7 year tribulation

[wingnut-]

Just now, iamlamad said:

Does this speak of an earthly throne? That was specified. OF COURSE He sets on this throne in heaven! 

 

The throne of David.

[Retrobyter]

7 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Hmmm. How did they count in Hebrew...3  1  4  2  5  3..... How strange. They did not use such words as "next?" I see "next" used 34 times in the Old Testament: certainly some of those uses would be for order or sequence. 

Shalom, iamlamad.

I'm not saying that they didn't show order through their connective vav, using either a "v-" or a "uw-" in transliteration. I'm saying that their SHOWING of order was typically to introduce the minor points AFTER a SUMMARY of the major points.

A case in point is found right in Genesis 1:

Genesis 1:1- (KJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heaven (hashaamayim) and the earth (haa'aarets). 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (hamaayim).

3 And God said,

"Let there be light":

and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light "Day," and the darkness he called "Night."
And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said,

"Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters (hamayim), and let it divide the waters from the waters (mayim laamaayim)."

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters (hamayim) which were under the firmament from the waters (hamayim) which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament "Heaven." (Shaamaayim, same as in verse 1 only without the direct object attached.) 
And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said,

"Let the waters (hamayim) under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear":

and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land "Earth" (Erets, same as in verse 1 only without the direct object attached); and the gathering together of the waters called he "Seas" (Mayim): and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said,

"Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth":

and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day

[JoeCanada]

15 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, JoeCanada.

Oops. You passed it without thinking it through. You said, "Can it be the Davidic Covenant?.....Jesus will not sit on His throne on earth until after the 70th week." Who says? Sounds like this is a conclusion based upon someone's eschatological viewpoint rather than Scripture!

Can you give me book, chapter, and verse as to why you would think that "Jesus will not sit on His throne on earth until after the 70th week"?

Also, you mention a very common error! You said, "The 'he' will strengthen or confirm a covenant for the entire 70th week. 'HE' is a pronoun and all  pronouns must have an antecedent........it must refer back to someone earlier in the text....

That someone is the 'prince who is to come'."

Sorry, but that is an error, both in the Hebrew text and in the English translation.

In English, the antecendent CANNOT BE the noun within a prepositional phrase! That prepositional phrase, "people OF a prince" ("OF" being the preposition), is used as a modifier, and the nouns or noun phrases within the modifier cannot be used as the subject of the sentence containing that modifier! The nouns or noun phrases within the prepositional phrase are OBJECTS of the preposition!

In Hebrew, the second noun in a noun construct state, such as "`am nagiyd," cannot be the subject of a sentence. There are NO "he's" in the Hebrew of verse 27; they are strictly verbs with the third-person, singular forms, and these verbs DO need a third-person, singular, subject noun. The ONLY noun that can be a subject noun in verse 26 is "Mashiyach" or "Messiah."

Hello Roy,

"Can you give me book, chapter, and verse as to why you would think that "Jesus will not sit on His throne on earth until after the 70th week"?

Sure thing......

Book of Revelation....Chapter 3...verse 21

Book of Matthew....Chapter 25...verse 31

Book of Psalms....Chapter 110....verse 1-2............... Chapter 132....verse 11

Book of Acts......Chapter 2

Part of this was from an article at Gospel in the end times.....from quite a while back

----------------------------------------------

"Sorry, but that is an error, both in the Hebrew text and in the English translation."

I'm not an expert by any means in linguistics.....Hebrew, English or any other language. 

In the Septuagint, Dan 9:26 clearly shows that it is the Messiah that shall destroy the city:

        " After sixty-two weeks, the anointing will be destroyed, and there will be no Judgment in him and He shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the leader who is coming"

 

[Retrobyter]

11 hours ago, JoeCanada said:

Hello Roy,

"Can you give me book, chapter, and verse as to why you would think that "Jesus will not sit on His throne on earth until after the 70th week"?

Sure thing......

Book of Revelation....Chapter 3...verse 21

Book of Matthew....Chapter 25...verse 31

Book of Psalms....Chapter 110....verse 1-2............... Chapter 132....verse 11

Book of Acts......Chapter 2

Part of this was from an article at Gospel in the end times.....from quite a while back

...

Shalom, JoeCanada.

Sorry, but I guess I didn't make myself clear. My question (which copied your sentence) was not about "Jesus sitting on His throne on earth," with which I totally agree; my question really was about the "until after the 70th week" part.

See, I don't accept that the 70th week was the same as the tribulation or contained the great tribulation. I see these two terms as SEPARATE PERIODS. The tribulation is a 2000-year period that started in the first century A.D.

The 70th week, I believe, was split in two by Yeshua` the Messiah when He pronounced the Jews of Jerusalem "desolate" in Matthew 23:38. The first 3.5 years was the offer of the Kingdom to the children of Israel during Yeshua`s "earthly ministry." The secod 3.5 years will occur when Yeshua` returns and once again offers the Kingdom to His relatives, the Jews, and this time, they will gladly accept Him as their King!

So, .... my question really is this: What biblical proof do you have that Yeshua` won't take the throne until after the second 3.5 years of the 70th week?

[JoeCanada]

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, JoeCanada.

Sorry, but I guess I didn't make myself clear. My question (which copied your sentence) was not about "Jesus sitting on His throne on earth," with which I totally agree; my question really was about the "until after the 70th week" part.

See, I don't accept that the 70th week was the same as the tribulation or contained the great tribulation. I see these two terms as SEPARATE PERIODS. The tribulation is a 2000-year period that started in the first century A.D.

The 70th week, I believe, was split in two by Yeshua` the Messiah when He pronounced the Jews of Jerusalem "desolate" in Matthew 23:38. The first 3.5 years was the offer of the Kingdom to the children of Israel during Yeshua`s "earthly ministry." The secod 3.5 years will occur when Yeshua` returns and once again offers the Kingdom to His relatives, the Jews, and this time, they will gladly accept Him as their King!

So, .... my question really is this: What biblical proof do you have that Yeshua` won't take the throne until after the second 3.5 years of the 70th week?

Hey Roy,

Rev 3:21.... "He who overcomes I will grant to sit down with Me on My throne (Davids throne) as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne."

Jesus is currently at the right hand of the Father and will in the future grant to overcomers the right to sit upon the throne of David

Matt 25:31....." But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne"...(Davids throne)

Here we see that Jesus Himself placed His Davidic throne assumption in the future......it is linked with His coming in glory with His angels.

Psalm 110: 1-2....."but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet"

Here it explicitly teaches that Jesus would have a time at God's right hand in heaven until the time He begins His earthly reign from Jerusalem.

At the seventh trumpet, there is a transfer of ownership...."The kingdom of the world  has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ"........ This all takes place at the coronation of Jesus....at the seventh trumpet.

[WilliamL]

On 8/11/2020 at 4:35 PM, Charlie744 said:

I have been studying Daniel and have found that there are so many folks that refer to a “7 year tribulation” which will occur at the end of time and will center on an “anti-Christ” figure. 

I believe these two beliefs are based on certain verses in Daniel. 

Consequently, would you folks provide your thoughts on the verses and your interpretation of how they speak / identify them as such?

 Thank you very much, Charlie 

Can't really do the question justice in the limited format here. If you really want a detailed answer regarding Daniel 9:24-27 (as well as the relevant parts of Dan. 8), begin below for the seven-part series in my blog.

38. Daniel 9:24-27 Examined, Part 1: Verse 24

Begins a seven-part series about this highly-controversial prophecy. A detailed translation from the Hebrew is provided for each verse, with the relevant Hebrew grammar explained, beginning here with verse 24.

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/1568-daniel-924-27-examined-part-1-verse-24/

[Charlie744]

WilliamL, thank you very much for providing this information!

 I certainly will read ( and learn) from your series on Daniel- 9:24 to 9:27. 

I started to read your writings... unbelievable writing / communication skills!!!!

If agreeable, I would like to contact you by messaging after I have read your work... 

In addition to chapter 9, is there something you have produced that offers your interpretations on Daniel 11:5 to 11:30?

Thank you very much, Charlie 

 

[iamlamad]

On 8/18/2020 at 6:57 PM, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, JoeCanada.

Oops. You passed it without thinking it through. You said, "Can it be the Davidic Covenant?.....Jesus will not sit on His throne on earth until after the 70th week." Who says? Sounds like this is a conclusion based upon someone's eschatological viewpoint rather than Scripture!

Can you give me book, chapter, and verse as to why you would think that "Jesus will not sit on His throne on earth until after the 70th week"?

Also, you mention a very common error! You said, "The 'he' will strengthen or confirm a covenant for the entire 70th week. 'HE' is a pronoun and all  pronouns must have an antecedent........it must refer back to someone earlier in the text....

That someone is the 'prince who is to come'."

Sorry, but that is an error, both in the Hebrew text and in the English translation.

In English, the antecendent CANNOT BE the noun within a prepositional phrase! That prepositional phrase, "people OF a prince" ("OF" being the preposition), is used as a modifier, and the nouns or noun phrases within the modifier cannot be used as the subject of the sentence containing that modifier! The nouns or noun phrases within the prepositional phrase are OBJECTS of the preposition!

In Hebrew, the second noun in a noun construct state, such as "`am nagiyd," cannot be the subject of a sentence. There are NO "he's" in the Hebrew of verse 27; they are strictly verbs with the third-person, singular forms, and these verbs DO need a third-person, singular, subject noun. The ONLY noun that can be a subject noun in verse 26 is "Mashiyach" or "Messiah."

In English, the antecendent CANNOT BE the noun within a prepositional phrase!   This is really not true. 

From the web:  

The question you ask, “Can the antecedent ever be used in a prepositional phrase?” is of course, certainly it can. Proof: 
After the meteorite fell on Jack, he was never again the same.

Another website:
 

Antecedent of a pronoun cannot lie in a prepositional phrase

Prepositional Phrases are not black holes! Antecedents can come out of them!!

Another website:
With all due respect, my friend, you are strictly following a rule that simply does not exist. I don't know whether some faulty source suggested that this should be a rule, but it's not. Grammar is hard enough! Don't complicate it further by introducing rules that don't exist! 

Any noun anywhere in the sentence, in any role, can be the antecedent of a pronoun, as long as the noun is not in the possessive form. It doesn't matter whether the noun is the subject, the object of a verb, or the object of a prepositional phrase.

 

 

[Retrobyter]

3 hours ago, iamlamad said:

In English, the antecendent CANNOT BE the noun within a prepositional phrase!   This is really not true. 

From the web:  

The question you ask, “Can the antecedent ever be used in a prepositional phrase?” is of course, certainly it can. Proof: 
After the meteorite fell on Jack, he was never again the same.

Another website:
 

Antecedent of a pronoun cannot lie in a prepositional phrase

Prepositional Phrases are not black holes! Antecedents can come out of them!!

Another website:
With all due respect, my friend, you are strictly following a rule that simply does not exist. I don't know whether some faulty source suggested that this should be a rule, but it's not. Grammar is hard enough! Don't complicate it further by introducing rules that don't exist! 

Any noun anywhere in the sentence, in any role, can be the antecedent of a pronoun, as long as the noun is not in the possessive form. It doesn't matter whether the noun is the subject, the object of a verb, or the object of a prepositional phrase.

Shalom, iamlamad.

Wrong "rule," bro'. It's not about the antecedent; it's about the object of a preposition being used for a SUBJECT! Tell me THAT'S okay! It is NOT okay, not in English and not in Hebrew.

[iamlamad]

17 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, iamlamad.

Wrong "rule," bro'. It's not about the antecedent; it's about the object of a preposition being used for a SUBJECT! Tell me THAT'S okay! It is NOT okay, not in English and not in Hebrew.

Here is what was said in a previous post:

"The 'he' will strengthen or confirm a covenant for the entire 70th week. 'HE' is a pronoun and all  pronouns must have an antecedent........it must refer back to someone earlier in the text....

That someone is the 'prince who is to come'."

Sorry, but that is an error, both in the Hebrew text and in the English translation.

In English, the antecendent CANNOT BE the noun within a prepositional phrase!"

I don't believe this is true: an antecedent can certainly be inside a prepositional phrase. 

 

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. 

Subject......verb.......object
Messiah..shall be.. cut off
The people..(of the prince).. shall come; shall destroy   (without a doubt, the prince comes with the people)
the end...shall be...flood
Wars....are...determined

note, "of the prince" is the prepositional phrase. It is NOT a subject. It was His army that did the destroying. 

²⁷ And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Subject......verb.......object
He...shall confirm...covenant

WHAT is the antecedent of He? Back up to the first noun: "of the prince."