess.4:16) but it is for the Church only Verse 27. Judgment follows because judgment must BEGIN at the House of God - the Bema (1st Pet.4:17, Rom.14:10, 2nd Cor.5:10) Verse 28. At a future "hour" (one that is NOT "now" - v.27) "ALL" who are in graves are "the Rest of the dead". The Christian and Jew have already left their graves 1,000 years earlier. They are DIFFERENT from those of verse 24. Those of verse 24 have ALL passed to life, while those of verse 29 are divided - some to life and some to damnation. Contained in this sequence is those who react to the gospel. They pass to life at rebirth. Then they are resurrected when Christ comes. Then "ALL" who are left in graves are resurrected to the White Throne Judgment. There is nothing false in my arguments. They follow the grammar of scripture. Nothing was added or subtracted. All is laid forth for scrutiny.

It would seem to me that the language of Revelation 12 is plain. First though, lets get Strong's on "semeion". Greek Word: σημεῖον Transliteration: sēmeion Phonetic Pronunciation: say-mi’-on Root: from a presumed derivative of the base of <G4591> Cross Reference: TDNT - 7:200,1015 Part of Speech: n n Vine’s Words: Miracle, Sign, Token Usage Notes: English Words used in KJV: sign 50 miracle 23 wonder 3 token 1 [Total Count: 77] Strong, J. (2020). σημεῖον. Strong’s Talking Greek and Hebrew Dictionary. WORDsearch. Here is Vine; 2. semeion (σημει̂ον, 4592), “a sign, mark, token” (akin to semaino, “to give a sign”; sema, “a sign”), is used of “miracles” and wonders as signs of divine authority; it is translated “miracles” in the RV and KJV of Luke 23:8; Acts 4:16, 22; most usually it is given its more appropriate meaning “sign,” “signs,” Vine continues: SIGN 1. semeion (σημει̂ον, 4592), “a sign, mark, indication, token,” is used (a) of that which distinguished a person or thing from others, e.g., Matt. 26:48; Luke 2:12; Rom. 4:11; 2 Cor. 12:12 (1st part); 2 Thess. 3:17, “token,” i.e., his autograph attesting the authenticity of his letters; (b) of a “sign” as a warning or admonition, e.g., Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W., Jr. (1996). Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Vol. 2, p. 575). Nashville, TN: T. Nelson. Your understanding of it does not appear in the commentary of two very respected authorities. Here is the text which we discuss. 1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. There is nothing of Herod in the text. There is nothing historical. The Chapter starts with "AND" - a conjunction. The conjunction "and" is cumulative, copulative and sequential. That makes Chapter 12 a continuation of 11 and joined to it. The whole section deals with the 1260 days that Satan has left - how the 1260 days pertain to Jerusalem and the Overcoming Christian. It is written in the past tense because John saw the sign and the reports on it. Nearly all prophecy, when shown what is to come, is reported in the past tense. If you judge that the sign is Israel, the very first thing anyone does is insert Israel at every mention of the woman. This is normal practice in language and mathematics. If our Lord is called the Lamb, we immediately observe a lambs behavior when threatened with death. Language is given by God to transmit ideas. the following ideas are transmitted in the text above. 1. The Woman is heavenly. Israel is not. 2. Even if you force the meaning to be "wonder", Israel is no wonder except their disobedience and unbelief in the face of so much proof. 3. Interpreting scripture with scripture, a garment is one's works (Rev.19:7-8). Israel is naked, having made a pact with the Beast for access to the Holy of Holies - in the words of the scriptures "An abomination". In parable the RIGHTEOUS shine forth as the sun (Matt.13:43). 4. Israel has no crown. the Kingdom is ripped from her by our Lord Jesus in Matthew 21:43. Far from ruling, they are ruled by the 12 Apostles - Christians. 5. "being with child" conveys pregnancy. The Woman already has seed for "they REMAIN" after the Man-Child is raptured. Jesus was a first-born (i) of creation, (ii) of the dead, and (iii) the New Creation. 6. The Woman is seen in heaven by John, but she gives birth on earth. Verse 5 above implies a rapture after birth to avoid the "devouring" Dragon. It clearly states "AS SOON AS IT WAS BORN!" There is no great conversion of Israel after the Two Witnesses testify. There is only rejoicing at their death. Secondly, they did not preach the gospel for they drew fire upon their enemies - the exact opposite of a "ministry of reconciliation". the result of their rapture was not to call on the name of Jesus in faith, but to give glory to God in fear. The fear came from an earthquake and seven thousand deaths before their eyes. This is not an Israelite conversion to Jesus. Romans 11 says that Israel's unbelief remain till the time of the Gentiles is over. Although @Vine Abider has repeatedly pointed out lists of objections from the plain language, you have not dealt with each one. He showed the plurality of the Man-Child and you ignored it. There is NO evidence that the Man-Child is Jesus. That is an assumption. I respect your 50 years of study and I'm sure you have much to contribute. Why not start from scratch with references to scriptures, and deal with all the objections in this thread and in the one from which the lists came.

The Greek that is rendered "soon" or shortly" in Revelation 1:1 has the sense of "straightaway". I can also mean "suddenly". But the real proof of future application is found elsewhere. 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass There are three main words that are used for the Lord's coming. "Parousia" = His PRESENCE, "Erchomai" = His ARRIVAL, and "Apokalypsis" = His REVEALING. Example; Jesus is REVEALED in the cloudy sky before His ARRIVAL on Mount Olives after He has been PRESENT in the clouds judging the Church. In the verse above, the introductory verse of Revelation, the word is "Apokalypsis". The Book is John's given duty to "SHEW" Christians (His servants) His REVEALING. That is, since he has not yet been REVEALED, John's writings are about the FUTURE. I judge that the sense of the original is 1 The REVEALING OR UNCOVERING of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him (JESUS), to shew (BY VISIONS) unto his servants (THE REST OF THE CHURCH) things which must SUDDENLY come to pass. If one goes through the Book and its EVENTS, notice how they fit this first rendering. King James Version (WORDsearch Edition). (n.d.). (Re 1:1). WORDsearch.

King James Version (WORDsearch Edition). (n.d.). (Mt 13:37–39). WORDsearch. O.K. 1. In Matthew 13 the Sower goes out and sows the words of the kingdom. An enemy sows his version. the harvest is ... 37 He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the AGE From John Baptist and then through Jesus the Kingdom is taught. This produces failure and fruit by the "children of the Kingdom". To be a child of the kingdom one must be born again (Jn.3:3-5). There is an harvest and this harvest is the end of the AGE (aoin - Gk.). During this AGE the CHURCH is BUILT. 2. In Matthew 24:3 the Apostles ask our Lord three questions. when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the AGE? Which AGE (aion - Gk.)? the age that ends with the gathering of Israel (v.31). When is the gathering of Israel? When the Church is complete (Act.15:14-16). 3. In Ephesians 2:4-7 Paul speaks of "us". According to the greeting Chapter 1 "us" is the Church. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus The phrase, "ages to come" implies that the Church is in an AGE now. Now, let's leave all other debate and you take all the time you like to show that (i) the Church has no AGE, (ii) that the scriptures I gave mean something else and (iii) why I am called to task for calling it the "Church AGE". If you deviate from this, I will not answer. If you do not give a reason why we cannot call the age when Christ's builds His Church the Church age, I will take your objection as ranting about nothing. If you do not post a commentary on the correct meaning of these scriptures, I will take it that you seek only conflict and give no credence to the meaning of words and grammar. If you admit that I had grounds for calling it the Church age, I will forget the whole thing and move on. Now - your turn.

I use Wordsearch instead. I have more than 1000 books worthy of more than 5000 bucks, including tons of commentaries. However, Wordsearch discontinued after being acquired by Logos. Logos is never as good as Wordsearch.

Three Defeats of Russia There will be three future defeats of Russia in the fulfillment of prophecy: 1. Russia will have to be defeated in the formation of the ten kingdoms, for she must lose her hold on Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and other parts of the old Roman Empire which she now controls. Russia, herself never was a part of the old Roman Empire and cannot be one of the ten kingdoms which must be formed therein to fulfill prophecy, but she has control over some who will be a part of that territory, Dan. 2:39-45; 7:7, 8, 19-24; Rev. 13:1; 17:9-17. It being inconceivable that Russia would let these holdings go, without a war, it can be expected that a war will break out in Europe, Asia, and Africa which will result in defeat to Russia and the formation of these ten kingdoms. 2. Russia will again be defeated when the Antichrist, a man, arises out of one of the ten kingdoms, SYRIA, (after a short space as independent kingdoms), when he overthrows three of the ten kingdoms in a period of three and one-half years, causing the other six to submit to him without further struggle, Dan. 7:8, 19-24; Rev. 17:8-17. A war will then break out between the ten kingdoms under Antichrist, a man, and Germany, Russia, and the other countries in the north and east of the ten kingdoms which will last about three and one-half years, Dan. 11:44. In this war, Russia and her allies being defeated, the Antichrist, a man, will then become the ruler of Russia also. He will proceed to lead his ten kingdoms, together with the newly conquered countries of the north and east, along with other nations who, though not yet conquered will co-operate with him through the ministry of the three unclean spirits—and they will all go as a united force against the Jews in an effort to exterminate them, Ezek. 38-39; Zech. 14. With half of Jerusalem taken and the Jews almost destroyed, Christ and the armies of heaven will suddenly appear in the clouds of heaven to defeat the armies of the earth in one day's battle and then set up a kingdom in the world forever, Zech. 14; Mt. 24:27-31; 25:31-46; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; 2:8-12; Jude 14; Rev. 19:11-21; 20:1-7. Thus Antichrist will become the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal and the Gog of Ezek. 38-39 by conquest, not because he will come from Russia. This is the war that some scholars claim will take place in Palestine before the Battle of Armageddon, but in this they are mistaken because the ten kingdoms must first be formed and be conquered by the Antichrist from Syria before the war with Russia takes place. This war will not be fought in Palestine, but in the countries to the north and east of the ten kingdoms (Dan. 11:44), and then will come the invasion of Palestine under Antichrist, at the very close of the age, as shown in all the above scriptures. 3. Russia will be defeated at last by Jesus Christ and the armies of heaven, and Judah, at Jerusalem, Zech. 14:14; Ezek. 38-39; Rev. 19:11-21. At that time Russia will be under Antichrist; she will not be the leader of the nations at Armageddon. This war will be fought in Palestine, not in the countries north and east of the ten kingdoms as the war in point 2 above, Ezek. 38-39; Zech. 14. Thus, Russia will never fulfill many of the predictions some of the scholars claim she will. Actually, Antichrist from Syria will fulfill these many scriptures they refer to, and Russia will merely be one of many allies of Antichrist after he conquers her as in the second war, above. Finis J. Dake, Revelation Expounded, (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, Inc., 2001), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 302-303.

Thank you. According to Romans 1:20, 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: The creature displays God. Our Lord Jesus is the "Lion" of Judah. He is also the "Lamb of God". He is a "Rock" and He is "Sun of righteousness". Human marriage is supposed to display Christ and the Church ... and so on. Mt. Everest is so high, so beautiful, so permanent, so dangerous, so mysterious. God's power is seen in a galaxy, but His intricacy is seen in the atom ... and so on. So when God made man, He designed the man to be the peak of all displays of God - just like Him. "Image" has to do with a picture. While you are shaving and you turn your head, the image in the mirror turns its head. God is invisible and dwells in unapproachable light. So He cannot be pictured, except by man. "Likeness" has to do with attributes and qualities. Can a buffalo hate? No. But can God hate? Oh yes. Can a man hate? Yes, just "like" God. The dolphin is very intelligent, but can it calculate and analyse a problem. No. It still works by instinct. But a man can work things out "like" God. Man alone can display God. But due to the fall, man lost this attribute. God intends to restore it (Rom.8:29). (Ro 1:20). WORDsearch.

Thanks for your input, I some of it I did not know before. THANKS. My Favorite Translation is Holman's Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), published in 2004. The reason is their Translation Team did not mess with a lot of the word Yahweh, the way the other Translations did. Here is an example: Isaiah 43:10-11 (HCSB) 10 “You are My witnesses”— ⌊this is⌋ the LORD’s declaration— “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. No god was formed before Me, and there will be none after Me. 11 I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Savior but Me. I use that Scripture a LOT to prove the DEITY of CHRIST, and back it up using: Luke 2:11-12 (HCSB) 11 Today a Savior, who is Messiah the Lord, was born for you in the city of David. 12 This will be the sign for you: You will find a baby wrapped snugly in cloth and lying in a feeding trough.” The HCSB is FREE, and some older versions like KJV, ASV, etc., with the FREE WORDsearch Starter edition with their Software. They have over 200 free books too. Not Greedy at all, I would say, and have very good sales. (https://www.wordsearchbible.com/apps/wordsearch-starter)

In the King James language "without repentance" simply means this. Romans 11:29 ESV 29for God's gifts and his call are "irrevocable." I'm also KJV preferred, but we need to fully understand the linguistics of the language or misinterpretation results if we lack comprehension of 15th century words, phrases, and terminologies. How long have you thought this was in reference to repentance for sins? I'm a bit surprised to see this. May I recommend a good study reference bible such as a Scofield* or Thompson*? It was tremendous assistance to me personally. Previously, I had quite a few difficulties understanding Elizabethan English. It's not an easy one for Americans especially. The British often feel we "bastardized" their language. WHAT IS TRUTH: King James Version: Elizabethan English? https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2009/10/king... Oct 12, 2009 · Someone wrote: "The King James Version was produced in the Elizabethan period of Early Modern English, and so it uses forms of the verbs and pronouns that were characteristic of that period." When you read Shakespeare, you are reading Elizabethan English and you do not read the same language as the King James Version. The Old Scofield® Study Bible, KJV, Classic Edition ... https://www.amazon.com/Old-Scofield®-Study-Bible-Classic/dp/0195274601 Apr 08, 1999 · Only God knows how many souls were won and lives were changed in those revivals. His favorite study Bible was the Scofield. It was the Bible that was purchased for every high school and college graduate that attended the home church. Upon graduation, I was given a Scofield Study Bible. It was one of the Bible’s that I used when I began preaching. Scofield Study Bible - Christianbook.com https://www.christianbook.com/page/bibles/study-bibles/scofield-study-bible Scofield Reference Bible, edited by Cyrus I. Scofield, is the premiere Dispensationalism Study Bible. For over one hundred years, the Scofield Study Bible has been an indispensable aid, both as an introduction for the novice and as a companion for a lifetime of study. Or, perhaps a Thomson chain reference bible might be to your liking. Kirkbride Bible- Thompson® Chain-Reference® Bibles https://www.kirkbride.com The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible is printed and bound in the USA! Thompson Bibles are made for those who use their Bibles every day. A Thompson study Bible will help you in ways other Bibles can't. It's the unique Chain-Reference® System that allows you to follow any subject, person, place or idea, from the front of your Bible to the end. Thompson Chain-Reference Study Bible Notes - Wordsearch Bible https://wordsearchbible.lifeway.com/products/15077... A good chain-reference Bible such as Thompson's will help you find every parallel passage on the same topic or even the same word or phrase every time it is used. A large topical numbered section in the back, plus a selective concordance, maps and charts help round out this excellent reference work. Hank Hannegraph, The Bible Answer Man radio show.

The "IF" you pointed out belongs there. It is not saying we are saved "if" and when we continually keep His commandments. It is is clearly saying we can and will know that we are truly born again because the real McCoy will continually produce a desire to obey. The one who does not continually strive to obey, proves by his actions that he never was genuinely born again in the first place. As for the teachers that have had the most influence on my spiritual growth, Dr. John MacArthur Jr. via his "Grace to you" radio program had the most, but there were quite a few others. If you are unfamiliar with Dr. MacArthur, here is his credentials: - Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr., (born 1940) is the pastor of Grace Community Church (GCC) in Sun Valley, California, as well as the President of both The Master's College and The Master's Seminary. His first two years of college were spent at Bob Jones University. His undergraduate work was completed at Los Angeles Pacific College, followed by seminary training at Talbot Theological Seminary. Grace Church has grown from 450 members when MacArthur accepted the pastorate in 1969, to over 12,000 today. Much of MacArthur's influence is derived from his sermons that are edited and aired over more than 700 stations daily across the U.S. and Canada on the "Grace to You" (GTY) radio program. First aired in 1977, GTY now has a full-time U.S. staff of approximately 45, and has produced and distributed more than ten million audio cassette lessons. In addition, the "Grace to You Weekend" broadcast now airs on almost 100 outlets. MacArthur is also a prolific "writer," authoring a New Testament Commentary series, various issue-oriented books, and most recently, a study Bible (the MacArthur Study Bible). - Here is a list of most of the Theologians that influenced my spirit growth: Dr. John MacArthur, Jr. Dr. Ed Young, Sr. Dr. Charles Stanley Dr. Gil Rugh Dr. Chuck Swindoll Dr. Ben Haden Dr. Adrian Rodgers Dr. Richard Lee Dr. Zola Levitt Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost Dr. Walter Martin Dave Hunt John Ankerberg As well as local Pastors that you have never heard of (we moved a lot). I am a Conservative Evangelical and I prefer non-denominational Community or Bible Churches. I was raised Lutheran Missouri Synod, but after I was born again, I found their sermons WAY TOO SHORT, and those 15 minute sermons seemed like a starvation diet, as I was extremely hungry to be taught the Word of GOD. A one hour sermon seems like the right amount of spiritual food per serving to me. Besides the Community Churches and Bible Churches that I have been involved in, I have also been taught the Word of GOD in two Evangelical Free Churches, and one Independent Baptist Church. I am not sure why you want to know the Bible Resources that I use, other than you want to make sure they are not from off the wall ministries or psuedo-christian cults. Sorry, but if that is what you thought, you will find that I use the most popular Mainline Christianity Resource Library, WORDsearch 10. When I bought my first computer, I was just starting as a Volunteer Protestant Chaplain in a California super-max prison. So the Lord put it on my heart to buy some good Bible Software. So in Windows 3.11 days I had Quickverse, then I went to PC Study Bible, then a small version of LOGOS, then I found a copy of Bible Explorer 3 with a large Bible Library real cheap in ROSS for LESS. What a find I have added to that one over the years as the LORD and our finances permitted; because I continued to serve HIM in the Prison ministry as a Volunteer Chaplain for 15 years. Bible Explorer became WORDsearch and now I am up to WORDsearch 10. Most of the upgrades were free, and I took advantage of their free books, and outstanding sales whenever possible. In my WORDsearch 10, here are the resources that I use most often: BIBLES: KJV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, NRSV, ESV, NIV, GW, & YLT COMMENTARIES: MacArthur New Testament Commentary The MacArthur Bible Commentary Bible Knowledge Commentary Believers Bible Commentary J. Vernon McGee's Thru the Bible GREEK DICTIONARYS: Strong's Vine's NASB Greek-Hebrew Dictionary Does that answer your questions?

You've brought up some excellent points. 1. In our society it is no longer shameful for a woman to have cut hair so it would seem it is not necessary to cover the head. First, although as Christians we live in a society with unbelievers we are to be set apart from it. As Christians we are to be holy and give our lives to Christ and follow him. This does not mean sinless perfection, but we are different from the unbelievers. Homosexuality is now accepted by society, but for God it is a sin. So as Christians we are not to follow societies norms and dictates is they contradict that of the teachings of GOD. The head covering was to be done during corporate worship. Does head coverings apply now? The local church, whether at Corinth, Colossae, Cleveland, or Cologne, is only part of the larger church (1:2d–f). This church is the church universal in its breadth. It is rooted in eternity and spread out through all time and space (1:2d). Most of its members are already in heaven. This larger church is the subject of his epistle to the Ephesians. Paul keeps it in mind, here, even though he is writing to a local church. For while he specifically addresses the church at Corinth, his letter is also for “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ.” This letter, then, is as much for us, who dwell in lands of which Paul never dreamed and at a time as far from his age as was that of Abraham, as it was for those dear Christians in nearby Corinth in 1 Cor. A.D. 55. Phillips, J. (2009). Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary (1 Co 1:1–9). Kregel Publications; WORDsearch Corp. 2.However, social norms no longer require a woman to be in submission. So true... Again what society does or does not do is not applicable to a Christian who is set apart to be Holy and be a follower of Christ Jesus. 3. What are women to do if we don't have husbands? Christ would be their head in that case and they should cover with veil as should women who do have husbands. Why? The reasons Paul himself gave found in the periscope of scripture 1 Corinthians 11 1-16.

Is 1 Corinthians 11 1-16 applicable today? It appears so according to Phillips... whom authored the John Phillips New Testament Commentary, 19 volumes. The local church, whether at Corinth, Colossae, Cleveland, or Cologne, is only part of the larger church. This church is the church universal in its breadth. It is rooted in eternity and spread out through all time and space. Most of its members are already in heaven. This larger church is the subject of his epistle to the Ephesians. Paul keeps it in mind, here, even though he is writing to a local church. For while he specifically addresses the church at Corinth, his letter is also for “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ.” This letter, then, is as much for us, who dwell in lands of which Paul never dreamed and at a time as far from his age as was that of Abraham, as it was for those dear Christians in nearby Corinth in 1 Cor. A.D. 55. Phillips, J. (2009). Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary (1 Co 1:1–9). Kregel Publications; WORDsearch Corp.

The local church, whether at Corinth, Colossae, Cleveland, or Cologne, is only part of the larger church (1:2d–f). This church is the church universal in its breadth. It is rooted in eternity and spread out through all time and space (1:2d). Most of its members are already in heaven. This larger church is the subject of his epistle to the Ephesians. Paul keeps it in mind, here, even though he is writing to a local church. For while he specifically addresses the church at Corinth, his letter is also for “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ.” This letter, then, is as much for us, who dwell in lands of which Paul never dreamed and at a time as far from his age as was that of Abraham, as it was for those dear Christians in nearby Corinth in 1 Cor. A.D. 55. Phillips, J. (2009). Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary (1 Co 1:1–9). Kregel Publications; WORDsearch Corp.

I like trying the suggestion why Christianity’s original source would make the only sense as where to find its real definition. What did the movement’s founder really say about being worldly? I would pose to the dime-a-dozens, ‘Even if he was just a character, if they’re not keeping his sayings, then you’re saying in order to be his followers, it was his teaching to not keep them.’ People don’t even know how much sense they don’t make. Tell them wordsearch “hypocrites” in a Bible, maybe. lol People take comfort in conveniently missing the distinction of supposing Christians as hypocrites from all the professing Christians who are. Most don’t think it’s important enough to care or they’re too lazy to do anything but go by just what people tell them to think. So, it helps to keep in mind the roots of the problem, confusion and cluelessness, if trying to answer. But we try because, if the Holy Spirit can get through to us, he can open eyes and save anyone whom he wants. It’s up to him. In the end though, even those who at some point are deemed disqualified as being the minds of people, God is appeasing by giving them what they wished, who are not taken to be with their creator, as in the sense of “welcoming,”[1] as these did not receive the love of the truth. An interesting caveat to this is the word the KJV translates “convenient” in Romans 1: 28 means fitting or proper, as in this context would relay, ‘I come down to being unfit, exiting the proper order.’ The order of reality is whatever the Most-High, Yhovah Elohiym’s will says it is, for he is love. 1 Corinthians 13 is the Bible’s way of saying love is the only thing that is eternal in nature. (agapè- love. The King James missed it a little on this one.) --Funny, the very first thing Yeshua said, when his disciples asked him the sign of his coming and the end of the age, had to do with your point: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, I am the Messiah, and they will deceive many.” It’s a perfect way to put into words the depth of the deception, when you think about it. For the longest time, I took this passage to mean many would come claiming to be him, but lately, I’ve realized that Jesus was referring to himself with the personal pronoun and simply meant that even many preaching he’s the Messiah would deceive many by their subsequent misportrayals of him. It’s the old bait and switch. Some say the cleverest thing the devil ever did was convincing the world he doesn’t exist. That actually might be a close second though to the wholesale installation of glorified used-car salesmen and con artists operating under the name of Christian ministry for the express purpose of making the said truth appear a certain way, misdirecting and repulsing the many. Enemy agents. Satan’s @$$-puppets. Call them what you will. Duped dupers. And they’ve been very effective. The world doesn’t look this way by accident, I suggest. The most insidious and tentacled version of this ploy or psyop became institutionalized starting around 300AD with the retooling of the enemy’s universal church, essentially presenting pagan Luciferian sun-god worship under the guise of Christianity. And again, almost nobody cares or even notices. Or, at least the ones who did were genocided out of existence… --Just a coincidence, right? I suspect the members among us and the people who hate them you reference are almost all products of this and myriad other misrepresentations of the message of the Kingdom into the worship of the creation in some form or another. Many are fooled—so many, in fact, it’s becoming painfully apparent that the elitist view of common-folk chattel being as gullible as a herd of cattle might not really be too far off. Maybe we have this world because it’s what we deserve. By default, it seems, the world does love the darkness. Another barrier to keep in mind is we hate to admit we’ve been fooled. Even for the few who have received the love of the Truth, having been fooled angers us. But we all have our levels of being too trusting and misinformed in life. I never believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or Evolutionism, even as a child, but, it turns out it were the fairytale ones that had at least some basis of historicity. The deception Jesus spoke of is spectacular. And I have to admit they had me going on Copernicusian globular Heliocentrism for most my life. All we can do then is plant seeds and hope some take. There is an awakening happening right, now, and maybe having the problem’s framework in view would help us formulate effective approaches. But, especially then, be prepared to shake the dust off your sandals and move on. Once again, my reply is way long. Hope I wasn’t too boring. Love [1] 2 Thessalonians 2: 9-12

Comes now Views from Scriptural facts that refute some of the above post: Yes, quite right, "he" who confirms a covenant with many, in Dan.927, is indeed the Antichrist as follows below: (1) ANTICHRIST: Applying the accepted rule of interpretation and observing the text for the nearest antecedent of the pronoun he (without bias or influence by other "experts"), this he most closely parallels the prince who is to comein the previous passage (Daniel 9:26). This is the conclusion reached by most conservative evangelical commentaries, who go on to identify him as the Little Horn (Antichrist) who "came up among the (10) horns" of the fourth beast (fourth kingdom ~ "Revived Rome") chapter 7 of Daniel (Da 7:8,11-note Da 7:20, 21-note). It is interesting that both Christ and Antichrist are referred to as "prince" (synonymous with "king"), for the prefix "anti-" means the regal imposter is not only opposed to or against Christ, but "instead of" or a substitute for the real Christ. We know that the prince's people (Rome) destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and can deduce that this coming princehas his ancestral roots in the ancient Roman Empire and is thus part of what is often referred to as "the revived Roman Empire", the final Gentile world government described in Romans 7 (see Da 7:7-note, Da 7:19-note). In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, John records this vision... And he stood on the sand of the seashore. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems ("ten king stage" of the beast in Da 7), and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion (Ed: Note how this is the reverse of the sequence of same beasts in Da 7:1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6-note - John is looking back in time and sees the leopard first = Greece, bear = Medo-Persia, Lion = Babylon). And the dragon (Satan) gave him (Antichrist) his power and his throne and great authority. (Notice how the term "beast" merges subtlety from a beastly kingdom to the king of that kingdom in the latter part of the verse) (Re 13:1-note; Re 13:2-note; see also study of The Beast; and Beasts, Heads, and Horns) (2) CHRIST: Some such as Edward Young and Phillip Mauro interpret the "He" as a reference to the Messiah primarily because the entire prophecy is about the Messiah and the premise that there is no (to use their words) "future 'prince' making a covenant with" Israel. This interpretation makes little sense because the new covenant in His blood is an everlasting covenant, not a seven year covenant and not a covenant which He will ever break. God is a covenant keeping God! How can the reference be to Christ when we have just been introduced to the prince who is to come which describes one out of the Roman empire? Christ did not come from the Roman Empire but from Israel. Furthermore, when did Christ make a firm covenant with many Jews for one week (seven year period)? And how can it be said of Christ that “in the midst of the week” He caused the sacrifices to cease? Sacrifices continued in the Temple some 40 years after Messiah was cut off, well past the 7 years of the 70th Week. Clearly, the "he" is not Christ. Harry Ironside agrees that "He" is not the Messiah writing... Ere closing I briefly notice a rather peculiar interpretation which is frequently given to the 27th verse. It is said that the Lord Jesus is Himself to be the prince that shall come who confirms the covenant for one week. His own crucifixion is supposed to be the event which caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. But neither chronologically nor doctrinally will this stand for a moment, if examined in the light of other scriptures. With whom did the Lord Jesus ever confirm a covenant for seven years? His precious blood is called ”the blood of the everlasting covenant;” not a covenant for one week of years. We may rest assured it is not Messiah at all, but the blasphemous prince who is yet to come, who will fulfil what is predicted in this verse. How near this world may be to the actual entering upon all these things no man can say, but it is the part of wisdom to learn from the prophetic Scriptures, and to turn now to Him who alone can save; to own Him as Redeemer and Lord, and thus be certain of being caught up to meet Him when He comes in the clouds, ere the time comes for His righteous judgment to be poured out upon this poor world. (Daniel - H A Ironside) (Logos) (Wordsearch) Ray adds... In deciding between the Messiah or the “prince to come” as the antecedent, Barnes contends “it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter is referred to, because it is said (Da 9:26) that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to ‘destroy the city and the sanctuary.’ In other words Barnes is saying the prince is coming to make peace. He is wrong on two accounts. Da 9:26 says it is the people of the prince, not the prince himself, who execute the destruction. Too, he is implying it is reasonable to suppose the Messiah would bring about the devastation. To assume Da 9:27 deals with Christ is presumptuous, for that is the very question for which interpreters are seeking an answer. Lastly, it is not unthinkable a future leader would bring about such an agreement with Israel; people will do almost anything to have peace in the Middle East....Leupold and Keil are some of the few non-pre-millenarians who admit the “he” is the antichrist. (A Study of Daniel 9:24 - 27, Part III) (3) ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES: (See related discussion on Antiochus Epiphanes - Da 8:9-note, Da 8:17-note, Da 8:19-note; see also Daniel notes and additional discussion) The liberal commentator Montgomery (who to my utter amazement does not even interpret Da 9:25, 26 as a prophecy of Christ's first coming - See list of other Non-Christological Interpreters) identifies the "He" as Antiochus Epiphanes. Montgomery feels that this prophecy was fulfilled in the second century before Christ noting how apostate Jews cooperated with Antiochus (see 1Mac 1:11, 12,13, 14, 15). (4) A WEEK: The pronoun He has even been interpreted as a week by some who take he as neuter (not masculine), but such an interpretation of makes absolutely no sense in context. It does emphasize how far some commentators are willing to go in an attempt to "jettison" a literal, futuristic interpretation. In summary, even applying the elementary grammatical rule of examination of the context for the nearest antecedent noun ("prince" in Da 9:26), there is little question that the pronoun He in Da 9:27 is the future Antichrist, the evil end times anti-Semitic leader who is known by many names in Scripture (see table). And as you review the list of the names of the Antichrist, remember that in Scripture one's name speaks of one's character. For the complete article: http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_927.htm Quasar93

Yes, quite right, "he" who confirms a covenant with many, in Dan.927, is indeed the Antichrist as follows below: (1) ANTICHRIST: Applying the accepted rule of interpretation and observing the text for the nearest antecedent of the pronoun he (without bias or influence by other "experts"), this he most closely parallels the prince who is to comein the previous passage (Daniel 9:26). This is the conclusion reached by most conservative evangelical commentaries, who go on to identify him as the Little Horn (Antichrist) who "came up among the (10) horns" of the fourth beast (fourth kingdom ~ "Revived Rome") chapter 7 of Daniel (Da 7:8,11-note Da 7:20, 21-note). It is interesting that both Christ and Antichrist are referred to as "prince" (synonymous with "king"), for the prefix "anti-" means the regal imposter is not only opposed to or against Christ, but "instead of" or a substitute for the real Christ. We know that the prince's people (Rome) destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and can deduce that this coming princehas his ancestral roots in the ancient Roman Empire and is thus part of what is often referred to as "the revived Roman Empire", the final Gentile world government described in Romans 7 (see Da 7:7-note, Da 7:19-note). In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, John records this vision... And he stood on the sand of the seashore. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems ("ten king stage" of the beast in Da 7), and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion (Ed: Note how this is the reverse of the sequence of same beasts in Da 7:1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6-note - John is looking back in time and sees the leopard first = Greece, bear = Medo-Persia, Lion = Babylon). And the dragon (Satan) gave him (Antichrist) his power and his throne and great authority. (Notice how the term "beast" merges subtlety from a beastly kingdom to the king of that kingdom in the latter part of the verse) (Re 13:1-note; Re 13:2-note; see also study of The Beast; and Beasts, Heads, and Horns) (2) CHRIST: Some such as Edward Young and Phillip Mauro interpret the "He" as a reference to the Messiah primarily because the entire prophecy is about the Messiah and the premise that there is no (to use their words) "future 'prince' making a covenant with" Israel. This interpretation makes little sense because the new covenant in His blood is an everlasting covenant, not a seven year covenant and not a covenant which He will ever break. God is a covenant keeping God! How can the reference be to Christ when we have just been introduced to the prince who is to come which describes one out of the Roman empire? Christ did not come from the Roman Empire but from Israel. Furthermore, when did Christ make a firm covenant with many Jews for one week (seven year period)? And how can it be said of Christ that “in the midst of the week” He caused the sacrifices to cease? Sacrifices continued in the Temple some 40 years after Messiah was cut off, well past the 7 years of the 70th Week. Clearly, the "he" is not Christ. Harry Ironside agrees that "He" is not the Messiah writing... Ere closing I briefly notice a rather peculiar interpretation which is frequently given to the 27th verse. It is said that the Lord Jesus is Himself to be the prince that shall come who confirms the covenant for one week. His own crucifixion is supposed to be the event which caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. But neither chronologically nor doctrinally will this stand for a moment, if examined in the light of other scriptures. With whom did the Lord Jesus ever confirm a covenant for seven years? His precious blood is called ”the blood of the everlasting covenant;” not a covenant for one week of years. We may rest assured it is not Messiah at all, but the blasphemous prince who is yet to come, who will fulfil what is predicted in this verse. How near this world may be to the actual entering upon all these things no man can say, but it is the part of wisdom to learn from the prophetic Scriptures, and to turn now to Him who alone can save; to own Him as Redeemer and Lord, and thus be certain of being caught up to meet Him when He comes in the clouds, ere the time comes for His righteous judgment to be poured out upon this poor world. (Daniel - H A Ironside) (Logos) (Wordsearch) Ray adds... In deciding between the Messiah or the “prince to come” as the antecedent, Barnes contends “it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter is referred to, because it is said (Da 9:26) that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to ‘destroy the city and the sanctuary.’ In other words Barnes is saying the prince is coming to make peace. He is wrong on two accounts. Da 9:26 says it is the people of the prince, not the prince himself, who execute the destruction. Too, he is implying it is reasonable to suppose the Messiah would bring about the devastation. To assume Da 9:27 deals with Christ is presumptuous, for that is the very question for which interpreters are seeking an answer. Lastly, it is not unthinkable a future leader would bring about such an agreement with Israel; people will do almost anything to have peace in the Middle East....Leupold and Keil are some of the few non-pre-millenarians who admit the “he” is the antichrist. (A Study of Daniel 9:24 - 27, Part III) (3) ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES: (See related discussion on Antiochus Epiphanes - Da 8:9-note, Da 8:17-note, Da 8:19-note; see also Daniel notes and additional discussion) The liberal commentator Montgomery (who to my utter amazement does not even interpret Da 9:25, 26 as a prophecy of Christ's first coming - See list of other Non-Christological Interpreters) identifies the "He" as Antiochus Epiphanes. Montgomery feels that this prophecy was fulfilled in the second century before Christ noting how apostate Jews cooperated with Antiochus (see 1Mac 1:11, 12,13, 14, 15). (4) A WEEK: The pronoun He has even been interpreted as a week by some who take he as neuter (not masculine), but such an interpretation of makes absolutely no sense in context. It does emphasize how far some commentators are willing to go in an attempt to "jettison" a literal, futuristic interpretation. In summary, even applying the elementary grammatical rule of examination of the context for the nearest antecedent noun ("prince" in Da 9:26), there is little question that the pronoun He in Da 9:27 is the future Antichrist, the evil end times anti-Semitic leader who is known by many names in Scripture (see table). And as you review the list of the names of the Antichrist, remember that in Scripture one's name speaks of one's character. For the complete article: http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_927.htm Quasar93

Who confirms the covenant with many in Dan.9:27? (1) ANTICHRIST: Applying the accepted rule of interpretation and observing the text for the nearest antecedent of the pronoun he (without bias or influence by other "experts"), this he most closely parallels the prince who is to comein the previous passage (Daniel 9:26). This is the conclusion reached by most conservative evangelical commentaries, who go on to identify him as the Little Horn (Antichrist) who "came up among the (10) horns" of the fourth beast (fourth kingdom ~ "Revived Rome") chapter 7 of Daniel (Da 7:8,11-note Da 7:20, 21-note). It is interesting that both Christ and Antichrist are referred to as "prince" (synonymous with "king"), for the prefix "anti-" means the regal imposter is not only opposed to or against Christ, but "instead of" or a substitute for the real Christ. We know that the prince's people (Rome) destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and can deduce that this coming princehas his ancestral roots in the ancient Roman Empire and is thus part of what is often referred to as "the revived Roman Empire", the final Gentile world government described in Romans 7 (see Da 7:7-note, Da 7:19-note). In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, John records this vision... And he stood on the sand of the seashore. And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems ("ten king stage" of the beast in Da 7), and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion (Ed: Note how this is the reverse of the sequence of same beasts in Da 7:1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6-note - John is looking back in time and sees the leopard first = Greece, bear = Medo-Persia, Lion = Babylon). And the dragon (Satan) gave him (Antichrist) his power and his throne and great authority. (Notice how the term "beast" merges subtlety from a beastly kingdom to the king of that kingdom in the latter part of the verse) (Re 13:1-note; Re 13:2-note; see also study of The Beast; and Beasts, Heads, and Horns) (2) CHRIST: Some such as Edward Young and Phillip Mauro interpret the "He" as a reference to the Messiah primarily because the entire prophecy is about the Messiah and the premise that there is no (to use their words) "future 'prince' making a covenant with" Israel. This interpretation makes little sense because the new covenant in His blood is an everlasting covenant, not a seven year covenant and not a covenant which He will ever break. God is a covenant keeping God! How can the reference be to Christ when we have just been introduced to the prince who is to come which describes one out of the Roman empire? Christ did not come from the Roman Empire but from Israel. Furthermore, when did Christ make a firm covenant with many Jews for one week (seven year period)? And how can it be said of Christ that “in the midst of the week” He caused the sacrifices to cease? Sacrifices continued in the Temple some 40 years after Messiah was cut off, well past the 7 years of the 70th Week. Clearly, the "he" is not Christ. Harry Ironside agrees that "He" is not the Messiah writing... Ere closing I briefly notice a rather peculiar interpretation which is frequently given to the 27th verse. It is said that the Lord Jesus is Himself to be the prince that shall come who confirms the covenant for one week. His own crucifixion is supposed to be the event which caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. But neither chronologically nor doctrinally will this stand for a moment, if examined in the light of other scriptures. With whom did the Lord Jesus ever confirm a covenant for seven years? His precious blood is called ”the blood of the everlasting covenant;” not a covenant for one week of years. We may rest assured it is not Messiah at all, but the blasphemous prince who is yet to come, who will fulfil what is predicted in this verse. How near this world may be to the actual entering upon all these things no man can say, but it is the part of wisdom to learn from the prophetic Scriptures, and to turn now to Him who alone can save; to own Him as Redeemer and Lord, and thus be certain of being caught up to meet Him when He comes in the clouds, ere the time comes for His righteous judgment to be poured out upon this poor world. (Daniel - H A Ironside) (Logos) (Wordsearch) Ray adds... In deciding between the Messiah or the “prince to come” as the antecedent, Barnes contends “it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter is referred to, because it is said (Da 9:26) that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to ‘destroy the city and the sanctuary.’ In other words Barnes is saying the prince is coming to make peace. He is wrong on two accounts. Da 9:26 says it is the people of the prince, not the prince himself, who execute the destruction. Too, he is implying it is reasonable to suppose the Messiah would bring about the devastation. To assume Da 9:27 deals with Christ is presumptuous, for that is the very question for which interpreters are seeking an answer. Lastly, it is not unthinkable a future leader would bring about such an agreement with Israel; people will do almost anything to have peace in the Middle East....Leupold and Keil are some of the few non-pre-millenarians who admit the “he” is the antichrist. (A Study of Daniel 9:24 - 27, Part III) (3) ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES: (See related discussion on Antiochus Epiphanes - Da 8:9-note, Da 8:17-note, Da 8:19-note; see also Daniel notes and additional discussion) The liberal commentator Montgomery (who to my utter amazement does not even interpret Da 9:25, 26 as a prophecy of Christ's first coming - See list of other Non-Christological Interpreters[/font]) identifies the "He" as Antiochus Epiphanes. Montgomery feels that this prophecy was fulfilled in the second century before Christ noting how apostate Jews cooperated with Antiochus (see 1Mac 1:11, 12,13, 14, 15). (4) A WEEK: The pronoun He has even been interpreted as a week by some who take he as neuter (not masculine), but such an interpretation of makes absolutely no sense in context. It does emphasize how far some commentators are willing to go in an attempt to "jettison" a literal, futuristic interpretation. In summary, even applying the elementary grammatical rule of examination of the context for the nearest antecedent noun ("prince" in Da 9:26), there is little question that the pronoun He in Da 9:27 is the future Antichrist, the evil end times anti-Semitic leader who is known by many names in Scripture (see table). And as you review the list of the names of the Antichrist, remember that in Scripture one's name speaks of one's character. For the complete article: http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_927.htm Quasar93