Understanding the Final One Seven

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Okay Retrobyter my old friend:

I know you feel this way, but how does the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, which you have correctly stated as happening, but incorrectly called it a confirmation - caused to prevail a limited, seven-year covernant?

The fact is: it doesn't.

As Rush Limbaugh says, "Words mean things."

What you have here is the very definition of fulfill.

fulfill or fulfil  [foo l-fil] 
verb (used with object)
1. to carry out, or bring to realization, as a prophecy or promise.
2. to perform or do, as duty; obey or follow, as commands.
3. to satisfy (requirements, obligations, etc.):
.........a book that fulfills a long-felt need.
4. to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time:
........He felt that life was over when one had fulfilled his threescore years and ten.
5. to develop the full potential of (usually used reflexively):
........She realized that she could never fulfill herself in such work.

gabar, as a verb, means to prevail.  In the Hiphil stem, it means to cause to prevail, as: he caused the covenant to be prevailed, and that would carry the strength aspect with it, like with twisting an arm, or even the idea of forcing it through with military might.

Your Strongs' concordance is no good in providing word definition - it only show how the King James translators translated the word.  Any error they made is replicated, and in this word: it has had a lasting influence.  We literally have centuries of Preterist interpretation to peel back to get to the real nub of the word.  And strangely enough only in this one instance, in the Hiphil stem, do the KJV translators, working by candlelight with limited resources as compared to today, change the meaning of the word gabar to something it is not - and it more properly reflects their limited understanding of the text rather than what the text actually says.

So again, in order to make Jesus the actor of the 3ms pronoun "he" inherent in the conjugation of the verb gabar - you have to show specifically HOW He caused a limited-time covenant to be prevailed (by might).

And NO ONE has the exact dates for His birth, His Baptism, or His Crucifixion (we don't even know the years those things happened) - it is an assumption of everyone's part that this is period of time is three and a half years.  We know from the Gospel text that Jesus' Ministry was in its third year at the end, but no where can scholars point to conclusive dates which align with a Preterist notion that His Ministry was indeed the first half of the one 'seven' based on time alone.

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Marcus O'Reillius.

Yes, we've had this discussion before. "Prevail." But, what does that mean? Let's look it up, shall we?

Dictionary:

prevail

verb

• prove more powerful than opposing forces; be victorious: it is hard for logic to prevail over emotion.
• be widespread in a particular area at a particular time; be current: an atmosphere of crisis prevails.
• (prevail on/upon) persuade (someone) to do something: she was prevailed upon to give an account of her work.

Origin

late Middle English: from Latin praevalere ‘have greater power,’ from prae ‘before’ + valere ‘have power.’

 

Thesaurus:

prevail

verb

1 common sense will prevail: WIN, win out/through, triumph, be victorious, carry the day, come out on top, succeed, prove superior, conquer, overcome, rule, reign.

2 the conditions that prevailed in the 1950s: EXIST, be in existence, be present, be the case, occur, be prevalent, be current, be the order of the day, be customary, be common, be widespread, be in force/effect; formal obtain.

 

Phrases

prevail on/upon

they prevailed upon me to emcee their charity affair: PERSUADE, induce, coax, convince, get, urge, pressure, coerce; informal sweet-talk, soft-soap.

As I've also said in the past, it is a word of COMPARISON, a COMPARATIVE word. It therefore makes no sense without an OPPONENT. In the above examples, common sense will prevail over WHAT? Common sense will win out over WHAT? Common sense will triumph over WHAT? Common sense will be victorious over WHAT? in the other example, the conditions that prevailed (over other conditions) in the 1950s.

In the definitions of the Dictionary above, "prove MORE powerful THAN opposing forces." Even when one prevails upon another to do something, he or she is persuading that other person to do something MORE THAN the other person is persuading the first person that he or she does NOT want to do that something. Understand?

According to the New Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew & English Dictionary, the fundamental meaning of G-B-R in Hebrew is to "be strong, be mighty; increase; grow stronger." Now, that could mean that someone "is stronger" than someone else, that it is a force "stronger" than normal, natural occurrences, or it can mean someone "is stronger" than he used to be; however, it can also STAND ALONE; that is, NON-COMPARATIVE; such as in a person is "strong!' A wind is "powerful!" or A covenant is "STRENGTHENED; RATIFIED."

The "sentence" you provided, namely, "he caused the covenant to be prevailed," doesn't even make SENSE! It would be like singing, "Do-Re-Mi-Fa-So-La-Ti..." and stopping! FINISH THE THOUGHT!!! "...-Do!!!" You could have said, "the covenant prevailed," or "he prevailed upon others to accept the covenant," but not how you worded it! You could even have said, "he caused the covenant to prevail," but you didn't! However, even if you had said, "he caused the covenant to prevail," it begs the question, "he caused the covenant to prevail OVER WHAT?" By not understanding the word "prevail," you've made the definition you've supplied for "gabar" meaningless!

Here's the Hebrew (transliterated, of course) of the verse:

27 Vhigbiyr briyt laarabiym shaaVuwa` echaad, vachatsiy hashaaVuwa` yashbiyt zebach uwminchaah v`al knaf shiquwtsiym mshomeem v`ad kaalaah vnecheraatsaah titakh `al shomeem:

27 Vhigbiyr = 27 And-he-shall-strengthen
briyt = a-covenant
laarabiym = to-many
shaaVuwa` = seven/week
echaad, = one,
vachatsiy = and-[in-the]-middle
hashaaVuwa` = of-the-seven/week
yashbiyt = he-shall-terminate
zebach = sacrifice
uwminchaah = and-offering
v`al = and-upon
knaf = a-spread-out-wing
shiquwtsiym = of-abominations
mshomeem = he-shall-devastate-[it]
v`ad = even-until
kaalaah = a-completion
vnecheraatsaah = and-that-decided
titakh = shall-be-poured
`al = upon
shomeem: = [the]-devastated:

By admitting that He was indeed the Messiah of God, the One whom GOD anointed to be the King of Israel, He RATIFIED the covenant that God had made with his ancestor, King David, and THAT'S how He STRENGTHENED the covenant, or if you prefer, He "caused the covenant to prevail."

 

Now, there are two different ways that prophecies are fulfilled: They can be fulfilled suddenly by EVENT, OR they can be fulfilled gradually by PERIOD. If you've ever been introduced to Gantt charts, then you should know the difference. Tasks are usually represented by bars; these are periods, usually with a beginning date and an ending date. Milestones or goals are usually drawn as vertical lines at the end of a period, at the beginning of a period, or standing alone; these are events.

There are eight different ways a prophecy can be fulfilled with regard to past, present, and future:
1. It was totally, instantaneously fulfilled in the past;
2. it is a prophecy that is instantaneously fulfilled right now in the present;
3. it is a prophecy that shall be instantaneously completed in the future;
4. It was totally fulfilled, starting and ending its fulfillment in the past;
5. its fulfillment was started in the past and is now being fulfilled completely in the present;
6. it is a prophecy whose fulfillment started in the past and shall be completely fulfilled in the future;
7. it is starting to be fulfilled in the present and shall be completely fulfilled in the future; or
8. it is a prophecy whose fulfillment shall be started in the future and fulfilled completely in a later future.

The first three are by EVENT; ways 4 through 8 are by PERIOD.

Yeshua` fulfilled the prophecy by starting its fulfillment in the past and shall be fulfilling the prophecy completely in the future (no. 6 above). Because He had TWO roles to fill, namely the Messiah the Son of Joseph - the Suffering Messiah - and the Messiah the Son of David - the Victorious Messiah, the first role was completed during His first Advent. The second role was POSTPONED until His second Advent; that is, His Second Coming!

Yeshua` Himself postponed this role when He LEFT THEM DEVASTATED, EMPTY!

Matthew 23:33-39
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
KJV

It was at THIS POINT that Yeshua` postponed the second half of the Seven, and He postponed it until they would say, "Baruwkh haba' b-shem YHWH." "Welcome, Comer in the authority of YHWH." (Hebrew of Psalm 118:26a.) And, we're still waiting because the children of Israel can't bring themselves to say "Welcome" to Yeshua` the Messiah. Well, I believe that when faced with annihilation, they will say it. God did say they were a STUBBORN people!

 

Finally, we don't NEED to know the "exact dates" of these events. Instead, all we need to know is their RELATIVE times during the year! And, we know much more than you realize:

First, we know at what time during the year Yochanan the Immerser (John the Baptist) was conceived. His father, Zacharias or Zkharyahu, was of the course of Abia or Aviyahu. (Luke 1:5.) This puts his time of service in the Temple as the eighth course, which would have served during the 10th week of the year, starting from 1 Aviv. (1 Chron. 24:10.) This gives us the time of Yochanan's conception after his term of service, in the 11th week. I don't think it would be very much after Zkharyahu's term because he had been childless for a LONG, LONG TIME! He would have been ANXIOUS for a son! Forty weeks later, or the 51st week, Yochanan was born. Yeshua` was born 6 months later or 24.4 weeks later (141 days), approximately. (Luke 1:26, 36.) I also don't believe there was much time between the announcement that Miryam would have a son and when the Ruach haQodesh (the Holy Spirit) came upon her. The messenger Gavriel only appeared early enough to prepare her for the event. Putting all this together, we know that Yeshua` would have been born during the time of Sukkot, the Feast of Booths.

By harmonizing the text of the four Gospels and taking note of the holidays, one can COUNT the number of years between His baptism, which was apparently soon after His birthday (Luke 3:23), and His Passion Week, which was at the time of Pesach (Passover). (Matt. 26; Mark 14; Luke 22; John 18, 19.) Thus, one can arrive at 3.5 years without the need for exact dates.

[Sister]

On 25/06/2016 at 10:28 PM, Marcus O'Reillius said:

Hello Sister, how's things down under?  We have a wonderfully corrupt presidential candidate that upholds your gun confiscation as a model of success.  How's that working out for you?  (Side issue - never mind.)

I don't have a gun so it doesn't affect me.  Criminals over here still manage to get guns, and people still get shot here from time to time.  No Christian should rely on a gun to protect themselves, but to trust always in the Lord for protection.  Having said that, I know their purpose in getting rid of guns.  When the USA's economy finally crashes, they know chaos is going to erupt, and your people are going to be blaming the government.  They are preparing for Marshal Law and don't want any resistance.  They will even go as far as to fake mass killings just to get their laws passed, and they will.

 

Quote

 

Greetings Marcus OReillius

I think Serving did a great job explaining and I see exactly what he sees.

Firstly, I am not a Preterist.  My views on the scriptures don't belong to any particular group, and I will never fit into anyone's little box, because there are many other scriptures in the OT that I see as spiritually speaking of the future, whereas the majority Christian world would say that it's happened already, so I could say the same of others and I have given my explanation on the subject with what has been given to me to understand on a personal level, whether I be right or wrong, I take full responsibility for everything I have stated in handling the word of life.

Your question regarding 9:26

Quote

a Preterist to specify what at Jesus' Crucifixion was the "abominations" and what was the "desolation" and that leads to a complete destruction - when His Crucixion was foretold in 9:26 as the "cutting off" of karat, which also has the double Hebrew word meaning (also so typical) of 'cutting a deal.'

I interpret of the KJV.  I have seen other interpretations that change the whole meaning.

 Daniel 9:26   And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

After Christ was cut off (crucified) to those who hated him without a cause, Jerusalem and the temple would come to an end which happened in 70ad, that happened, we know it did, and to this day Jerusalem is without a temple....but onto the very end of this world's system, desolations will continue.

That "desolation" is a "spiritual desolation".  No truth, no light, walking in darkness. Spiritually living in a dry desert with no water, having no guide, no King, no protection,  no safe route to travel for the soul, and being completely blinded to what is really going on.

[Montana Marv]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

By admitting that He was indeed the Messiah of God, the One whom GOD anointed to be the King of Israel, He RATIFIED the covenant that God had made with his ancestor, King David, and THAT'S how He STRENGTHENED the covenant, or if you prefer, He "caused the covenant to prevail."

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

 

[Serving]

On 26/06/2016 at 3:02 AM, Marcus O'Reillius said:

I am trying to understand your argument because you cannot be specific, nor do you confine yourself to definable terms, substituting fulfilled for confirmed - and that's even allowing you to use an incorrect translation of gabar, which as a verb, means to prevail, or specifically in this case causes a covenant to be prevailed, with many for one week.

This covenant, which you say you know, but again that is a product of your mind; was "confirmed" by Jesus by "keeping" the Law - but that is not to confirm it by definition - until the Crucifixion - but that is only for some time over three years, and not necessarily the whole 'seven' specified by Gabriel.

Furthermore, you change the Mosaic Covenant, which you say was "1st", which was not the first, nor the second; to the New Covenant, which is the fifth Covenant God made with Man.  The New Covenant is in no way a confirmation of the Mosaic Covenant, or we'd all be still doing sacrifice and offering which will cease when the talking image of the anti-Christ is set up within the rebuilt Temple John measures (and Ezekiel recorded in 40-42).

Now you change your tune yet again, and say this short, limited-time covenant was "confirmed" by the Apostles when the verb is in the third-person, singular, masculine.  And at what point did they STOP confirming this convenant?  Again, nothing specific can be given.

So the problem I'm having here accepting your take on things is that I am left to swallow a very simple set of declarative statements that neither comport with the language of the passage, nor with history.

You are just not hearing the scriptures is the problem seeing that I gave solid scriptural evidence that the covenant being THE LAW .. was indeed CONFIRMED by Christ during His earthly Ministry HERE :

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.

That is self explanatory of itself and blunt as blunt can be yet you say it is simplistic ??? How many covenants are described as THE LAW Marcus !!!!!! Really, I mean, C'MON dude, the LAW has always been known by everyone as Moses' COVENANT so your constant harping on about me confirming/defining WHICH covenant I speak of is really mind boggingly disingenuous to say the LEAST.

You'd do well to realise this :

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Not only that, you had no clue as to HOW God then accomplished to CONFIRM His New Covenant AFTER Christ's crucifixion seeing you asked me that very question condescendingly as though it were foolishness to even consider, of which I NEEDED to provide/teach you this ONE example out of MANY examples :

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.

 .. whilst informing you that there were MANY MORE EXAMPLES in scripture of the same ilk regarding ALL THE SCRIPTURES I provided you .. not only the above .. and not only that, I gave you the reasons as to WHY it was needed for Christ to be CUT OFF mid week in relation to the TWO COVENANTS being confirmed in separate halves in relation to OVERALL CONFIRMATION .. and furthermore, I gave scriptural evidence that showed that TECHNICALLY speaking, the 1st & 2nd covenants are in fact the SAME covenant since Christ FULFILLED the Old Covenant (which He indeed FULFILLED according to Galations) which covenant technically TRANSITIONED into the NEW COVENANT of which HEBREW scriptures I PROVIDED to you which you obviously failed to either read or comprehend ..   

Which truths most certainly makes this claim of yours MOST LUDICROUS indeed :

Quote

 So the problem I'm having here accepting your take on things is that I am left to swallow a very simple set of declarative statements that neither comport with the language of the passage, nor with history.

Perhaps instead of using a secular approach to the scriptures, a spiritual approach would obviously be far more beneficial to you seeing that you seem to struggle with the simplicity that is in Christ : 

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

But really Marcus, when all is said and done, the real problem you're having with my discernment regarding the subject at hand boils down to this simple truth : you are of the school of thought that does not believe that God's written Word was PRESERVED and TRANSLATED ACCURATELY but was instead MISHANDLED and therefore needing CORRECTION by so called "learned men" who can and do apparently "improve" on what God already laid out and TRANSLATED and PRESERVED by HIS own method through INSPIRED men of HIS OWN CHOOSING .. you just don't accept that He achieved that .. do you .. since you keep harping on about the translation of the word "gabar" as rendered incorrectly.

So you'd do well to understand that just as Satan caused Eve to doubt God's word in the above declaration, scribes likewise mimic the same error Eve made by listening to those who say, "Yea, did God say" .. which is exactly what all these so called "learned men" are doing with their never ending translation game, ALL INDEPENDENTLY doing the same BTW (cancelling each others OPINIONS out in the process leaving us all with nothing but CONFUSION and DIVISION) .. ever distorting and twisting the preserved word of God to their own wills, and MANY there are that have fallen for this beguiling, in my opinion.

Therefore it is pointless our debating anything when by your method, anything & everything can easily be brought into doubt playing the translation game which is really, when honestly appraised, the perfect cop out/get out of jail free card on any subject the translator so wishes to change .. and that Marcus, I will NEVER buy into.

And on that note, thanks for the interaction, but it is pointless to continue debating each other across such a large and irreconcilable chasm between us which chasm is the translation game of which I refuse to play or accept as valid or sound.

Cheers.  

[Marcus O'Reillius]

55 minutes ago, Serving said:

You are just not hearing the scriptures is the problem seeing that I gave solid scriptural evidence that the covenant being THE LAW .. was indeed CONFIRMED by Christ during His earthly Ministry HERE :

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.

That is self explanatory of itself and blunt as blunt can be yet you say it is simplistic ??? How many covenants are described as THE LAW Marcus !!!!!! Really, I mean, C'MON dude, the LAW has always been known by everyone as Moses' COVENANT so your constant harping on about me confirming/defining WHICH covenant I speak of is really mind boggingly disingenuous to say the LEAST.

Let's put that in context, and use modern, understandable English.

Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 17  What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Paul does not say Jesus confirmed the Abramaic covenant, but that the Law, which came after that covenant did not invalidate that which was ratified beforehand.  If you want to say "confirm" for G4300, it means "confirmed beforehand."  Again, you have to look at the theologiacal leanings of the KJ translators as to why they, as men, rendered the Greek as they did.  I trust the NASB as a more reliable word-for-word translation.

Galatians 3 makes the theological argument for faith over the Law.  It is not talking about Daniel 9:27, not the start of the one 'seven'.

And enough of this foolishness: gabar means to prevail.  It never means to confirm.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

1 hour ago, Serving said:

Not only that, you had no clue as to HOW God then accomplished to CONFIRM His New Covenant AFTER Christ's crucifixion seeing you asked me that very question condescendingly as though it were foolishness to even consider, of which I NEEDED to provide/teach you this ONE example out of MANY examples :

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.

 .. whilst informing you that there were MANY MORE EXAMPLES in scripture of the same ilk regarding ALL THE SCRIPTURES I provided you .. not only the above 

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.

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.

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 O'Reillius]

12 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Marcus O'Reillius.

Yes, we've had this discussion before. "Prevail." But, what does that mean? Let's look it up, shall we?

Yes, lets.  Like with the Greek, Bromiley in his word definition book gives two types of definitions.  How it 1. was used in the secular language of the time, and 2. was used in a theological sense in the Bible, so too should we look at how the Jews used their language, and how it is used in the Old Testament.

So relying on a modern definition removes the word from a simple, story-telling language based on agriculture and word-pictures to a technologically complex, and a scientifically derived modern mode of speaking.  Your definition then bends original meaning, and of course, allows you to find one instance where a definition fits your template and you run with that to spin the language to your conclusion.

gabar even as a verb keeps some of its sense of strength with it, so as to prevail by might, especially military might.  It is not always used of God, but in one instance means to stand up in the face of God, daring as it were, to match strength with Him and so as to try to overcome God.

In the case of the anti-Christ as the actor who causes to prevail a covenant with many for one 'seven', that is the case when he declares himself to be god with the addition of a talking image of himself at the apex of his rise being erected in the Temple.

In the latter case he is standing in his strength in defiance of the true God.  In the former, he is behind the scenes laying the groundwork and influencing the outcome he wants.

And I did say, "he caused a covenant with many to be prevailed" but I think that splits the infinitive... and as such, becomes overly wordy.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

11 hours ago, Sister said:

After Christ was cut off (crucified) to those who hated him without a cause, Jerusalem and the temple would come to an end which happened in 70ad, that happened, we know it did, and to this day Jerusalem is without a temple....but onto the very end of this world's system, desolations will continue.

That "desolation" is a "spiritual desolation".  No truth, no light, walking in darkness. Spiritually living in a dry desert with no water, having no guide, no King, no protection,  no safe route to travel for the soul, and being completely blinded to what is really going on.

Forget the gun issue.  We're having a muslim problem with the soldiers obama is importing, and it's been weighing on my mind, because I think you are right to say they will stop at nothing to disarm us.  I shouldn't have mentioned it.

A figurative interpretation is allowable.  I was trying to pin down in a very literal manner how either word fit to Jesus at the Crucifixion.  You might be surprised at some of the answers I've gotten through message boards like this.

Fundamentally, we differ in how we approach end-time prophecy.  And that happens.  Now that I know how you approach it, I can see where at what point in the logical process of reaching our respective conclusions in which we differ.

You won't be able to satisfy my curiousity and that's fine too.  May you have a blessed day Sister.

[Serving]

4 hours ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

Let's put that in context, and use modern, understandable English.

Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 17  What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Paul does not say Jesus confirmed the Abramaic covenant, but that the Law, which came after that covenant did not invalidate that which was ratified beforehand.  If you want to say "confirm" for G4300, it means "confirmed beforehand."  Again, you have to look at the theologiacal leanings of the KJ translators as to why they, as men, rendered the Greek as they did.  I trust the NASB as a more reliable word-for-word translation.

Galatians 3 makes the theological argument for faith over the Law.  It is not talking about Daniel 9:27, not the start of the one 'seven'.

 

What on earth are you talking about?

i WAS talking about that LAW .. Moses'covenant !!

How many times must I confirm the covenant I'm referring to before it sinks in?

Look again :

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.

1) 430 years AFTER God made PROMISES to Abraham .. 430 years AFTER that .. 430 years LATER God then gave the LAW to Moses .. 430 years AFTER those promises to Abraham okay.

2) This was written AFTER Christ was crucified right, hence : CONFIRMED BEFORE of God IN CHRIST .. meaning .. WHEN Christ was here (past tense since Christ was CRUCIFIED BEFORE THIS WAS WRITTEN) God CONFIRMED Moses' LAW IN CHRIST .. meaning .. Christ had to have BEEN (already come) in order for God to be able to have CONFIRMED that LAW IN Christ .. notice confirmed IN Christ .. that can not be done unless Christ had already COME .. which He most certainly did by the time Galatians was written .. CONTEXT !!!!!!!

3) THAT COVENANT that was CONFIRMED IN CHRIST was Moses' COVENANT the LAW which was given 430 years AFTER Abraham up until Moses okay .. 430 years had passed.

4) And that LAW Christ CONFIRMED, Moses'LAW, in NO WAY DISANNULS the PROMISES made to ABRAHAM about the future COVENANT of FAITH God told Abraham about.

5) OTHER WORDS, JUST because Christ CONFIRMED MOSES' LAW, does NOT mean the PROMISES He made to Abraham about CHRIST'S NEW LAW/COVENANT of FAITH is DISANNULLED.

NOW do you understand what is being said?

Quote

And enough of this foolishness: gabar means to prevail.  It never means to confirm.

Nonsense, I just looked up what other bibles say for that passage in Daniel and many others say CONFIRM too .. heck, even the Orthodox Jewish bible uses the word CONFIRM in Daniel 9 .. nice try, bad luck your statement doesn't hold any water though.