Prophecy Debate on Daniel 9

[Pastor Matt]

The debators: @Pastor Scott Markle & @Covenanter  (Everyone else will just have viewing privileges) 
Topic: Prophecy on Daniel 9
Length: 2 Months (Due to Pastor Markle's ability to post once per week.)

Debate Rules

1. No name calling (No accusations of heresy).
2. No copying and pasting from sources around the internet. (You can copy from your own posts on OB).
3. Each persons begins with opening remarks.
4. After opening remarks. Opening discussions will begin.
5. Can't post back to back comments. Must wait for opposing party to post.
6. Topics can't be edited in anyway after posting.

 

Any other suggestions? If both will now agree, I can set this forum up and we can begin. Thank you. We look forward to following this debate.

 

Edited March 31, 2015 by BroMatt

[Covenanter]

That's OK by me. Thanks fpr setting it up.

 

[Pastor Matt]

One other question I would have is, would you rather one long thread/post, or have it broken up in a few threads?

[Covenanter]

One thread at least to begin

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

I am accepting of the above boundaries.  I also agree that one thread is acceptable to begin.  For me, my opening post would simply be a re-posting of the posting with which I started my Daniel 9 thread.

[Pastor Matt]

Okay, you both should have access to the debate forum now. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. 

[Alan]

Looking forward to learn from this debate on Daniel 9.

[Alimantado]

Hi

A bit late to this but since the discussion will be progressing slowly perhaps there's still time to consider the following:

• I wonder whether, at the beginning of the debate, it might be worth posting a link to the the last time this subject was 'officially' debated on OB, back in 2006. Granted it wasn't a debate about Daniel 9 exclusively but it did go into it. I've very briefly looked at that debate and sadly it looks like some of the posts have been truncated--perhaps a result of one of the software migrations?
• I wonder if it would be worth specifying as a rule whether the debators must stick to the KJV or whether they will be free to base arguments on underlying texts/translations. I'm referring to arguments along the lines of "the English word means X but the Hebrew means Y, therefore Y", or "the English word means only X but the underlying Hebrew word can also mean Y and Z, therefore Y and Z". I suggest this because it occasionally becomes a point of contention during discussions on OB and therefore even if Pastor Markle and Covenantor agree on their method (and I think they do), it would clarify their stance for readers.

Ta

Carl

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Concerning Brother "Alimantado's" first point -- I myself am completely ignorant concerning the 2006 debate, for I was not yet a member of Online Baptist at that time.

Concerning Brother "Alimantado's" second point -- I myself am certainly willing to accept references unto the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture, and I myself desire to have the freedom to do so in my own case at times.  Indeed, I certainly believe in the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Greek and Hebrew texts of God's Holy Word, from which the Lord our God has graciously allowed a perfectly accurate translation into my native language of English.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastor Scott Markle]

The debators: @Pastor Scott Markle & @Covenanter  (Everyone else will just have viewing privileges) 
Topic: Prophecy on Daniel 9
Length: 2 Months (Due to Pastor Markle's ability to post once per week.)

Debate Rules

6.  Topics can't be edited in anyway after posting.

​Brother Matt,

Your rule #6 indicates that we cannot edit our postings.  With this rule I agreed, and thus with it I have no dispute.  However, I just noticed that the "edit" function does appear to be available in the debate forum.  The way that I understood the "cannot" of rule #6 was that this "edit" function would not even be available.  If that was indeed your intent, then there may need to be "a fix" made to the forum.  On the other hand, if the "cannot" of rule #6 simply was to be applied through the "honor system," then be assured that I have every intention to comply (even though my OCD becomes quite troubled whenever I notice a spelling or grammatical error in my previous postings).

Edited April 1, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Covenanter]

Typos could obviously be a problem - e.g I have posted 7 weeks instead of years. That sort of typo isn't indicated by the spell chequer. We need to be charitable & not pick up on such typos. 

The prohibition of editing may occasionally leave confusing errors in place, I would be happy with editing if strikeout were an option, so the edit is clear. I will have to work in WORD, to get all the required edit functions. 

At present I only have the first 8 edit functions. No indent & no quote. 

[Pastor Matt]

If @Pastor Scott Markle agrees, I have no problem with Strikeouts when edits take place.

Quotes are not on the editor, but rather in each posts. As far only have limited functions, none of those features has been touched, it must be something with your browser.

Edited April 5, 2015 by BroMatt

[Pastor Scott Markle]

I am comfortable with "strikeouts" being used for the purpose of editing.

I do wish to ask what might be used to signal an edit when that edit is simply an addition of a word or letter that was previously missing.  In such cases, there is nothing to "strikeout" previously in order to signal the edit.  In my own case, I have already noticed such grammatical errors in my first two postings, such as a missing being verb ("is" or "are") or a missing "s" at the end of the verb such that the verb does not match the case of the noun, etc.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle

[DaveW]

I would suggest, if you meant to put in "is not" but put only "is" then strike out the "is".

In most cases there will be a word that is operated on by the missing word - strike it and retype it and the missing word.

There may still be some awkward ones. 

[MountainChristian]

I a word

I forgot a word