Futurism

[Justin Adams]

I do not subscribe to any end times thing and many are suspect or just in need of the funny farm. I wand to encourage people to THINK and study and not to take the Tim's left behind stories seriously.

[Guest kingdombrat]

38 minutes ago, Charlie744 said:

Well, let’s stay with one of the most important chapters in Daniel- chapter 9! We can always discuss 12... 

But what does 9 tell you? If you get 9 wrong... don’t worry about 12!!

I know what 9 is telling me... but that is important to me only... clearly about 2.3 BILLION people / Christians believe otherwise- so what do I know!

But what is the purpose or reason -

  a) for the book of Daniel to have been given to us,           

  b) specifically, what is the purpose and reason God write 9?

Charlie

 

Daniel shows us more on average within 12 Books than Books having 100 chapters.   We see Satan can hold up Angels like Gabrial, we see Yeshua in a fiery furnace, we see references to king Alexander and the Greco armies, we see the Antichrist coming out of Egypt/Syria conflict, we see restoration of Israel, we see what we read in Revelation's, we see [Daily Sacrifice] being ended and 2 set's of days equaling 7 year Tribulation.  We see the evil one having unnatural gods and offering ungodly offerings.   It's a prophetic filled adventure within the 12 Chapters of Daniel.

[DeighAnn]

55 minutes ago, Charlie744 said:

The Anointed One was indeed cut off AND “in the midst of the week”, Now wasn’t He!

Jesus was crucified 3.5 years after being baptized by John in the Jordan This just happened to be 1/2 of the last week of Daniel’s 70 week prophecy or the last 7 years. 

Wasn't that in the 69th week?  

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

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.

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.

Daniel 9:27 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.


Did it finish the transgression for 'thy people and the holy city'?  Did it make an end of sins for 'thy people and the holy city'?  etc.? 

I do see how Christ could be considered as having accomplished those things,  but it still  didn't accomplish those things for Daniels people or the holy city, did it?  If it indeed had, wouldn't they have all turned to Christ within that last week,  no longer would be rejecting Him?  (I would love to move to another book to make this point but I will leave it here for now).   


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

69 weeks to Messiah, either His birth or His ministry.
Last week would have to include  Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself

AND WITHIN 3 1/2 YEARS of His death 

this
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,

did that take place?  and did it take place to 'thy people and the holy city'?



Are you understanding that this is jumping back to the beginning of the 70th week?

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.


Why is the 'covenant' only with 'many', only for 'one week'?  Doesn't  the New Covenant last longer than that?  Wasn't His death for the sins of the world? 

Did the death of Christ cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease for Daniels people and in the holy city?  And within 3 1/2 years of His death was it made desolate?  (don't know how to work in the 'until the consummation') 

[Charlie744]

1 minute ago, Justin Adams said:

I do not subscribe to any end times thing and many are suspect or just in need of the funny farm. I wand to encourage people to THINK and study and not to take the Tim's left behind stories seriously.

Although I must say that Benny Hinn, Jim Baker, Peter Popoff, Ken Copeland, John Hagee, David Jeremiah, Hal Lindsey, the RCC all seem to right on point.... Especially Jim Baker... I have recently purchased 42 million dollars of his end time groceries he sells on his TV show..... can not wait to open them and try them after the second coming... 

Charlie

[Guest kingdombrat]

41 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Even the Masorites were instructed to go soft on the messianic bits as the LXX was dissed just because of that. Many of the rabbis just kept their old favorite texts in the original. The Christian influence in the 1st-2nd century had the Rabbis in fits. There is not just ONE Masorite rendition either as it was constantly modified over the years until the printing presses. The eastern church seems to have the most 'unabridged' versions available. And do not forget the Targums either. Chances are, that Yeshua and the early church used the Aramaic and Septuagint (Greek) versions mostly since few people understood Hebrew.

No deed it's all debatable.   But our current Bibles are still translations of translations.   We know the ancient Hebrews wrote their materials in the Ancient Hebrew Language.  To pass the Hebrew translation for Greek still seems illogical when we have the Hebrew now in front of us.

[Justin Adams]

1 minute ago, kingdombrat said:

No deed it's all debatable.   But our current Bibles are still translations of translations.   We know the ancient Hebrews wrote their materials in the Ancient Hebrew Language.  To pass the Hebrew translation for Greek still seems illogical when we have the Hebrew now in front of us.

That is why they needed Aramaic. The Targums. Few knew Hebrew and few could read anyway. They knew Greek and Aramaic in the first century. The rabbis knew Hebrew as well. They did not all have bibles like we do. They relied on the scribes and teachers. The few that could read after the captivity, read Aramaic and some Greek. Probably less than 10% could actually read and then again even fewer could write - hence the scribes.

[DeighAnn]

26 minutes ago, Charlie744 said:

First, let me be clear.... I wish the Good Lord had given me even a 1% ability to understand languages.... My hardware does not allow for this type of software to be loaded..... From a language point of view, I am operating in DOS and I still am operating with a P-286 (pentium) ... Microsoft has told me repeatedly they will no longer support DOS..... go figure!

Anyway, I believe those who understand Hebrew are so fortunate and it is clearly a gift from God...

But whether one has the ability to read / understand Hebrew or Greek... it does NOT guarantee one has the same talents to interpret His Words and put everything together....This is NO different than many I have worked with during my career who were absolutely brilliant people.... just brilliant, but they had to stay within those 2 very white lines..... and the spacing between those 2 lines was anything but wide..... outside of their 2 white lines and they were not able to contribute ... and they also knew it... they were usually very content to staying within their "gifts".

 

This is NOT to say / suggest / imply an ANY way you are limited in both reading / understanding Hebrew OR in your having a tremendous ability to "see the big picture" as well... Just saying, understanding Hebrew does not in and of itself guarantee one knows or sees or interprets His Words perfectly, Charlie

Have you gone to Biblehub?  If not go there.  Under the search,  there is a line that reads a bunch of different stuff but the last three or so are Hebrew (if looking up an OT book, will change to Greek for NT),  Interlinear, Lexicon.  NO download of anything.  PLEASE give it a try.  I am another 0% language (almost lucky to have learned this one (and not so well)).  

[DeighAnn]

51 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Even the Masorites were instructed to go soft on the messianic bits as the LXX was dissed just because of that. Many of the rabbis just kept their old favorite texts in the original. The Christian influence in the 1st-2nd century had the Rabbis in fits. There is not just ONE Masorite rendition either as it was constantly modified over the years until the printing presses. The eastern church seems to have the most 'unabridged' versions available. And do not forget the Targums either. Chances are, that Yeshua and the early church used the Aramaic and Septuagint (Greek) versions mostly since few people understood Hebrew.

Thank God for the leading of the Holy Spirit.  He gives what we need when He wants us to have it and takes us where we need to go to find it.  

[Justin Adams]

6 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

the Hebrew now in front of us

The Hebrew or Masoretic text was doctored about the 2nd century. It is NOT original Hebrew. There are a few fragments of the original and much work has been done with the Aleppo texts, but as for original Hebrew. None. There are just a few partial fragments of the original Hebrew. The LXX is the most recent translation from Hebrew (earlier that we have) to Greek. Thus we can see where the Masoretic text differs by reverse engineering it all.

[Guest kingdombrat]

5 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

That is why they needed Aramaic. The Targums. Few knew Hebrew and few could read anyway. They knew Greek and Aramaic in the first century. The rabbis knew Hebrew as well. They did not all have bibles like we do. They relied on the scribes and teachers. The few that could read after the captivity, read Aramaic and some Greek. Probably less than 10% could actually read and then again even fewer could write - hence the scribes.

Look at Isaiah, factually written in Hebrew/Aramaic 1200 years before the Language of Latin Vulgate existed, but you can find Latin Vulgate words in an Ancient Text's translation [which is IMPOSSIBLE to do].

 

Much of why I use the Tanakh over the Septuagant which includes Latin Vulgate additions.

Edited March 24, 2021 by kingdombrat