Understanding the Final One Seven

[Serving]

5 hours ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

No, not at all.  To say I am clueless, not spiritual, is a judgment you are not equipped to make.

What I have been allowing, is that even with your four hundred year old mistranslation of gabar is to give me solid Scriptural evidence chapter and verse which shows 1. Where Jesus strengthened any OT Covenant at the beginning of His Ministry, which was about three years in length.

You have been unable to provide solid Scriptural evidence of that.

Oh boy ..

 Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Refer to my explanation in my previous post .. this Galatians IS the proof that Christ CONFIRMED the LAW of MOSES which LAW was given to Moses 430 years AFTER God made promises to Abraham.

It was CONFIRMED .. wait for it .. IN Christ !!!! meaning .. Christ had to FIRST COME in order for it to be confirmed IN Him .. how can such a simple thing not be understood? 

Quote

Now, what you have offered with Mark 16 is HOW something IS CONFIRMED!  By evidence of the miraculous, the Apostles showed how God put His Thumbprint of Authenticity upon their testimony.  Miracles strengthen the Gospel!  They punctuate with exclamation marks that what was said was from God!

But that does not "confirm" the New Covenant!  The miracles confirm the Gospel.  They confirmed the "word."

And the New Covenant was only made at the LAST of Jesus' First Advent.

 

Marcus, please .. look again :

Mark 16

19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

The WORD (New Covenant) itself was being PREACHED Marcus, you don't PREACH signs okay .. 

What was being PREACHED was that which was being CONFIRMED .. AND .. that WORD/COVENANT being PREACHED was given Gods "Thumbprint of Authenticity"as you put it, BY the signs FOLLOWING that WORD/COVENANT, meaning, again .. the signs/miracles gave CREDIBILITY to the PREACHING being SPOKEN which signs VALIDATED that WORD/NEW COVENANT !!!! 

ANOTHER example out of MANY : 

Matthew 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

Q: WHAT is the WORD of the kingdom? 

A: The New COVENANT of course !!!!

The word isn't SIGNS Marcus, you don't sow signs in your heart dude !!!!!

So like I said all along, of which you were WRONG, Mark 16 is beyond doubt speaking of the NEW COVENANT. 

Quote

What you present does not relate to Daniel 9:27.  You have failed to present a valid argument, talking in circles saying He confirmed the covenant because He confirmed it.  That cannot win your case, and it hasn't.

Marcus, you were the one asking for me to confirm from ANYWHERE within the scriptures that Christ CONFIRMED Moses' covenant in relation to Daniel 9's use of CONFIRM !!!

Being the REASON I provided Galatians 3:17 in the first place ?????????

.. THEN ..

Then you argued WHICH covenant that Galatians was speaking of, of which I confirmed several times now that it was speaking of Moses' covenant that Christ confirmed before His crucifixion which you were trying to argue against and then tried implying that I had referred to Abraham's covenant when it was perfectly clear I was speaking of Moses'covenant all along !!!! You tried the famous bait & switch on me but it failed miserably.

But honestly Marcus, for you to say that i'm the one "talking in circles" when it has been YOU all along who has clearly been misinterpreting the meanings of the verses I've been supplying and having to correct you on, well .. bro, you are just digging holes for yourself.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

One of the reasons I stopped using the King James Version was that it's English was so difficult to understand; it actually made the Bible harder to understand.

Let's try the NIV on 3:17 -

What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

It doesn't really say what you say it does.  

And you really ought to look at some real word study on gabar.  I have referenced the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament and literally, and unfortunately, the King James translators have set the bar on its mistranslation ONLY in this one place, and they completely change the word's meaning.  It is quite unfortunate because it has led to so much error over the centuries.

[Serving]

2 minutes ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

One of the reasons I stopped using the King James Version was that it's English was so difficult to understand; it actually made the Bible harder to understand.

Let's try the NIV on 3:17 -

What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

It doesn't really say what you say it does.  

And you really ought to look at some real word study on gabar.  I have referenced the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament and literally, and unfortunately, the King James translators have set the bar on its mistranslation ONLY in this one place, and they completely change the word's meaning.  It is quite unfortunate because it has led to so much error over the centuries.

Marcus,

Lets just agree to disagree okay?

I accept the KJV as the preserved word of God error free .. you don't .. so it's pointless arguing over this which will just make us both frustrated with the other don't you agree?

Cheers.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

By the way, the last few verses of Mark 16, 9-20, are not reliable.

But the signs were miracles, of a sort.

In no way can the verse you point to prove Jesus "confirmed" the Abramiac or Mosaic covenant (which one you want to say it was, sort of changes as you go on).

[Retrobyter]

9 hours ago, Montana Marv said:

Roy

Christ has not, as yet, sat on King Davids Throne.  And not for 7 years.  He Will eternally sit on King Davids Throne when Israel Believes, which they have not,  They will during the Mill.  If one believes v. 27 is referring to Christ, why was Titus the one who destroyed the city and sanctuary in the previous verse. (the last denotation).  So v. 27 would have to be referring to Titus (the last referred topic) or someone else in the Future.

And prophecy dictates that Israel will have 490 prophetic years or 70 Sevens to fulfill this prophecy.

BTW, there is no such thing as a separated half of a One Seven.  A One Seven means seven continuous years.

In Christ

Montana Marv

Shalom, Montana Marv.

You're right, brother! But then, the 7 years is not about Him SITTING on King David's Throne but is about Him being ACCEPTED as Israel's King! Remember how early David was anointed by God through His prophet Sh'mu'el (Samuel)? It's found in 1 Samuel 16:13. However, when did David become King? It's found in SECOND Samuel 2:4 ... NO ... WAIT! That was when He became "King of the Jews!" How long did he have to reign in Hebron before they finally accepted him as King of Israel? 

2 Samuel 5:1-5
1 Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.
2 Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.
3 So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the LORD: and they anointed David king over Israel.
4 David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.
5 In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah.
KJV

But, wait! 1 Chronicles says,

1 Chronicles 29:26-27
26 Thus David the son of Jesse reigned over all Israel.
27 And the time that he reigned over Israel was forty years; seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.
KJV

So, what IS the truth? BOTH are true! David reigned over Judah for 7 years and 6 months, but he only reigned in Hebron for 7 years.

Yeshua` was born to be the King of the Jews. However, the elders of His OWN TRIBE did not accept Him as their King. To the contrary, for their own selfish reasons, they rejected Him to the point of crucifying Him when they were supposed to present Him to all Israel as their King! So, halfway through the 7 years in which they failed to do their part, the King rejected THEM!

Read this carefully: YESHUA` THE MESSIAH (JESUS THE CHRIST) HIMSELF split the 70th Seven in half! HE left them "DESOLATE!" HE was the One who ended the sacrifices and the offerings!

Regarding why the people of Titus (the Romans) are mentioned, it is to show WHAT sort of punishment the spreading out of the abominations would incur. However, it was the "MESSIAH" who is the subject noun that is the antecedent to the pronouns "he" in verse 27. If you would PLEASE take note, the "prince that shall come" is the OBJECT OF THE PREPOSITION "OF!" In English grammar, prepositional phrases are NOT part of the subject or predicate of a sentence directly. They are subordinate to the other parts of the sentence as either an adjective phrase or an adverbial phrase! And, as I've said before, the Hebrew noun construct state reflects the same results in Hebrew grammar! Therefore, the "prince that shall come" is NOT the subject that is represented as "he" in verse 27; instead, that honor goes to the "Messiah" of verse 26!

Look, for YEARS premillennialists of all camps - pretribulational, posttribulational, midtribulational, and prewrath rapturists - have said that the 70th Seven ("Week") stands apart from the 69 Sevens. Where's the sense in that? Where's the PROOF of that? When I went looking for the proof, I discovered that NOTHING could be said to be responsible for this separation between the 69 and the 1! Nothing, that is, except the imagination of the premillennialist!

I'm giving you CONCRETE EVIDENCE that the division is NOT between the 69 and the 1, but between the 69.5 and the 0.5! And, what separates them from each other is the POSTPONEMENT of Yeshua`s Kingdom when He (1) leaves the Jews desolate, and when He (2) promises that they wouldn't see Him again until they can welcome Him back as God's Messiah! This postponement is responsible for the Time of Jacob's Trouble, the Tribulation (which, by the way, has lasted since the first century A.D. and shall continue until the Messiah returns), which is also the Times of the Gentiles. God would not destroy His people Israel, but He has disciplined them time and time again throughout the last 2,000 years! What rationale can you give for the division between the 69 and the 1? This just makes better sense.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

8 minutes ago, Serving said:

I accept the KJV as the preserved word of God error free .. you don't .. so it's pointless arguing over this which will just make us both frustrated with the other don't you agree?

It's not error-free.

They didn't even have a Greek translation of the book of Revelation to work with to give the English, so they took the Latin, translated it to Greek, and then to English, making a couple of notable mistakes along the way.

I'm afraid you have placed your faith where it doesn't belong: in fallible men.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Marcus O'Reillius

[Serving]

13 minutes ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

It's not error-free.

They didn't even have a Greek translation of the book of Revelation to work with to give the English, so they took the Latin, translated it to Greek, and then to English, making a couple of notable mistakes along the way.

I'm afraid, you have placed your faith where it doesn't belong: in fallible men.

The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians. This is also the text that agrees with more than 95% of the Bible Manuscripts in Koine (common) Greek.  It is known by other names, such as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text.

In his essay Texual Criticism, Dr. Thomas Cassidy writes: "The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries."

A few facts showing the respected historical position of the Textus Receptus are in order. Its prominence and respect did not begin in 1611 with the KJV translators. They merely recognized (as others before them had), that the Textus Receptus was God's preserved word in the original New Testament language.

Consider the following:

Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale's first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). [STORY OF OUR ENGLISH BIBLE, by W. Scott]

Ancient Versions followed the reading of the Textus Receptus. These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran]

In his excellent book, Truth Triumphant: The Church in the Wilderness, Benjamin Wilkinson writes, "The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this work.

Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying. Lucian's unrivalled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful."

 

Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 
15th, 16th and 17th  centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Texts?

The answer is because of the following:

Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.

Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.

Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Minority Texts (like Vatican and Sinai) favored by the Roman Catholic Church.

Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.

Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.

Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!

Textus Receptus was (and still is) the enemy of the Roman Catholic Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.

Taken from :

1611 King James Bible.com
 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Oh yeah, from a 1611 website.  Not biased at all; absolutely the last word...

Look I've studied the issue, and you can use what you like, but, the King James is not for me, nor a host of others.

[Serving]

18 minutes ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

Oh yeah, from a 1611 website.  Not biased at all; absolutely the last word...

Look I've studied the issue, and you can use what you like, but, the King James is not for me, nor a host of others.

Remember I said that the act of Jesus keeping the LAW was in and of itself another way of confirming the law/covenant and you disagreed?

Read this :

Deuteronomy 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Just showing you that it is in fact an accurate thing I said after all.

Cheers.

[Montana Marv]

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Read this carefully: YESHUA` THE MESSIAH (JESUS THE CHRIST) HIMSELF split the 70th Seven in half! HE left them "DESOLATE!" HE was the One who ended the sacrifices and the offerings!

Roy

Jesus Christ Himself cannot split the last One Seven in half, making two separate one half's.  WHY, He already prophesied in Scripture that it would be a ONE - Seven.  NOT Two separated two half sevens.  Read Zech 14:21 - Every pet in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the LORD Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them.  This is during the 1000 year reign of Christ. 

So as one can see Christ did not end sacrifices at His Death.

In Christ

Montana Marv