Comment On Current Debate

[Genevanpreacher]

Alan? Maybe we should call it a "scott"? Or maybe an "alan"?

There is such a gap in these two sets of doctrine, somewhere between the ear sections?

 (jes' a funnin')

[Alan]

Ha Ha Ha !

So much truth that it was funny.

[Covenanter]

The unbridgeable gap is between the Scripture itself & an interpretation that sees 350 plus weeks between week 69 & 70. 

No amount of semantics can insert a great gulf between 69 & 70. 

[Alimantado]

If Invicta's not a fan of gaps, why did he decide to insert two mammoth 50,000-pixels-long gaps in his post? I thought Firefox had crashed. Invicta, sort your formatting out.

[Invicta]

If Invicta's not a fan of gaps, why did he decide to insert two mammoth 50,000-pixels-long gaps in his post? I thought Firefox had crashed. Invicta, sort your formatting out.

Good point.

I did try to delete the gaps but they just came back each time.  I think it must  be part of this merging problem some have commented on.

I don't know how the gaps got there in the first place.

God Bless

David

[Jim_Alaska]

The unbridgeable gap is between the Scripture itself & an interpretation that sees 350 plus weeks between week 69 & 70. 

No amount of semantics can insert a great gulf between 69 & 70. 

For semantics this is true Ian, but with God ALL things are possible.  Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. God is not bound by what we can understand.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Jim_Alaska
spelling

[Genevanpreacher]

For semantics this is true Ian, but with God ALL things are possible.  Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. God is not bound by what we can understand.

No, but God is not a man that he should lie either.

If the Lord meant a gap, he would have said a gap. He mentioned the great 'gulf' inbetween Abe's bosom and the richman's abode didn't he? 

God is a precise God.

[Covenanter]

The unbridgeable gap is between the Scripture itself & an interpretation that sees 350 plus weeks between week 69 & 70. 

No amount of semantics can insert a great gulf between 69 & 70. 

For semantics this is true Ian, but with God ALL things are possible.  Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. God is not bound by what we can understand.

It is, of course, impossible for God to lie. 

We need to be careful with God's prophecies & promises, & their fulfilment. In the case, the simple arithmetic - 69 followed by 70 - is clear, both in the prophecy & the fulfilment. There is room for discussion about the start point, & whether the 69 week leads up to the baptism of Jesus or his triumphal entry, but those points do not affect the discussion significantly. Either way, the 70 weeks ends a few years after Calvary - 3 1/2 or 7. 

Bro. Scott has made many posts asserting a gap between 69 & 70,  insisting that the grammatical details of the prophecy require a gap.

e.g.  And I am just as sure that there is a "gap," not based upon the teaching of the Brethren or upon the authority of silence, but upon the authority of the Holy Spirit's arranged "betweeness," that is -- in that God the Holy Spirit arranged for the first 69 "weeks" to be directly mentioned in Daniel 9:25, in that God the Holy Spirit arranged for the 70th and final week to be directly mention in Daniel 9:27, and in that God the Holy Spirit arranged for Daniel 9:26 and all of its prophesied events to be between the two.

Does the fact that verse 26 comes between 25 & 27 require all the events, including the destruction, to occur before week 70, thus forcing a gap of at least 5 weeks or 35 years? Or are we returning to the events immediately following week 69. The simple positioning of the verses does not imply a gap. Words are necessarily sequential, but the ideas expressed may not be. We must not forget verse 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.

That is a wonderful prophecy of our Lord Jesus Christ & his saving work at Calvary. Notice the word FINISH.  What was Jesus' final great shout from the cross? 

All that remained was for Jesus to confirm the covenant with many of his people Israel all who repented at the preaching of his saving work. As Peter proclaimed in Acts 3:

22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Those who will not hear, but reject the covenant, will be destroyed - as Gabriel prophesied. The blessings of the saving work of Messiah are spelled out in Dan. 9:24, as are the consequences for rejecting the Messiah in vs. 26 & 27, & in Jesus' Olivet prophecy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

“And” does not imply a sequence of events, but normally refers to related events which may be sequential or concurrent.

The coordinating conjunction “and” does not automatically indicate “a sequence of events.”  It is a coordinating conjunction.  As such, it indicates the coordination between two grammatical elements, that they are in some fashion related to one another.  This coordination (or relationship) may be in different forms depending upon the context.  However, one of those forms certainly is that of “sequential progression.”  In fact, two of the dictionary definitions for the coordinating conjunction “and” are as follows: “5. As a consequence or result” and “6. Then; following this.”  Now, these are only two of the ten dictionary definitions.  However, these clearly indicate that the coordinating conjunction can indeed indicate a sequential relationship.

 

The Greek words translated "and" have many other meanings according to the context. 

And that's before we start on the Hebrew. Thanks to the Blue Letter Bible with Strong's numbering. 

For example - Two different words are translated "and" in Mark 10:32-36

"de" which opens verses 32 & 36 The KJV translates Strongs G1161 in the following manner: but (1,237x), and (934x), now (166x),then (132x), also (18x), yet (16x), yea (13x), so (13x), moreover (13x), nevertheless (11x), for (4x),even (3x), misc (10x), not tr (300x).

Note - not translated 300 times.   

"kai" is used is most occurrences - The KJV translates Strongs G2532 in the following manner: and (8,173x), also (514x), even (108x),both (43x), then (20x), so (18x), likewise (13x), not tr. (350x), misc (31x), vr and (1x).

Note - not translated 350 times.

None of this is at all relevant to Daniel 9:24-27, since this all concerns the Greek language, whereas Daniel 9:24-27, being in the Old Testament, was originally inspired in the Hebrew language.

 

Note the sequence of “ands” - beginning with a new paragraph - Mark 10:

32 And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, 33 Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: 34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again. 35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. 36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?

Some are concurrent, some sequential, &, in v. 35, “and” bears no relation to what Jesus has been saying.

This is the second time that Brother Day has presented this passage as an attempt to support his contention concerning the coordinating conjunction “and.”  The first time he presented it in the discussion-debate thread, and I chose to ignore it as possessing no relevancy to the matter of Daniel 9:24-27.  However, with this second presentation, I feel compelled to respond with a contextual examination of the use of the coordinating conjunction “and” at the beginning of the independent statements (clauses) in this passage.  Viewing this passage by a listing of the individual independent statements (clauses) in Mark 10:32-36, we find the following:

1.  And [sequential after the previous paragraph] they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; 
2.  And [sequential after statement #2] Jesus went before them:
3.  And [sequential after statement #3] they were amazed;
4.  And [sequential after statement #4] as they followed, they were afraid.
5.  And [sequential after statement #5] he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, saying,
       6.  Behold, we go up to Jerusalem;
       7.  And [sequential after statement #6, within Jesus’ report] the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes;
       8.  And [sequential after statement #7, within Jesus’ report] they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:
       9.  And [sequential after statement #8, within Jesus’ report] they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him:
     10.  And [sequential after statement #9, within Jesus’ report] the third day he shall rise again.
11.  And [sequential after statement #5 and the previous paragraph] James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.
12.  And [sequential after statement #11] he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?

According to the earlier context of Mark 10:17, the Lord Jesus began a journey (apparently, as per Mark 10:32, unto Jerusalem), but was stopped by the one whom we call “the rich young ruler.”  Then Jesus engaged in a conversation with this “rich young ruler.” (See Mark 10:17-22)  Following that, Jesus engaged in a conversation with his disciples about the rich entering into the kingdom of God. (See Mark 10:23-27)  Following that, Jesus answered a question that Peter presented unto Him. (See Mark 10:28-31)  Following that, Jesus reengaged his journey unto Jerusalem; therefore, the conjunction “and” at the beginning of the sentence that begins the new paragraph (at the beginning of Mark 10:32) signals a sequential progression from the events of the paragraph before it.

The next independent statement (clause) of Mark 10:32 then indicates that as the Lord Jesus and the disciples began the journey, Jesus walked more vigorously out ahead of the disciples.  Thus the conjunction “and” at the beginning of this independent statement signals a sequential progression in the events.  The next independent statement (clause) of Mark 10:32 then indicates that in response to the Lord’s more vigorous walking out ahead of them, the disciples began to be “amazed.”  Thus the conjunction “and” at the beginning of this independent statement also signals a sequential progression in the events.  The next independent statement (clause) of Mark 10:32 then indicates that as the disciples continued to follow after the Lord’s vigorous travel pace, they transitioned from being “amazed” to being “afraid.”  Thus the conjunction “and” at the beginning of this independent statement also signals a sequential progression in the events.  The next independent statement (clause) of Mark 10:32 then indicates that the Lord responded to the disciples fear by stopping to present a revelation concerning what was about to “happen unto Him.” (See also Matthew 20:17)  Thus the conjunction “and” at the beginning of this independent statement also signals a sequential progression in the events. 

In Mark 10:33-34 we then find the Biblical record of our Lord Jesus’ revelation and report unto the disciple, presented grammatical as a quotation of the Lord.  The first independent statement (clause) of this quotation does not begin with the conjunction “and,” but with the verb “behold.”  However, every other independent statement (clause) of our Lord’s quoted revelation and report does begin with the conjunction “and” (#7-10 on our listing above of the individual independent statements).  Furthermore, for each of these four independent statements (clauses) of our Lord’s quoted revelation and report, the conjunction “and” at the beginning of the statement (clause) signals a sequential progression concerning the events that the Lord was revealing and reporting.

Then Mark 10:35 begins a new paragraph, wherein James and John seek to ask a favor of the Lord for themselves.  Thus the conjunction “and” at the beginning of the first independent statement (clause) of this new paragraph, as presented in Mark 10:35, signals a sequential progression from the events of the previous paragraph.  Mark 10:36 then records that after James and John made their request for a favor, the Lord asked them concerning what favor they would desire Him to do for them.  Thus the conjunction “and” at the beginning of this independent statement (clause) of Mark 10:36 also signals a sequential progression in the events.

In fact, throughout this passage every time that the coordinating conjunction “and” is found at the beginning of an independent statement (clause), it actually signals a sequential progression in the events.  Even so, whereas Brother Day sought to provide this example as an argument against my understanding for the use of the conjunction “and” at the beginning of the independent statements (clauses) in Daniel 9:26-27, this example actually supports my position, rather than opposes it.

 

I'm not sure that the Holy Spirit follows the same rules of grammar that you & I were taught. My school was founded in 1553, 58 years before the KJV was completed. I would have been in trouble for all those “ands” especially beginning paragraphs & sentences with “and.”

I have already responded to this as follows:

It is true that the rules of English grammar forbid the use of common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences in formal writing.  However, the language in which God the Holy Spirit inspired the Holy Scriptures was not English.  Rather, the original languages of Holy Spirit inspiration were Hebrew (for the Old Testament) and Greek (for the New Testament).  Now, in both Hebrew and Greek it is grammatically acceptable and common to use a common conjunction at the beginning of sentences.  Even so, out of reverence for Holy Spirit inspiration and for the sake of translational accuracy, the translators of the King James translation included these conjunctions at the beginning of sentences (and even paragraphs) in their translation.

So then, it is true that the customary English grammar rule concerning formal English writing, that a sentence should not begin with a common conjunction, is not followed in the King James translation of Biblical Scripture.  However, it is both accepted and common to employ the common conjunction at the beginning of an English sentence in non-formal English writing.  Furthermore, when this occurs, that common conjunction at the beginning of the sentence possesses a regular and recognizable grammatical meaning, which is also true when such occurs in Biblical Scripture.  However, in the King James translation of the Biblical Scriptures, conjunctions are commonly found at the beginning of independent sentences, not because Biblical Scripture is considered non-formal writing, but in order to maintain translational accuracy from the original, Holy Spirit inspired Hebrew and Greek writings.

 

If I were “correcting” it as a grammatical exercise, I would write: 

32 They were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them. They were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. So he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, 33 Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles. 34 They shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: but the third day he shall rise again. 

35 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. 36 He said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?

I myself would NEVER dare to engage in this “exercise,” for it would require me to “take away” words from the Holy Scriptures that God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired to be included in the precise grammatical arrangement that He intended.  I do not believe that I possess any authority from God so to “take away” from the words that the Holy Spirit inspired.  Nor do I believe that I know better than the Holy Spirit, such that I might “correct” His grammatical arrangements.  Rather, I believe that every single word (including the conjunction "and" at the beginning of independent statements-sentences) which God the Holy Spirit inspired in the precise grammatical arrangement wherein He inspired it possesses precise significance for that which He intended to communicate within God's Holy Word.  I WILL NOT engage in an exercise that requires me to make changes thereto.

[Alan]

Pastor Markle said:

"I myself would NEVER dare to engage in this “exercise,” for it would require me to “take away” words from the Holy Scriptures that God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired to be included in the precise grammatical arrangement that He intended.  I do not believe that I possess any authority from God so to “take away” from the words that the Holy Spirit inspired.  Nor do I believe that I know better than the Holy Spirit, such that I might “correct” His grammatical arrangements.  Rather, I believe that every single word (including the conjunction "and" at the beginning of independent statements-sentences) which God the Holy Spirit inspired in the precise grammatical arrangement wherein He inspired it possesses precise significance for that which He intended to communicate within God's Holy Word.  I WILL NOT engage in an exercise that requires me to make changes thereto."

Amen and amen. The Holy Spirit is the author of the scriptures and the KJV translators were correct in the useage of the word, "and" in the various locations among the scriptures. Pastor Markle, I appreciate your willingness to adhere to the scriptures as written and will not change the scriptures to fit your own interpretation as many people so in the age.

I read the above information of the word, "and," as it appears in Daniel 9:24-27 and in Mark and agree with you completely. I feel the information concerning the word 'and' given by Covenanter was to miss-lead this study, and / or, confuse the passage and scriptual interpretation. As you brought out, the passages in Mark have no relevancy to the interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27.

Covenanter,

Please forgive me Covenanter for being so blunt; but truthful. I speak the following in loving truth. I really believe that either you cannot rightly divide  the scriptures or you are posting a lot of irrevelant material on purpose as you cannot honestly prove your contention. Pastor Markle has not only proved his contention that the 70th week in Daniel 9:24-27 positively points to the 7 Year Tribulation Period and you are bringing up total irrevealant material constantly, and repeatedly, to either deceive, or to show your ignorance of plain scripture. The reason that Pastor Markle has to devote time and deal on the grammer issue so much is due to your unwilliness to believe the plain truth of Daniel 9:24-27 and its scriptural relationship to the 7 Year Tribulation Period. Your have turned this debate into an intellectual circus in order to try and confuse the truth.

Alan

Edited August 18, 2015 by Alan
spelling

[John81]

Pastor Markle has not only proved his contention that the 70th week in

Daniel 9:24-27

positively points to the 7 Year Tribulation Period

Alan

Could someone put this in a simple post as I find this thread to be extremely difficult to follow with the long postings and the way some of them are formatted?

[Genevanpreacher]

Could someone put this in a simple post as I find this thread to be extremely difficult to follow with the long postings and the way some of them are formatted

I wish someone could clean up all the pure maple syrup coming out of Alan's 'brother scott worship' that he keeps installing in every discussion on OB where Bro. Scott opens his keyboard and posts, usually some long drawn out post that puts me to sleep before he gets to the point.

Please. If you have support for a post, please try to keep it respectable and not so gushy here Alan.

And Bro. Scott, I respect your opinion, but you do understand that when Covenanter used Greek to explain Daniel, it was for one of two or more reasons - 1. he made a mistake (like most humans can do), or 2. He was thinking that this section was in Aramaic, since not all of Daniel was written in Hebrew, or 3. He WAS talking about the NT here and using it as an example of the English?

Here you are quoted as saying - "None of this is at all relevant to Daniel 9:24-27, since this all concerns the Greek language, whereas Daniel 9:24-27, being in the Old Testament, was originally inspired in the Hebrew language."

You might read up on this a bit yourself. Yes, Daniel 9:24-27 was in Hebrew, but the majority of Daniel was Aramaic.

It might be polite to double check with Ian before you lambast him this way.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Genevanpreacher

[Alan]

Maple Syrup? Gushy? 'brother scott worship.' Aw, come on now.

Truth is truth. I will back completely anybody who stands for the truth. Especially in this thread. Somebod needs to encourage Pastor Scott. The opposition that he has received from you brethren is tremendous and I decided to encourage him to stand for the truth of Daniel 9:24-27 in the face of the intense opposition that he has received.

[Genevanpreacher]

Oh. Ok.

[Alan]