Comment On Current Debate

[Invicta]

The word Flood translated from sheteph

1. Psalm 32:6 For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods (sheteph)  of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him.

2. Dan 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 (sheteph), and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

3. Dan 11:22 And with the arms of a flood (sheteph) shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

4. Nah 1:8 But with an overrunning flood (sheteph) he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies.

5. Job 38:25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters (sheteph), or a way for the lightning of thunder;

6. Pro 27:4 Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous (sheteph); but who is able to stand before envy?

The word Flood translated from nahar.

Dan 10:4 And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river (nahar), which is Hiddekel;

Isa 59:19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a river (nahar), the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.

nahar is used 120 times

Being two different words and a word that Daniel himself used in chapter 10, could you two men please explain why you reject the idea it is water and accept the idea it is people? Also how much would it change your doctrines if its water and not people?

 

 

 

You third point gives you the answer.

[Covenanter]

The word Flood translated from sheteph

1. Psalm 32:6 For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods (sheteph)  of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him.

2. Dan 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 (sheteph), and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

3. Dan 11:22 And with the arms of a flood (sheteph) shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

4. Nah 1:8 But with an overrunning flood (sheteph) he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies.

5. Job 38:25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters (sheteph), or a way for the lightning of thunder;

6. Pro 27:4 Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous (sheteph); but who is able to stand before envy?

The word Flood translated from nahar.

Dan 10:4 And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river (nahar), which is Hiddekel;

Isa 59:19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a river (nahar), the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.

nahar is used 120 times

Being two different words and a word that Daniel himself used in chapter 10, could you two men please explain why you reject the idea it is water and accept the idea it is people? Also how much would it change your doctrines if its water and not people?

 

Interesting question, MC. The Blue letter Bible - with Strongs numbers - shows  number of words translated "flood" & that the same words are translated variously, sometimes figuratively. 

Jerusalem is about 2,500 ft above sea level. Such a flood would destroy most of the inhabited earth. Peter reminds the scoffing Jews that the world was overflowed by the flood, but that the present world  will be destroyed by fire. 

The context lends itself better to an overwhelming army & not water. 

How & why the translators translated the same word different ways largely depends on the context. The extent to which they interpreted as they translated would make a useful PhD research project. 

I think we should interpret/understand by firstly a simple reading, then consider the context, then look up cross references & how a passage or related passages are understood by Jesus & the Apostles in the Gospels & Epistles. (Before we try to interpret Revelation.)

 

[Invicta]

Agreed, Ian,

 

Today we may say that there is a flood of immigrants pouring into Europe.  The word always had a literal and a figurative meaning.  Cameron said recently that there was a swarm of immigrants coming in.  He was attacked because they said he was calling them insects.  Nonsense.  He was using the term figuratively.  We often use words in such a way without realising it.  Scripture also uses words in this way.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

I perceived how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth except the Scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue.

William Tyndale

No complicated grammar needed.  The scriptures are plain to those who read them, the plouhgboy as well as the king of England

Brother “Invicta,”

This particular argument has already been presented against my use of and focus upon precise grammatical and contextual analysis in Bible study.  Previously, I responded to it by presenting the reasons that precise grammatical and contextual analysis is necessary in Bible study.  In this posting I wish to respond by revealing the reasons that the above quotation by Brother William Tyndale does not actually counteract my use of and focus upon precise grammatical and contextual analysis in Bible study, as follows:

1.  In his quote above, Brother William Tyndale was not speaking at all concerning the matter of grammatical analysis.  Rather, as per the prepositional phrase, “in their mother tongue,” Brother Tyndale was speaking against the use of the foreign language of Latin in Bible study, and was speaking for the use of the “mother tongue” (language) of English in Bible study.

2.  As per the prepositional phrase, “in their mother tongue,” Brother William Tyndale’s quote above actually implies the need for English grammar, since English grammar is a foundational part of the “mother tongue” of English.

3.  Concerning the “ploughboy” -- English grammar is taught to 8-13 year olds in the 3^rd-8^th grades, which is approximately the age that Brother Tyndale’s literate “ploughboy” would have been (if he were not actually older).  Indeed, the English grammar understanding that I have been employing throughout my Bible studies at the present time is that very English grammar understanding that I learned as an 8-13 year old in the 3^rd-8^th grades of school.  As such, English grammar is not “rocket science” (else it could not be taught to such young students).  The problem of English grammar ignorance today (and its resulting reading comprehension ignorance) is not that the subject is so very complicated, but that our educational systems have failed even to teach well the basics of reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic.

4.    Concerning your statement, “No complicated grammar needed” -- Without English grammar there is no comprehensible sentence in English, and without a comprehensible sentence there is no comprehensible communication in English.  Actually, English grammar is absolutely necessary for clear English communication and comprehension.  Furthermore, how complicated the grammar may be is precisely determined by the simplicity or complexity of the grammatical sentence that is being communicated.  A five word sentence is somewhat simple and will have a more simple grammatical analysis.  On the other hand, a twenty-five word sentence is somewhat complex and will have a more complex grammatical analysis.  The individual who engages in the grammatical analysis of any given sentence does not create the complexity of the grammar and analysis.  Rather, that individual simply reveals the simplicity or complexity of the grammar in the sentence as it was originally communicated by the communicator (which for God’s Holy Word is God the Holy Spirit Himself).

[Pastor Scott Markle]

The problem comes when grammatical considerations are used to impose an interpretation on Scripture. 

Actually, by its very definition accurate grammatical analysis cannot impose anything whatsoever upon a given sentence or text.  Rather, by its very definition accurate grammatical analysis only draws out of a given sentence or text that grammatical arrangement and meaning that is present by the purpose of the communicator of that given sentence or text (which for God's Holy Word is God the Holy Spirit Himself).

Scripture says 70 weeks - 490 years

And Brother Scott Markle agrees fully with the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures on the matter.  He just does not assume or imply the addition of the word "consecutive" between the word "seventy" and the word "weeks."

Scripture says 70 weeks - 490 years - but Bro. Scott uses grammar to interpret the simple & obvious meaning - which is the 70th week immediately following the 69th week - to insert hundreds of weeks - thousands of years into the passage. 

Actually, there is no precise statement by the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit anywhere within the passage that the 70th week "immediately" follows the 69th week.  This is actually a human assumption that Brother Day claims for the passage although it is not precisely stated, which by definition is "imposing" an idea upon the passage.

"And" may simply link equal words with no time sequence - e.g

"I want fish and chips, and tomato ketchup, and a pickled onion.

That is grammatically correct.

Or "and" may imply a sequence - usually linking clauses containing a verb - e.g.

"Go to the shop and buy bread and milk and come straight home." 

That is also grammatically correct, although Brother Day should have been more precise to say -- "usually linking clauses containing an action verb."  Furthermore, when the coordinating conjunction "and" is located at the beginning of an independent statement (sentence-clause), by definition that independent statement (sentence-clause) contains a verb (although it may not always be an action verb, but could be a linking verb).

And may be used to introduce a new but usually related thought - e.g.

"And after tea I will help you with your homework."

With the example that he provides for this point, Brother Day does not include any context.  However, by the statement itself we might conclude that the previous statement in the context mentioned something about "having tea."  As such, since in this example the coordinating conjunction "and" is joined with the prepositional phrase "after tea," this conjunction would indeed signal a sequential thought to that which had been presented previously.

I strongly recommend reading the Scripture for the clear meaning before trying to interpret. 

I fully agree, and the very means by which an individual can glean the "clear meaning" of any given statement in Scripture (as well as in any other communication) is through the grammar.  In fact, without the grammar there is no "clear meaning" in any communication. 

We need, of course, to consider the context, spiritual application, & the way the NT writers use the OT. 

It is interesting that with this statement you present the need in Bible study for the following three elements -- (1) context; (2) spiritual application; (3) the use of Old Testament by the New Testament.  However, you completely neglect to mention "grammatical analysis."  Again, you reveal your disregard and disrespect for the Holy Spirit inspired grammar of any given statement in God's Holy Word.

[Covenanter]

 

Actually, by its very definition accurate grammatical analysis cannot impose anything whatsoever upon a given sentence or text.  Rather, by its very definition accurate grammatical analysis only draws out of a given sentence or text that grammatical arrangement and meaning that is present by the purpose of the communicator of that given sentence or text (which for God's Holy Word is God the Holy Spirit Himself).

And Brother Scott Markle agrees fully with the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures on the matter.  He just does not assume or imply the addition of the word "consecutive" between the word "seventy" and the word "weeks."

Actually, there is no precise statement by the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit anywhere within the passage that the 70th week "immediately" follows the 69th week.  This is actually a human assumption that Brother Day claims for the passage although it is not precisely stated, which by definition is "imposing" an idea upon the passage.

.........

I fully agree, and the very means by which an individual can glean the "clear meaning" of any given statement in Scripture (as well as in any other communication) is through the grammar.  In fact, without the grammar there is no "clear meaning" in any communication. 

It is interesting that with this statement you present the need in Bible study for the following three elements -- (1) context; (2) spiritual application; (3) the use of Old Testament by the New Testament.  However, you completely neglect to mention "grammatical analysis."  Again, you reveal your disregard and disrespect for the Holy Spirit inspired grammar of any given statement in God's Holy Word.

The problem is not that I do not recognise grammatical considerations that Bro. Scott does, but you are using your grammar to challenge & change what is obvious from a simple reading of the inspired grammar of Scripture.

We should not need  ANY analysis to prove that 70 follows 69, and if we impose grammatical analysis to "prove" that the 70th week may come hundreds of weeks after the 69th week then the inspired Word becomes meaningless.

"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" is a precise statement of time, contextually understood as 70x7 years, following the 70 years of exile, and of course including Messiah's saving ministry. 

If seventy could actually mean 70, or 100, or 350, or 1,000 weeks, then we have no basis for understanding Scripture. The Holy Spirit inspired seventy weeks which takes us to 3 1/2 years after Calvary, when Jesus completed the atoning work prophesied in verse 24. During those 3 1/2 years, the covenant was confirmed by the Apostolic Gospel. There may be other times when numbers are indefinite, but not here. 

It is you who reveals your disregard and disrespect for the Holy Spirit inspired grammar. You are using "grammar" to change the clear meaning. Daniel was confident that 70 years meant 70 years, & prayed accordingly. The Jews did return from Babylon, & rebuild Jerusalem. And Messiah came as prophesied. 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

We should not need  ANY analysis to prove that 70 follows 69, and if we impose grammatical analysis to "prove" that the 70th week may come hundreds of weeks after the 69th week then the inspired Word becomes meaningless.

69 + 1 = 70 is not a meaningless equation.

Question #1 -- In what verse did God the Holy Spirit specifically reference the first 69 "weeks" of years?

Answer #1 -- Daniel 9:25.

Question #2 -- In what verse did God the Holy Spirit specifically reference the 70th and final "week" of years?

Answer #2 -- Daniel 9:27.

Question #3 -- So then, what about the verse in between those two, that is -- Daniel 9:26; are the events revealed in this verse a part of the first 69 "weeks" of years?

Answer #3 -- No, for God the Holy Spirit specifically inspired the phrase, "And after threescore and two weeks," (which according to Daniel 9:24 is the latter 62 "weeks" of years of the first 69 "weeks" of years) to begin this verse.

Question #4 -- So then, are the events of Daniel 9:26 a part of the 70th and final "week" of years?

Answer #4 -- God the Holy Spirit did not inspire in Daniel 9:26 any specific indication that this is so (although Brother Ian Day does indicate this upon human assumption, regardless of the fact that God the Holy Spirit did not inspire any indication so).

Question #5 -- So then, do the events of Daniel 9:26 fall between the end of the first 69 "weeks" of years and the beginning of the 70th and final "week" of years?

Answer #5 -- God the Holy Spirit did specifically reference the end of the first 69 "weeks" of years in Daniel 9:25, and did specifically reference the beginning, middle, and end of the 70th and final "week" of years in Daniel 9:27, and did specifically arrange for Daniel 9:26 and its revealed events to be placed between verse 25 and verse 27.

[Invicta]

69 + 1 = 70 is not a meaningless equation.

Question #1 -- In what verse did God the Holy Spirit specifically reference the first 69 "weeks" of years?

Answer #1 -- Daniel 9:25.

Question #2 -- In what verse did God the Holy Spirit specifically reference the 70th and final "week" of years?

Answer #2 -- Daniel 9:27.

Question #3 -- So then, what about the verse in between those two, that is -- Daniel 9:26; are the events revealed in this verse a part of the first 69 "weeks" of years?

Answer #3 -- No, for God the Holy Spirit specifically inspired the phrase, "And after threescore and two weeks," (which according to Daniel 9:24 is the latter 62 "weeks" of years of the first 69 "weeks" of years) to begin this verse.

Question #4 -- So then, are the events of Daniel 9:26 a part of the 70th and final "week" of years?

Answer #4 -- God the Holy Spirit did not inspire in Daniel 9:26 any specific indication that this is so (although Brother Ian Day does indicate this upon human assumption, regardless of the fact that God the Holy Spirit did not inspire any indication so).

Question #5 -- So then, do the events of Daniel 9:26 fall between the end of the first 69 "weeks" of years and the beginning of the 70th and final "week" of years?

Answer #5 -- God the Holy Spirit did specifically reference the end of the first 69 "weeks" of years in Daniel 9:25, and did specifically reference the beginning, middle, and end of the 70th and final "week" of years in Daniel 9:27, and did specifically arrange for Daniel 9:26 and its revealed events to be placed between verse 25 and verse 27.

Bro Scott

I am sorry to disagree with you but Dan 9.26 clearly refers to the 70th week. 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 69 weeks is 70 weeks.

I agree that grammar is not taught too well in English.  My wife says she understood English Grammar from her French language  teaching as the French teach Grammar first.  When we first married my wife taught a French evening class.  There was also a class taught by a French lady, but a number transferred to my wife's class as they could not cope with starting to learn the language by studying grammar.

English grammar has obviously changed since 1611.  You have earlier mentioned that the 1611 starts sentences with  'And'.  The KJV does this frequently so it must have been the grammar at the time.  It also uses ', and' frequently and we do not use a comma as well as 'and' as and replaces the comma. 

French Grammar has also changed over the years. Pasteur Baughman in Laon, who did a lot of work in updating the Ostervald Bible, says the changes were mostly in accents and grammar.  I don't know about the grammar, but I have before me a booklet that gives facsimiles of some old documents. The one I am looking at is an order for the arrest of "Followers of the pretended protestant religion."

The title of the document is ARREST DU CONSEIL D'ESTAT.   In current French, ARREST would be Arrét, the accent replacing the 'S'  and ESTAT would be état, again the accent replacing the 's'.  (United States is ÉTATS UNIS.)  The date of the document is 1685.

Languages are dynamic and grow up and change with use. I say to my wife that French  cannot be a natural language as it has too many rules.  Someone must have sat down at some time and written them.  While she disagrees, she said from her learning of Latin, she thought is could not have been the language of the common people as it was too complicated.

God Bless.

David

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2015 by Invicta
Additional text

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Bro Scott

I am sorry to disagree with you but Dan 9.26 clearly refers to the 70th week. 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 69 weeks is 70 weeks.

Brother David,

Your declaration that "after 69 weeks is 70 weeks" is humanly assumed; however, it is not specifically stated in the text of Daniel 9:26.  In fact, if I am correct in that there is a "gap" of time between the end of the 69th "week" of years and the beginning of the 70th "week" of years, then Daniel 9:26-27 is worded and arranged precisely in accord with this.  Daniel 9:26 clearly indicates by its opening prepositional phrase that its prophesied events follow after the ending of the first 69 "weeks" of years.  However, Daniel 9:26 does not make a single, direct reference to the 70th "week" of years.  In fact, the beginning of the 70th "week" of years is not directly mentioned until the beginning of Daniel 9:27, which then proceeds directly to mention the beginning, middle, and end of that "week" of years.  Even so, the facts of that which is actually stated in Scripture under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit is just as I presented above in my "answer #5" --

Answer #5 -- God the Holy Spirit did specifically reference the end of the first 69 "weeks" of years in Daniel 9:25, and did specifically reference the beginning, middle, and end of the 70th and final "week" of years in Daniel 9:27, and did specifically arrange for Daniel 9:26 and its revealed events to be placed between verse 25 and verse 27.

I agree that grammar is not taught too well in English.  My wife says she understood English Grammar from her French language  teaching as the French teach Grammar first.  When we first married my wife taught a French evening class.  There was also a class taught by a French lady, but a number transferred to my wife's class as they could not cope with starting to learn the language by studying grammar.

English grammar has obviously changed since 1611.  You have earlier mentioned that the 1611 starts sentences with  'And'.  The KJV does this frequently so it must have been the grammar at the time.  It also uses ', and' frequently and we do not use a comma as well as 'and' as and replaces the comma. 

Indeed, English is a living language; therefore, its spelling, grammar, etc. rules have "evolved" over time.  However, the King James translators did not include the common conjunctions at the beginning of the sentences in the translation in accord with English grammar rules.  Rather, the King James translators included the common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences in the translation out of reverence for Holy Spirit inspiration and for the sake of translational accuracy, since the Holy Spirit inspired Hebrew and Greek Scriptures include these common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences.  Furthermore, in the English translation those common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences do possess grammatical meaning.  They are not irrelevant to the Holy Spirit inspired communication of the Scriptures.

Ok, the Online Baptist "program" is merging postings that I do not want merged.  Please bear with me.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Alan]

 

Brother David,

Your declaration that "after 69 weeks is 70 weeks" is humanly assumed; however, it is not specifically stated in the text of Daniel 9:26.  In fact, if I am correct in that there is a "gap" of time between the end of the 69th "week" of years and the beginning of the 70th "week" of years, then Daniel 9:26-27 is worded and arranged precisely in accord with this.  Daniel 9:26 clearly indicates by its opening prepositional phrase that its prophesied events follow after the ending of the first 69 "weeks" of years.  However, Daniel 9:26 does not make a single, direct reference to the 70th "week" of years.  In fact, the beginning of the 70th "week" of years is not directly mentioned until the beginning of Daniel 9:27, which then proceeds directly to mention the beginning, middle, and end of that "week" of years.  Even so, the facts of that which is actually stated in Scripture under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit is just as I presented above in my "answer #5" --

Answer #5 -- God the Holy Spirit did specifically reference the end of the first 69 "weeks" of years in Daniel 9:25, and did specifically reference the beginning, middle, and end of the 70th and final "week" of years in Daniel 9:27, and did specifically arrange for Daniel 9:26 and its revealed events to be placed between verse 25 and verse 27.

Indeed, English is a living language; therefore, its spelling, grammar, etc. rules have "evolved" over time.  However, the King James translators did not include the common conjunctions at the beginning of the sentences in the translation in accord with English grammar rules.  Rather, the King James translators included the common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences in the translation out of reverence for Holy Spirit inspiration and for the sake of translational accuracy, since the Holy Spirit inspired Hebrew and Greek Scriptures include these common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences.  Furthermore, in the English translation those common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences does possess grammatical meaning.  They are not irrelevant to the Holy Spirit inspired communication of the Scriptures.

Ok, the Online Baptist "program" is merging posting that I do not want merged.  Please bear with me.

Pastor Markle,

 Amen and amen.

I want to thank you for your fine exposition of Daniel and appropriate comment, "Furthermore, in the English translation those common conjuctions at the beginning of sentences does possess grammatical meaning. They are not irrevelant to the Holy Spirit inspired communication of the Scriptures."

It is refreshing indeed to hear your love for the inspired, and preserved, word of God. The King James translators were indeed correct in the usage of the 'and' conjuction. The King James translators were honest in their translation, grammatily correct and trustworthy. Every word in revelant in the KJV version (even the words in italics), and far superior to the newer version in every aspect.

May God richly bless you as you continue to bring out the correct interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27.

Alan   

Edited August 15, 2015 by Alan
took out sentance

[Invicta]

 

Brother David,

Your declaration that "after 69 weeks is 70 weeks" is humanly assumed; however, it is not specifically stated in the text of Daniel 9:26.  In fact, if I am correct in that there is a "gap" of time between the end of the 69th "week" of years and the beginning of the 70th "week" of years, then Daniel 9:26-27 is worded and arranged precisely in accord with this.  Daniel 9:26 clearly indicates by its opening prepositional phrase that its prophesied events follow after the ending of the first 69 "weeks" of years.  However, Daniel 9:26 does not make a single, direct reference to the 70th "week" of years.  In fact, the beginning of the 70th "week" of years is not directly mentioned until the beginning of Daniel 9:27, which then proceeds directly to mention the beginning, middle, and end of that "week" of years.  Even so, the facts of that which is actually stated in Scripture under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit is just as I presented above in my "answer #5" --

Answer #5 -- God the Holy Spirit did specifically reference the end of the first 69 "weeks" of years in Daniel 9:25, and did specifically reference the beginning, middle, and end of the 70th and final "week" of years in Daniel 9:27, and did specifically arrange for Daniel 9:26 and its revealed events to be placed between verse 25 and verse 27.

Indeed, English is a living language; therefore, its spelling, grammar, etc. rules have "evolved" over time.  However, the King James translators did not include the common conjunctions at the beginning of the sentences in the translation in accord with English grammar rules.  Rather, the King James translators included the common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences in the translation out of reverence for Holy Spirit inspiration and for the sake of translational accuracy, since the Holy Spirit inspired Hebrew and Greek Scriptures include these common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences.  Furthermore, in the English translation those common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences does possess grammatical meaning.  They are not irrelevant to the Holy Spirit inspired communication of the Scriptures.

Ok, the Online Baptist "program" is merging posting that I do not want merged.  Please bear with me.

I am absolutely sure that there is not a gap.  The gap was invented by the Brethren and as such is a relatively modern invention. The Brethren teaching is often based on the absence of scripture mentioning anything to the contrary. When I was in the Brethren, my dad said, "It is a very dangerous to say that because the scripture is silent on a subject, so you can teach what you like."

I should be vary wary of such modern teachings because of 1 Tim. 4:1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brother David,

Your declaration that "after 69 weeks is 70 weeks" is humanly assumed; however, it is not specifically stated in the text of Daniel 9:26.  In fact, if I am correct in that there is a "gap" of time between the end of the 69th "week" of years and the beginning of the 70th "week" of years, then Daniel 9:26-27 is worded and arranged precisely in accord with this.  Daniel 9:26 clearly indicates by its opening prepositional phrase that its prophesied events follow after the ending of the first 69 "weeks" of years.  However, Daniel 9:26 does not make a single, direct reference to the 70th "week" of years.  In fact, the beginning of the 70th "week" of years is not directly mentioned until the beginning of Daniel 9:27, which then proceeds directly to mention the beginning, middle, and end of that "week" of years.  Even so, the facts of that which is actually stated in Scripture under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit is just as I presented above in my "answer #5" --

Answer #5 -- God the Holy Spirit did specifically reference the end of the first 69 "weeks" of years in Daniel 9:25, and did specifically reference the beginning, middle, and end of the 70th and final "week" of years in Daniel 9:27, and did specifically arrange for Daniel 9:26 and its revealed events to be placed between verse 25 and verse 27.

Indeed, English is a living language; therefore, its spelling, grammar, etc. rules have "evolved" over time.  However, the King James translators did not include the common conjunctions at the beginning of the sentences in the translation in accord with English grammar rules.  Rather, the King James translators included the common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences in the translation out of reverence for Holy Spirit inspiration and for the sake of translational accuracy, since the Holy Spirit inspired Hebrew and Greek Scriptures include these common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences.  Furthermore, in the English translation those common conjunctions at the beginning of sentences does possess grammatical meaning.  They are not irrelevant to the Holy Spirit inspired communication of the Scriptures.

Ok, the Online Baptist "program" is merging posting that I do not want merged.  Please bear with me.

I am absolutely sure that there is not a gap.  The gap was invented by the Brethren and as such is a relatively modern invention. The Brethren teaching is often based on the absence of scripture mentioning anything to the contrary. When I was in the Brethren, my dad said, "It is a very dangerous to say that because the scripture is silent on a subject, so you can teach what you like."

I should be vary wary of such modern teachings because of 1 Tim. 4:1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2015 by Invicta

[Pastor Scott Markle]

I am absolutely sure that there is not a gap.  The gap was invented by the Brethren and as such is a relatively modern invention. The Brethren teaching is often based on the absence of scripture mentioning anything to the contrary. When I was in the Brethren, my dad said, "It is a very dangerous to say that because the scripture is silent on a subject, so you can teach what you like."

I should be vary wary of such modern teachings because of 1 Tim. 4:1

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.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle

[John81]

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.

I've read countless books on this and listened to numerous sermons on the topic but I've never heard this put forth like this  before. I wonder why?

This has been my main sticking point in trying to figure out the 70 weeks. At first read, it would seem the 70 weeks should flow consecutively, just as 1-69 follow one another, so should 70.

I've heard/read many twisting explanations to try and explain a gap between week 69 and 70 but never this rather simple explanation.

Thank you, I'll have to give this some attention when time allows.

[Jim_Alaska]

I have never had any dealings or associations with the Brethren, or heard any of their teaching. But I do believe that there is a gap based solely in my own studies.

[Alan]

Jim,

Amen and amen! Thank you brother Jim for your personal testimony.

As a personal testimony, when I first started to read the book of Daniel and the Revelation it seemed very logical that that was a time space between the 69th and 70th week. And, as I futher studied the issue, on my own, without Bible College training, and without any 'Brethren' teaching me, I came to the same conclusion, years ago, that  Pastor Markle is teaching on.

Until recently, I only learned that Brethren  'supposably' started this interpretation of scripture. I personally do not like the name gap; applied to it and think that the name, or phrase, 'gap' is not the best description.

Alan