Jump to content
IGNORED

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9


Last Daze

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  422
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   216
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/21/2014
  • Status:  Offline

Enoch,

 

I did not answer your questions because they are irrelevant to the main issue that divides us, i.e. whether there is a time jump in Dan 9:26-27. But we do seem to be getting somewhere. Your attempt to separate Mt 24 and Lk 21 as two different conversations is an admission that your case cannot hold up if they are the same conversation. But the two reasons you provide for believing that they are different conversations should really be quite worrying for you if they are your best efforts:

 

1. The difference between "then" and "before all this" is really minor. In any case, the greek word behind "then" can also mean "at that time" and is often translated as such, e.g. Mt 25:1. Therefore, there is no contradiction between Mt and Lk.

 

2. You say the conversation in Mt 24 happened AT NIGHT? Where in the text does it say that? I hope you are not making things up to suit your view.

 

I have not come across anyone else suggesting that the conversations in Mt 24 and Lk 21 occurred at different times. It does seem to me like a desperate move. Perhaps you should rethink that.

 

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  422
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   216
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/21/2014
  • Status:  Offline

Hi inchrist,

 

Thanks for giving Enoch something colossal to think about!

 

Regds.

Edited by ghtan
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

 

So "the people" of the prince that shall come = "Galilean Zealots"   :mgdetective:   Are these "Galilean Zealots" Jews?  So Daniel/Gabriel is warning Jews that after the Messiah is executed... that the Temple and the Sanctuary would be destroyed....by Jews?   :help:

 

Exactly, the verse is saying that the people of the prince (ie Jesus' countrymen) would ruin the temple and the city. This is what Josephus the historian shows us. That Jews from the same area as Jesus, Galilee, ruined the temple and the city. Cannibalism, murder of priests, destroying buildings, burning storehouses of wheat etc etc etc  By the time the Romans attacked Jerusalem was already literally in ruins.   :biggrin2:   You need to do some research Enoch instead of your funny little faces, that will help your case a little.  :noidea:

 

 

ERGO.... in the midst of Daniel's 70th Week, Jesus Christ Will RETURN then will confirm a covenant with the many....AND THEN, will Cause...."the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate."

 

Nah you completely misunderstand my position.   Even though I laid it out clearly.  Does this make it meaningless to have a discussion with you.....maybe   :read:      But we can exchange smiley faces, that's fun :guns:   Enoch needs to do some more careful reading I think... because I did lay out my position clearly in this thread.

 

 

 

 

The Abomination of Desolation (Stand in The Holy Place, Matt 24:15) is someone other than GOD Stand in the Holy Place, Blaspheme and claim he is GOD.

So "you" have Jesus Christ:  returning in the Midst of Daniel's 70th Week: confirming a covenant with the many; and standing in the Holy Place Claiming he is GOD (Abomination of Desolation).

 

  :yadda:  complete strawman, I believe nothing of the sort. I don't know where you getting this stuff from , but it makes for interesting reading. I daresay I am wasting my time because I have to explain my position all over again to you , please read my posts carefully before you argue against your own strawmen, not only does it give a false impression of my view, it wastes time regarding a meaningful discussion.  :th_frusty:

 

 

 

 

 

what confuses people is that translators tend to put Capitals with the first prince and no capitals with the second prince, this is translator error not in the original text.

 

 

I knew something to this effect was coming to protect the Trainwreck.  Translator error, eh?  More like Head Space and Timing of the Operator Error to me.

 

Support ?  Post the Original Text and we'll evaluate.

 

Moreover, who cares what's "Capitalized" or not.... it doesn't affect the Integrity of the Passages One Iota.  By the mere construction of Verse 26 then 27....the "he" and the context of the passage, is the compelling factor in the matter and differentiates the "Princes" all by itself. 

 

 

The caps do give an impression, and they were not in the original text so take that Enoch , you wrong  I'm right  :clap:

 

 

 

 

Most translations have two characters, yet your view has only one character. I guess you prefer the KJV, I will go with the majority translations in this case.

 

 

Even though they're Demonstrably Corrupt?  By the mere fact that there are over 400 "translations" should set off Alarm Bells   :lightbulb2:    And......Consensus/Majority doesn't = TRUTH

 

 

I'm not getting into this translation discussion here.  I don't believe all translators since the KJV were all corrupt. Do you believe that?  Some got it right.

 

 

 

And finally, the the question you dodged (I even Starred it so you wouldn't accidentally on purpose miss it, but alas)...

 

** Please tell us why the City and The Temple were destroyed in 70 AD....?  Was the reason, as you said, because of the "Galilean Zealots" or another reason?

 

The reason is spoken of Indirectly in Dan 9:25.

 

 

Please let me know your view, I'm open to what you have to say here . I generally relate the destruction to their rejection of the gospel, but if you have further insight I'm all ears 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

 

 

 

 

 

========================================================================================================================

 

 

I'd like to start here, with the Poster Child of your antics (in a short exchange), that displays and captures your attitude, mind set, and basic reasoning acumen. Thanks for the Illustration...

 

Argosy........"what confuses people is that translators tend to put Capitals with the first prince and no capitals with the second prince, this is translator error not in the original text."

 

Enoch 2021............"Translator error, eh? Support ?  Post the Original Text and we'll evaluate."

 

Argosy........."The caps do give an impression, and they were not in the original text so take that Enoch , you wrong  I'm right"

 

 

You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?

 

This is Classic and speaks Volumes.

 

It prepares the reader and sets the stage for everything that follows....

 

 

 Exactly, the verse is saying that the people of the prince (ie Jesus' countrymen) would ruin the temple and the city. This is what Josephus the historian shows us

 

 

The scary thing is you actually believe this.  But then you must...to support your "a priori" adherence.

 

 

By the time the Romans attacked Jerusalem was already literally in ruins.

 

 

Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy)

 

On various science forums, I run into this same sorta motif.....it's Revisionism.  It's one of the tactics employed in "Last Port in the Storm" Scenario: Fallacies, Name calling, Diversions, Revisionism, Color Commentaries, et al.

 

I want you to CITE References (as many as possible) supporting this nonsense.....?  Please provide Author/Title Book(Periodical)/Page/Date.

 

 

You need to do some research Enoch instead of your funny little faces, that will help your case a little.

 

 

Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy)

 

Really?  Well we're gonna see.  Probably not though...you'll conjure up another Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) to exit the discussion if I were to guess.

 

 

Nah you completely misunderstand my position.   Even though I laid it out clearly.  Does this make it meaningless to have a discussion with you.....maybe 

 

 

Generalized Sweeping Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy)

 

Yes, I never seen this before.  I misunderstand your position, eh?  Where?  Go ahead and restate....?

 

You think others that can fog a mirror will buy it?  Me neither.....  Especially after they read your posts and the Poster Child above.

 

 

Enoch needs to do some more careful reading I think... because I did lay out my position clearly in this thread.

 

 

Unsupported Opinion (Fallacy).  Which is easily debunked by a cursory reading of your previous posts.

 

 

complete strawman, I believe nothing of the sort.

 

 

Another Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy).  How so....?

 

 

I don't know where you getting this stuff from

 

 

Another "Generalized" Opinion (Fallacy)

 

It's called Basic Reasoning.  By proxy of your stated beliefs there sir....it has 2nd/3rd/4th/5th ect.... order effects; that for your postulate to have any veracity whatsoever, the premises MUST be TRUE and consistent leading to a coherent conclusion. That's where you entire position Vaporizes as I have shown quite clearly.

 

You see, when your telling a story about Humpty Dumpty and his great fall....but within the premises of your postulate, you clearly denote that there were no domesticated horses and there were no kings (anarchy). This then brings into question your yarn IN TOTO and the very existence of Humpty Dumpty.

 

 

Pro TIP: Fallacies are Fallacious

 

 

but it makes for interesting reading. I daresay I am wasting my time because I have to explain my position all over again to you , please read my posts carefully before you argue against your own strawmen, not only does it give a false impression of my view, it wastes time regarding a meaningful discussion.

 

 

So a Generalized Sweeping Unsupported (Fallacy) Hand Wave Dismissal?  Did you delete all your posts on this thread?  Because that's the only way this poppycock will float.

 

 

I'm not getting into this translation discussion here.  I don't believe all translators since the KJV were all corrupt. Do you believe that?  Some got it right.

 

Key Statement.

 

Of course you won't cause you know that I'll Summarily, with References and Irrefutable Facts, send it to the bottom of the Atlantic.  Just as I did with your position IN TOTO on this thread.

 

Some got it right?  Who..... and How so?

 

In most cases it's not the "Translators" it's what the "translators" are "translating" from....the source documents/Codices.  The Chef can be the World's Greatest but if the Recipe is corrupt he'll turn Peking Duck into Lumpy Mashed Potatoes. 

 

 

Please let me know your view, I'm open to what you have to say here . I generally relate the destruction to their rejection of the gospel, but if you have further insight I'm all ears

 

 

 

You sure?  Because it utterly demolishes your position at it's core and sends it to the bottom of the Atlantic....from Jump Street.

 

You said previously; and I quote (From Your Post # 162)...."Jesus was from Galilee, and it was Jesus' countrymen the Galilean zealots who morally destroyed the temple before the Romans even arrived. The Romans in effect were God's agent of justice to destroy what the Jews had already corrupted."

 

Then from Your Post #191..... "Furthermore it was Jews from Galilee that morally and physically ruined the temple and the city before the Romans even arrived. The historian Josephus records this clearly. These Jews destroyed buildings, destroyed the economy, and slaughtered the priests.  Jerusalem was in ruin."

 

1.  Sir, if Jerusalem was "already in ruin" before the Romans Arrived then why did Titus attack with the 5th, 10th, 12th, and 15th Roman Legions?   :duh:  Perhaps so he could take unnecessary casualties?

 

2.  The Romans had encompassed Jerusalem 9 months prior to the attack....**They were already there** .  You must be saying the "Galilean zealots" destroyed Jerusalem even BEFORE that?

 

 

And the final nail that renders your position "a fairytale" in TOTO:

 

Argosy (From above):  "The Romans in effect were God's agent of justice to destroy what the Jews had already corrupted."

 

The Basis for your entire argument rests with the rationale or reason.... that Jerusalem was destroyed due to the the Fact that the Jews ("Galilean Zealots") had "corrupted it" ("Jews destroyed buildings, destroyed the economy, and slaughtered the priests")  

 

So if I disprove "your" rationale (The Motive), Your entire argument Implodes (it's the reason I asked the question  ;) ).  Lets listen to what Jesus says is THE REASON....

 

(Luke 19:41-44) "¶ And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,  {42} Saying,  If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.  {43}  For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,  {44}  And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

 

Jesus Held the Jews (Corporately) Accountable to know the Day HE arrived.  That's The Reason Jerusalem was destroyed!

 

Here that sound Argosy, that's your argument circling the drain @ Light Speed.

 

 

To elaborate, How could the Jews know that? 2 Reasons ....

 

1.  Well Gabriel gave Daniel the DAY of Jesus' Triumphal Entry with an Equation: Terminus a quo (Beginning Date) and a Terminus ad quem (End Date):

 

(Daniel 9:25) "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."

 

If you need this worked out, which is exactly correct to the day; let me know.

 

2.  (Zechariah 9:9) "¶ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."

 

Gives a whole new meaning to Bible Study

 

 

Any other Baseless Unsupported Assertions Argosy?  Oh, and if you've been keeping up with current events....you need a new argument.

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  6,543
  • Content Per Day:  1.07
  • Reputation:   2,428
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  06/28/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/28/1957

Shalom, ghtan (and boldncourageous). I hope you both had a very Merry Christmas.

 

Hi Retrobyter,

 

Take a look at your own English translation of Dan 9:26-27. There is a period between verse 26 and verse 27. Hence the subject of verse 27 need not be the subject of verse 26. I agree with boldncourageous that the subject of verse 27 is likely the prince of verse 26 and the event in view is the destruction of the temple in AD70. The prince would then be an evil king and the act would be hostile. Crucially, that makes it consistent with 8:11 and 11:31; you will need a good reason for 9:27 to be an exception. But perhaps our different readings is not so important because we are still locating the fulfilment of 9:27 in the first century.

 

Sorry I’ve been away for so long.

 

First, translators are NOT inspired by God as were the original authors. While God PROTECTS His Word through translation and Yeshua` USED a Septuagint translation for some things, there is NO guarantee that the translators, who were human beings, didn’t make mistakes along the way in the translation process. To the contrary, BECAUSE they are human, they can almost be guaranteed to make mistakes! Today, we call the tendency to make mistakes “informational thermodynamics.” That is, like the rest of our physical world, our information is also subject to the Second Law of Thermodyamics: Wikipedia gives us a pretty good definition:

 

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, there is an increase in the sum of the entropies of the participating systems.

The second law is an empirical finding that has been accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory. In effect, the law defines the concept of thermodynamic entropy for a thermodynamic system in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibriumStatistical thermodynamics, classical or quantum, explains the law.

The second law indicates increases in entropy due to dissipation of energy and to dispersal of matter and energy. It envisages a compound thermodynamic system that initially has interior walls that constrain transfers within it. The law then envisages that a process is initiated by a thermodynamic operation that changes those constraints, and isolates the compound system from its surroundings, except that an externally imposed unchanging force field is allowed to stay subject to the condition that the compound system moves as a whole within that field so that in net, there is no transfer of energy as work between the compound system and the surroundings, and finally, eventually, the system is stationary within that field.

 

 

So, just as entropy increases - or randomness, disorder, and decay increases - in a physical system whenever a physical change is made, when a piece of information is passed along from hand to hand down through time, the number of errors is compounded and confusion is increased. Ever play “telephone?” The concept is the same.

 

Now, you said, “The prince would then be an evil king and the act would be hostile. Crucially, that makes it consistent with 8:11 and 11:31; you will need a good reason for 9:27 to be an exception. But perhaps our different readings is not so important because we are still locating the fulfilment of 9:27 in the first century."

 

I also agree that the “prince” was an evil king PERSON and that HIS acts would be hostile, but he is NOT the subject of verse 27! The “prince” is the OBJECT OF A PREPOSITION (in English translation) and CANNOT be the SUBJECT! The Hebrew word for “prince” is “naagiyd.” The word is said by Strong’s to be:

 

OT:5057 naagiyd (naw-gheed'); or naagid (naw-gheed'); from OT:5046; a commander (as occupying the front), civil, military or religious; generally (abstractly, plural), honorable themes:
KJV - captain, chief, excellent thing, (chief) governor, leader, noble, prince, (chief) ruler.
 
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

 

 
OT:5046, btw, is “naagad,” a verb that Strong’s says means “to front” or “to stand boldly out opposite."
 
Now, a “king” can be a “commander,” but a “commander” is not necessarily a “king.” Thus, in mathematical and logical terms, a “king” is a SUBSET of a “commander.” They are not equivalent nor equal. And, one can see from the list following the “KJV -“ tag that it was translated many different ways in the KJV, but NEVER as “king."
 
PART of Daniel 9:27 was fulfilled in the first century, but the rest will not be fulfilled until the culmination of this  delay - this “desolation!” And, I’ll say it again: YESHUA` HIMSELF is the One who said, “You shall not see me again UNTIL you can say ‘Baruwkh haha’ b-shem YHWH!’” Translated as “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD,” that Hebrew sentence means “Welcome, Comer in-authority of-YHWH!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  422
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   216
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/21/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

Shalom, ghtan (and boldncourageous). I hope you both had a very Merry Christmas.

 

Hi Retrobyter,

 

Take a look at your own English translation of Dan 9:26-27. There is a period between verse 26 and verse 27. Hence the subject of verse 27 need not be the subject of verse 26. I agree with boldncourageous that the subject of verse 27 is likely the prince of verse 26 and the event in view is the destruction of the temple in AD70. The prince would then be an evil king and the act would be hostile. Crucially, that makes it consistent with 8:11 and 11:31; you will need a good reason for 9:27 to be an exception. But perhaps our different readings is not so important because we are still locating the fulfilment of 9:27 in the first century.

 

Sorry I’ve been away for so long.

 

First, translators are NOT inspired by God as were the original authors. While God PROTECTS His Word through translation and Yeshua` USED a Septuagint translation for some things, there is NO guarantee that the translators, who were human beings, didn’t make mistakes along the way in the translation process. To the contrary, BECAUSE they are human, they can almost be guaranteed to make mistakes! Today, we call the tendency to make mistakes “informational thermodynamics.” That is, like the rest of our physical world, our information is also subject to the Second Law of Thermodyamics: Wikipedia gives us a pretty good definition:

 

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, there is an increase in the sum of the entropies of the participating systems.

The second law is an empirical finding that has been accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory. In effect, the law defines the concept of thermodynamic entropy for a thermodynamic system in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibriumStatistical thermodynamics, classical or quantum, explains the law.

The second law indicates increases in entropy due to dissipation of energy and to dispersal of matter and energy. It envisages a compound thermodynamic system that initially has interior walls that constrain transfers within it. The law then envisages that a process is initiated by a thermodynamic operation that changes those constraints, and isolates the compound system from its surroundings, except that an externally imposed unchanging force field is allowed to stay subject to the condition that the compound system moves as a whole within that field so that in net, there is no transfer of energy as work between the compound system and the surroundings, and finally, eventually, the system is stationary within that field.

 

 

So, just as entropy increases - or randomness, disorder, and decay increases - in a physical system whenever a physical change is made, when a piece of information is passed along from hand to hand down through time, the number of errors is compounded and confusion is increased. Ever play “telephone?” The concept is the same.

 

Now, you said, “The prince would then be an evil king and the act would be hostile. Crucially, that makes it consistent with 8:11 and 11:31; you will need a good reason for 9:27 to be an exception. But perhaps our different readings is not so important because we are still locating the fulfilment of 9:27 in the first century."

 

I also agree that the “prince” was an evil king PERSON and that HIS acts would be hostile, but he is NOT the subject of verse 27! The “prince” is the OBJECT OF A PREPOSITION (in English translation) and CANNOT be the SUBJECT! The Hebrew word for “prince” is “naagiyd.” The word is said by Strong’s to be:

 

OT:5057 naagiyd (naw-gheed'); or naagid (naw-gheed'); from OT:5046; a commander (as occupying the front), civil, military or religious; generally (abstractly, plural), honorable themes:
KJV - captain, chief, excellent thing, (chief) governor, leader, noble, prince, (chief) ruler.
 
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

 

 
OT:5046, btw, is “naagad,” a verb that Strong’s says means “to front” or “to stand boldly out opposite."
 
Now, a “king” can be a “commander,” but a “commander” is not necessarily a “king.” Thus, in mathematical and logical terms, a “king” is a SUBSET of a “commander.” They are not equivalent nor equal. And, one can see from the list following the “KJV -“ tag that it was translated many different ways in the KJV, but NEVER as “king."
 
PART of Daniel 9:27 was fulfilled in the first century, but the rest will not be fulfilled until the culmination of this  delay - this “desolation!” And, I’ll say it again: YESHUA` HIMSELF is the One who said, “You shall not see me again UNTIL you can say ‘Baruwkh haha’ b-shem YHWH!’” Translated as “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD,” that Hebrew sentence means “Welcome, Comer in-authority of-YHWH!"

 

 

Hi Retro,

 

Hope you had a good holiday. Thanks for trying to explain your argument with the help of thermodynamics but it is not necessary and in any case not comparable, since modern translators can refer back to the early manuscripts.

 

The question is simple: Why do most if not all translations have a period between 9:26 and 9:27? This includes the KJV which is not by any means a modern translation and the Jewish Publication Society Bible. The reason is obvious; it is that the Masoretic text has a sop pasuq at that point. If you on the other hand think there should not be a period at the end of 9:26, you will need to prove your case. I hope you are not going to claim that you know the Hebrew OT text better than the Masoretes did.

 

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

 

 

 

 

 

 

========================================================================================================================

 

 

I'd like to start here, with the Poster Child of your antics (in a short exchange), that displays and captures your attitude, mind set, and basic reasoning acumen. Thanks for the Illustration...

 

Argosy........"what confuses people is that translators tend to put Capitals with the first prince and no capitals with the second prince, this is translator error not in the original text."

 

Enoch 2021............"Translator error, eh? Support ?  Post the Original Text and we'll evaluate."

 

Argosy........."The caps do give an impression, and they were not in the original text so take that Enoch , you wrong  I'm right"

 

 

You wouldn't happen to be Pre-Law by chance?

 

This is Classic and speaks Volumes.

 

It prepares the reader and sets the stage for everything that follows....

 

 

 Exactly, the verse is saying that the people of the prince (ie Jesus' countrymen) would ruin the temple and the city. This is what Josephus the historian shows us

 

 

The scary thing is you actually believe this.  But then you must...to support your "a priori" adherence.

 

 

By the time the Romans attacked Jerusalem was already literally in ruins.

 

 

Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy)

 

On various science forums, I run into this same sorta motif.....it's Revisionism.  It's one of the tactics employed in "Last Port in the Storm" Scenario: Fallacies, Name calling, Diversions, Revisionism, Color Commentaries, et al.

 

I want you to CITE References (as many as possible) supporting this nonsense.....?  Please provide Author/Title Book(Periodical)/Page/Date.

 

 

You need to do some research Enoch instead of your funny little faces, that will help your case a little.

 

 

Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy)

 

Really?  Well we're gonna see.  Probably not though...you'll conjure up another Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) to exit the discussion if I were to guess.

 

 

Nah you completely misunderstand my position.   Even though I laid it out clearly.  Does this make it meaningless to have a discussion with you.....maybe 

 

 

Generalized Sweeping Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy)

 

Yes, I never seen this before.  I misunderstand your position, eh?  Where?  Go ahead and restate....?

 

You think others that can fog a mirror will buy it?  Me neither.....  Especially after they read your posts and the Poster Child above.

 

 

Enoch needs to do some more careful reading I think... because I did lay out my position clearly in this thread.

 

 

Unsupported Opinion (Fallacy).  Which is easily debunked by a cursory reading of your previous posts.

 

 

complete strawman, I believe nothing of the sort.

 

 

Another Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy).  How so....?

 

 

I don't know where you getting this stuff from

 

 

Another "Generalized" Opinion (Fallacy)

 

It's called Basic Reasoning.  By proxy of your stated beliefs there sir....it has 2nd/3rd/4th/5th ect.... order effects; that for your postulate to have any veracity whatsoever, the premises MUST be TRUE and consistent leading to a coherent conclusion. That's where you entire position Vaporizes as I have shown quite clearly.

 

You see, when your telling a story about Humpty Dumpty and his great fall....but within the premises of your postulate, you clearly denote that there were no domesticated horses and there were no kings (anarchy). This then brings into question your yarn IN TOTO and the very existence of Humpty Dumpty.

 

 

Pro TIP: Fallacies are Fallacious

 

 

but it makes for interesting reading. I daresay I am wasting my time because I have to explain my position all over again to you , please read my posts carefully before you argue against your own strawmen, not only does it give a false impression of my view, it wastes time regarding a meaningful discussion.

 

 

So a Generalized Sweeping Unsupported (Fallacy) Hand Wave Dismissal?  Did you delete all your posts on this thread?  Because that's the only way this poppycock will float.

 

 

I'm not getting into this translation discussion here.  I don't believe all translators since the KJV were all corrupt. Do you believe that?  Some got it right.

 

Key Statement.

 

Of course you won't cause you know that I'll Summarily, with References and Irrefutable Facts, send it to the bottom of the Atlantic.  Just as I did with your position IN TOTO on this thread.

 

Some got it right?  Who..... and How so?

 

In most cases it's not the "Translators" it's what the "translators" are "translating" from....the source documents/Codices.  The Chef can be the World's Greatest but if the Recipe is corrupt he'll turn Peking Duck into Lumpy Mashed Potatoes. 

 

 

Please let me know your view, I'm open to what you have to say here . I generally relate the destruction to their rejection of the gospel, but if you have further insight I'm all ears

 

 

 

You sure?  Because it utterly demolishes your position at it's core and sends it to the bottom of the Atlantic....from Jump Street.

 

You said previously; and I quote (From Your Post # 162)...."Jesus was from Galilee, and it was Jesus' countrymen the Galilean zealots who morally destroyed the temple before the Romans even arrived. The Romans in effect were God's agent of justice to destroy what the Jews had already corrupted."

 

Then from Your Post #191..... "Furthermore it was Jews from Galilee that morally and physically ruined the temple and the city before the Romans even arrived. The historian Josephus records this clearly. These Jews destroyed buildings, destroyed the economy, and slaughtered the priests.  Jerusalem was in ruin."

 

1.  Sir, if Jerusalem was "already in ruin" before the Romans Arrived then why did Titus attack with the 5th, 10th, 12th, and 15th Roman Legions?   :duh:  Perhaps so he could take unnecessary casualties?

 

2.  The Romans had encompassed Jerusalem 9 months prior to the attack....**They were already there** .  You must be saying the "Galilean zealots" destroyed Jerusalem even BEFORE that?

 

 

And the final nail that renders your position "a fairytale" in TOTO:

 

Argosy (From above):  "The Romans in effect were God's agent of justice to destroy what the Jews had already corrupted."

 

The Basis for your entire argument rests with the rationale or reason.... that Jerusalem was destroyed due to the the Fact that the Jews ("Galilean Zealots") had "corrupted it" ("Jews destroyed buildings, destroyed the economy, and slaughtered the priests")  

 

So if I disprove "your" rationale (The Motive), Your entire argument Implodes (it's the reason I asked the question  ;) ).  Lets listen to what Jesus says is THE REASON....

 

(Luke 19:41-44) "¶ And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,  {42} Saying,  If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.  {43}  For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,  {44}  And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

 

Jesus Held the Jews (Corporately) Accountable to know the Day HE arrived.  That's The Reason Jerusalem was destroyed!

 

Here that sound Argosy, that's your argument circling the drain @ Light Speed.

 

 

To elaborate, How could the Jews know that? 2 Reasons ....

 

1.  Well Gabriel gave Daniel the DAY of Jesus' Triumphal Entry with an Equation: Terminus a quo (Beginning Date) and a Terminus ad quem (End Date):

 

(Daniel 9:25) "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."

 

If you need this worked out, which is exactly correct to the day; let me know.

 

2.  (Zechariah 9:9) "¶ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."

 

Gives a whole new meaning to Bible Study

 

 

Any other Baseless Unsupported Assertions Argosy?  Oh, and if you've been keeping up with current events....you need a new argument.

 

regards

 

 

 

I like what you said about "poster child of my antics". I was joking around, could it be said that this focussing on any side issue, making even a little light-hearted banter central to your point  is a "poster child" of your antics? :duh:   It very well could be, you do have a tendency to make "mountains" out of side-issue "molehills" which makes it extremely difficult to have a focussed discussion with you.   :help:

 

When I have been accused by others in the past of strawmen arguments, I have the tendency to look back at their posts and apologise. Maybe you haven't got the time to do so?  Instead you say I have "baseless assertions"????     If you are accurate about your impressions of my view, kindly show me from my posts where you get your impression from, otherwise surely your impressions are baseless and unresearched assertions of my position if you are unable to verify where you got your impressions from? And I don't insist on one , but I would appreciate an apology if you are unable to find support from my posts for your misunderstanding of my position.

 

I already quoted my source of information that the Galilean Zealots had already ruined Jerusalem and the temple before the Romans even arrived. My source is Josephus the historian. A quick google search by any readers following our discussion or by yourself would be enough to verify the accuracy of my position. You are welcome to do so, or is that a little too much for you. I know its a lot easier to use smiley faces than do a little research  :th_frusty:   Yes its pretty easy to use the smileys  :emot-nod:

 

1.  Sir, if Jerusalem was "already in ruin" before the Romans Arrived then why did Titus attack with the 5th, 10th, 12th, and 15th Roman Legions?    :duh:  Perhaps so he could take unnecessary casualties?

 

2.  The Romans had encompassed Jerusalem 9 months prior to the attack....**They were already there** .  You must be saying the "Galilean zealots" destroyed Jerusalem even BEFORE that?

 

 

The Hebrew word used in this case has a more generalised meaning that straightforward "destruction". Like I said earlier, its meaning is to "ruin", and can be applied to physical and moral situations.  

 

I agree with you that Jerusalem did not experience complete destruction under the Galilean Zealots. They fought amongst themselves and destroyed many buildings and the economy and morality of the city. Thus the city was brought to complete moral and economic ruin, but only to partial physical ruin. The walls remained intact as did some parts of the city.  When the Romans arrived they destroyed the city. 

 

This is why I interpret the verse as follows:

 

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the messiah the prince (Jesus of Galilee) shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.  26 And after threescore and two weeks shall messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people (Galilean Jews) of the prince that shall come (Jesus of Galilee) shall shachath the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood (the end = Romans destroyed the city)

 

shachath means to "ruin" morally or physically

The Jews shachath the city, the Romans end the city.

 

ps I used the KJV because I know you prefer it, I just removed the inaccurate capitals, and used the original Hebrew word for ruin, as contained in the original text. So your translation arguments become irrelevant if I am using your preferred bible , yet in a manner even more true to the original text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  9
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  244
  • Content Per Day:  0.07
  • Reputation:   63
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/10/2014
  • Status:  Offline

considering the book we are told was sealed, it should be understood that it might not be unsealed as of yet, but in light of such a thing I would conclude the most obvious error in the interpretation of this scripture is not adhering to the word "weeks"

 

for some odd reason this one word is stretched to unbelievable dimensions just to make it fit peoples theological ideas for this sealed up passage

 

I would contend starting from the premise that weeks means "weeks" and go from there

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

considering the book we are told was sealed, it should be understood that it might not be unsealed as of yet, but in light of such a thing I would conclude the most obvious error in the interpretation of this scripture is not adhering to the word "weeks"

 

for some odd reason this one word is stretched to unbelievable dimensions just to make it fit peoples theological ideas for this sealed up passage

 

I would contend starting from the premise that weeks means "weeks" and go from there

 

 

Ok, lets leave it then @ just "weeks" and see what happens:

 

(Daniel 9:25) "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."

 

 

The decree to restore and build Jerusalem --------------------------------------------------------->   Artaxerxes Longimanus, 14 March 445 BC;  Neh: 2:5-8, 17, 18

 

 

So 69 just plain ole weeks from then would put Jesus' Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem ----------------------------> in 444 BC !!!!

 

 

Ya need a new "contention"

 

regards 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  9
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  244
  • Content Per Day:  0.07
  • Reputation:   63
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/10/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

considering the book we are told was sealed, it should be understood that it might not be unsealed as of yet, but in light of such a thing I would conclude the most obvious error in the interpretation of this scripture is not adhering to the word "weeks"

 

for some odd reason this one word is stretched to unbelievable dimensions just to make it fit peoples theological ideas for this sealed up passage

 

I would contend starting from the premise that weeks means "weeks" and go from there

 

 

Ok, lets leave it then @ just "weeks" and see what happens:

 

(Daniel 9:25) "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."

 

 

The decree to restore and build Jerusalem --------------------------------------------------------->   Artaxerxes Longimanus, 14 March 445 BC;  Neh: 2:5-8, 17, 18

 

 

So 69 just plain ole weeks from then would put Jesus' Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem ----------------------------> in 444 BC !!!!

 

 

Ya need a new "contention"

 

regards 

 

thats how you look at it when you you try to hammer what you know about history to fit a prophecy, and its how you look at it if you are denoting the interpretation Gabriel gave Daniel concerning the vision was about Jesus Christ.

 

the vision was not about Jesus the vision given Daniel was completely about the coming of the antichrist and what he would do

 

thus since the antichrist has not shown up yet, then everything surrounding what he will do has not happened yet.

 

thus the weeks that God said were weeks have not even started yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...