Comment On Current Debate

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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?

Brother Ken,

I have not forgotten your request.  A more thorough (since you seem to appreciate this, at least a bit more than others) answer is in preparation and is forthcoming (prayerfully before the end of the week).

[Covenanter]

So, be careful how you analyse Scripture - read & understand & obey what is written. The analysis of the text has been done for us in providing the translation. 

IMO Bro Scott has lost the meaning of Dan. 9:24-27 by over-analysis. 

In my posts of August 3 & 4, I was responding to Mountain Christian's comment about the use of "and" in a general grammatical sense. I wasn't actually addressing the arguments of the debate. I was quoting what I had posted in the debate, regarding the meaning, use & significance of the word "and" as open discussion is not possible there.  

 

Bro Scott;

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.

 

Agreed - your further detailed analysis of those posts was superfluous - they were simply written to help Bro MC with his understanding of English grammar, & the Gk words translated "and."

Thanks, Geneva, I am fully aware that Daniel was written partly in Hebrew & partly in Aramaic (2:4b -7:28,) though I am not conversant with either language. Perhaps Bro Scott, you would explain in detail the Hebrew word used for "and" in the passage.

 

Bro Alan:

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 9:24-27positively 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, if you paid attention to what Bro Scott wrote, you would spell "grammar" in the accepted way. 

You are not being "truthful" but you are simple expressing your opinion. 

IMO it is Bro. Scott who has refused to address the Holy Spirit inspired words of Scripture & has instead sought to refute the plain meaning of Scripture by his use of his claimed knowledge of English grammar to turn the debate into "an intellectual circus." 

His rejection of the Word as inspired was apparent in his first post:

 

Bro Scott:

Finally, with verse 27 we come to the concluding verse of this prophetic utterance and to the specific reference to the seventieth and final “week” (7 years) of these “seventy weeks.”  The opening line of this verse indicates that some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many” ...

 

 

The KJV reads: And he shall confirm the covenant with many....

"He" not "some he" and "THE covenant" not "some covenant." 

I seek to prove what I believe & teach with reference to Scripture, both the passage under discussion & passages related to its fulfilment as recorded in the Gospel, Acts & Epistles. I have waited patiently for a response to my posting of Peter's sermon to the people of Israel:

Acts 3:24 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.

Notice Peter refers to these days. and the covenant.

 

Edited August 18, 2015 by Covenanter
format

[Pastor Scott Markle]

In my posts of August 3 & 4, I was responding to Mountain Christian's comment about the use of "and" in a general grammatical sense. I wasn't actually addressing the arguments of the debate. I was quoting what I had posted in the debate, regarding the meaning, use & significance of the word "and" as open discussion is not possible there.  

 

Agreed - your further detailed analysis of those posts was superfluous - they were simply written to help Bro MC with his understanding of English grammar, & the Gk words translated "and."

Well I must have misunderstood, because I thought that you originally presented those arguments in the discussion-debate thread (here) against my grammatical and contextual presentation concerning the use of the coordinating conjunction "and" at the beginning of all the independent statements in Daniel 9:26-27.  Furthermore, I thought that you then presented those same arguments in response to Brother Ken's ("MountainChristian") question (here) specifically concerning my understanding of the conjunction "and" in Daniel 9:26-27, as follows:

For a poorly educated man like myself, Pastor Scott seems to go out of his way to grow my understanding of English to improve my understanding of the Holy Bible.  How does understanding the English language make Pastor Scott wrong? Did "AND" at the beginning of a sentence prove his interruption [interpretation - spelling correction by Pastor Scott Markle] incorrect? I'm missing something, could one of you point it out. [emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle]

_____________________________________________________________________

IMO it is Bro. Scott who has refused to address the Holy Spirit inspired words of Scripture & has instead sought to refute the plain meaning of Scripture by his use of his claimed knowledge of English grammar to turn the debate into "an intellectual circus." 

His rejection of the Word as inspired was apparent in his first post:  Finally, with verse 27 we come to the concluding verse of this prophetic utterance and to the specific reference to the seventieth and final “week” (7 years) of these “seventy weeks.”  The opening line of this verse indicates that some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many” ...

The KJV reads: And he shall confirm the covenant with many....

"He" not "some he" and "THE covenant" not "some covenant." 

Maybe you missed it, or maybe you have simply forgotten; but this charge against me has been previously explained in this very thread a number of months ago (here), as follows:

Brother "Genevanpreacher,"

In the portion of my posting that you quoted, I employed the modifier "some" twice.  In the first instance, I employed it to modify the word "he," as per the following -- "The opening line of this verse indicates that some 'he' . . . ."  In Daniel 9:27 the pronoun "he" refers to a definitely specific individual.  However, the verse itself does not specifically define who this specific "he" is.  Furthermore, in the previous verse of Daniel 9:26, we find two possible antecedents for this pronoun "he."  Since it was not my intention in my original posting to engage in the extensive discussion required to specify the correct antecedent for this pronoun "he," I employed the modifying "some" in order to communicate both the specific definiteness of the "he" and the lack of a specific definition within the verse for the "he."

In like manner, I employed the word "some" to modify the word "covenant," as per the following -- ". . . that some 'he' will 'confirm' some 'covenant with many' . . . ."  In Daniel 9:27 the use of the definite article "the" as a modifier for the word "covenant" indicates that this covenant is a definitely specific "covenant."  However, again the verse itself does not specifically define what covenant this specific "covenant" is.  In fact, the definition for this specific "covenant" is not provided anywhere throughout the entire context of Daniel 9:24-27.  Now, I myself believe that an extended study throughout the entire context of the Book of Daniel would provide us with the means to determine the definition of this specific "covenant."  Yet since it was not my intention in my original posting to engage in that extensive study, I employed the modifying "some" in order to communicate both the specific definiteness of "the covenant" and the lack of a specific definition within the verse and the immediate context.

I suppose that I could have communicated my point more clearly if I had employed the phrase "some specific" instead of just the modifier "some."  As such, my sentence would then read, "The opening line of this verse indicates that some specific 'he' will 'confirm' some specific 'covenant with many' . . . ."   

Furthermore, I would add that when I employed the word "some" in my explanation, I did not include it within the quotations as if it were a part of the Scriptural text.  Finally, I would point out that the first dictionary definition for the adjective "some" is "1. being a certain one not specified or known."  Even so, my use of the adjective "some" in my explanation is precisely in accord with the Scriptural information that is found in Daniel 9:27.  Both the "he" and the "covenant" of the verse are singular and specific.  However, the verse itself does not specifically define who that singular, specific "he" is or what that singular, specific "covenant" is.  Further contextual analysis is required in order to discern the definition for that "he" and that "covenant" (which was not at all the purpose for my opening, introductory posting).  Indeed, I presented this further contextual analysis later in the discussion-debate thread (here), and thereby demonstrated my recognition concerning the specificity of both the "he" and the "covenant" in Daniel 9:27.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Alimantado]

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

Yeah, we wouldn't want to be too all over someone's posts, would we, GP.

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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? 

 

Yes -- specifically (1) because God the Holy Spirit arranged for Daniel 9:25 specifically to mention the ending of the first 69 "weeks" of years, and (2) because God the Holy Spirit arranged for Daniel 9:27 specifically to mention the beginning of the 70th and final "week" of years, and (3) because God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:26 and all of its prophetic utterances to be placed between verse 25 and verse 27, and (4) because God the Holy Spirit arranged for verse 26 not to make any specific reference whatsoever at all unto the 70th and final "week" of years.  Since God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:27 specifically to mention the beginning of the 70th and final "week" of years, then that which He arranged to precede that mention must necessarily come before the beginning of that 70th and final "week" of years.

Or are we returning to the events immediately following week 69. The simple positioning of the verses does not imply a gap. 

Except that my argument is not based on the "simple positioning of the verses."  Rather, it is based upon (1) the specific revelation of those verses in union with (2) the specific arrangement of those verses (as per my comments above).

 ____________________________________________________________________

I seek to prove what I believe & teach with reference to Scripture, both the passage under discussion & passages related to its fulfilment as recorded in the Gospel, Acts & Epistles. I have waited patiently for a response to my posting of Peter's sermon to the people of Israel:

Acts 3:24 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.

Notice Peter refers to these days. and the covenant.

Indeed, Brother Day, you have presented this passage a number of times throughout our discussions.  However, maybe I am simply dense; for to this day I am still unable to discern exactly the point that you are seeking to make with this passage.  If you might express more clearly and more precisely how this passage relates to the Biblical information in Daniel 9:24-27, I would be in a better position to respond with understanding.

1.  Do you believe that this passage is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of the Old Testament from Samuel forward was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

2.  Do you believe that this passage is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

3.  Do you believe that this passage is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

4.  Which specific "the covenant" do you believe that Peter was referencing in Acts 3:25?

5.  In what way do you believe that this "the covenant" reference relates precisely to that which is presented in Daniel 9:24-27?

[Genevanpreacher]

Yeah, we wouldn't want to be too all over someone's posts, would we, GP.

 

Hey! You are funny! Thanks for the laugh.

But seriously, liking someone's post is not the same as what Alan has been doing.

[Covenanter]

Hey! You are funny! Thanks for the laugh.

But seriously, liking someone's post is not the same as what Alan has been doing.

Yes - I'm glad I don't get such fulsome praise from anyone.

 

Yes -- specifically (1) because God the Holy Spirit arranged for Daniel 9:25 specifically to mention the ending of the first 69 "weeks" of years, and (2) because God the Holy Spirit arranged for Daniel 9:27 specifically to mention the beginning of the 70th and final "week" of years, and (3) because God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:26 and all of its prophetic utterances to be placed between verse 25 and verse 27, and (4) because God the Holy Spirit arranged for verse 26 not to make any specific reference whatsoever at all unto the 70th and final "week" of years.  Since God the Holy Spirit specifically arranged for Daniel 9:27 specifically to mention the beginning of the 70th and final "week" of years, then that which He arranged to precede that mention must necessarily come before the beginning of that 70th and final "week" of years.

Except that my argument is not based on the "simple positioning of the verses."  Rather, it is based upon (1) the specific revelation of those verses in union with (2) the specific arrangement of those verses (as per my comments above).

 ____________________________________________________________________

Indeed, Brother Day, you have presented this passage a number of times throughout our discussions.  However, maybe I am simply dense; for to this day I am still unable to discern exactly the point that you are seeking to make with this passage.  If you might express more clearly and more precisely how this passage relates to the Biblical information in Daniel 9:24-27, I would be in a better position to respond with understanding.

1.  Do you believe that this passage is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of the Old Testament from Samuel forward was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

2.  Do you believe that this passage is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

3.  Do you believe that this passage is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

4.  Which specific "the covenant" do you believe that Peter was referencing in Acts 3:25?

5.  In what way do you believe that this "the covenant" reference relates precisely to that which is presented in Daniel 9:24-27?

I suggest you refer to, & reply to my latest post in the debate thread, as you should find the answers there. - http://www.onlinebaptist.com/home/topic/23269-debate-prophecy-in-daniel-9/?do=findComment&comment=410276 

 

 

[Alan]

Alimantado,

Thank you very much for bringing out the truth of the matter. Anybody that helps expose the error of unscriptual beliefs, with the truth, are in some way derided.  I am making a double effort to have have grace, turn the other cheek to verbal derision, and take everything with a grain of salt.

Again, thank you very much as I do sincerely appreciate your post.

Alan

Edited August 20, 2015 by Alan
revise my post

[Genevanpreacher]

Ok. I confess. I do like Covenanter's posts.

Conspiracy exposed.

Thank you Al! You have done a wonderful thing for the forum!

Whew! I feel so much better, don't you?

[Covenanter]

Ok. I confess. I do like Covenanter's posts.

Conspiracy exposed.

Thank you Al! You have done a wonderful thing for the forum!

Whew! I feel so much better, don't you?

Is that deliberately ambiguous? - Al!  Alan or Alimantado? 

Or perhaps a typo for All as of course all contributors are valued - we don't just want accolades for our faithful postings, but chAllenges regarding our understanding. 

[Alimantado]

Ok. I confess. I do like Covenanter's posts.

Conspiracy exposed.

Thank you Al! You have done a wonderful thing for the forum!

Whew! I feel so much better, don't you?

Yeah, I feel ok about it. You were obviously trying to stick the boot in with your references to 'maple syrup' and 'worshipping'--hardly a kind way to talk about another's contributions--so I thought why not place your own posting habits under the same lens. If you think Alan's being sucky, what do you call liking someone's posts about 50 times a week?

[John81]

Yeah, I feel ok about it. You were obviously trying to stick the boot in with your references to 'maple syrup' and 'worshipping'--hardly a kind way to talk about another's contributions--so I thought why not place your own posting habits under the same lens. If you think Alan's being sucky, what do you call liking someone's posts about 50 times a week?

I'm not going to get in the middle of the actual discussion here so take what comes as a general statement, which that's all it is.

There is a difference between clicking "Like this" for a posting, or even making a post expressing appreciation for another post, and making several postings overflowing with excessive cheering.

Again, to be clear, that's a general statement as I'm not going to read through all these posts and comment on the matter(s) which brought this up.

I like your postings, but I'm not going to pour maple syrup on your head, so just accept the and carry on.

[Covenanter]

Hope you don't take offence, John, but I do like a many of your postings.  

[Alimantado]

Agreed. And there's also a difference between clicking "like this" on someone's post and clicking "like this" on every other post they write.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Indeed, Brother Day, you have presented this passage [Acts 3:24-26] a number of times throughout our discussions.  However, maybe I am simply dense; for to this day I am still unable to discern exactly the point that you are seeking to make with this passage.  If you might express more clearly and more precisely how this passage relates to the Biblical information in Daniel 9:24-27, I would be in a better position to respond with understanding.

1.  Do you believe that this passage is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of the Old Testament from Samuel forward was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

2.  Do you believe that this passage is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

3.  Do you believe that this passage is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

4.  Which specific "the covenant" do you believe that Peter was referencing in Acts 3:25?

5.  In what way do you believe that this "the covenant" reference relates precisely to that which is presented in Daniel 9:24-27?

[Brother Ian Day]

I suggest you refer to, & reply to my latest post in the debate thread, as you should find the answers there. - http://www.onlinebaptist.com/home/topic/23269-debate-prophecy-in-daniel-9/?do=findComment&comment=410276

Ah, yes, your latest posting in the discussion-debate thread.  I had already considered your presentation in that posting, and it is one of the very reasons that I stated what I did above -- that "maybe I am simply dense, for to this day I am still unable to discern exactly the point that you are seeking to make with this passage [Acts 3:24-26]."  However, at your above challenge, I consulted and considered that posting yet again.  The relevant portion of that posting seems to be the following:

These events are recorded in Scripture:

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

Jesus inaugurated the new covenant in his own blood at the last supper, the new covenant fulfilling & ratifying the everlasting covenant relationship of God with his people. We commemorate the new covenant as we drink the 'wine' at every communion service.

As the second half of the 70th week began, Peter assured the Jews :

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. Acts 3:25

Paul wrote to the Romans:

Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers Rom. 15:8

The promises made unto the fathers were covenant promises, and were confirmed by Jesus' personal ministry & the Apostolic Gospel.

Many thousands of Jews responded to the Gospel – 3,000 at Pentecost; 5,000 after the healing of the lame man at the temple gate; that number was soon multiplied greatly

and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. Acts 6:7

The Gospel was progressing so rapidly through Israel that the Jewish leaders became desperate to stop the progress. Imprisonment, beatings & stoning of believers in Lord Jesus Christ followed.

Certainly Messiah was confirming the covenant with many through the Apostolic Gospel – the prophesied new covenant ratified by his own blood as the covenant surety.

Peter in his first letter takes up the Sinai covenant dependent on obedience of the Israelites ( Exo. 19:5-6 ) and shows it to be fulfilled in Christian believers. 1 Peter 2:9. The obedience of Christ secures the covenant promises. Everlasting covenants can only be fulfilled through Christ.

Note that Peter says in his letter what he preached in Jerusalem:

Acts 3:24 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.

 

1 Peter 1:9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

10 Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

 

There is absolutely no suggestion of a future dispensation when the covenant promises would apply. Take them NOW by repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, or

every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

But take heart:

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.

It appears from the opening lines of this presentation that you believe that Acts 3:24-27 reveals the fulfillment of the phrase in Daniel 9:27 -- "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week."  Even so, your connection between this statement of Daniel 9:27 and the declaration of Acts 3:24-27 appears to be that they both employ the phrase, "the covenant."  However, as I have considered again your presentation on Acts 3:24-27 above, I still am unable to find any clear and precise answers to the questions that I posed above (except maybe for my question #5).  Indeed, since your connection between Daniel 9:27 and Acts 3:24-27 appears to be the mutual use of the phrase, "the covenant," a clear and precise answer to my question #4 above is especially important for me to engage the matter (that is -- "4. Which specific 'the covenant' do you believe that Peter was referencing in Acts 3:35?").  In fact, this raises yet another confusion for me.  Again maybe I am dense; but throughout all of your postings both in the discussion-debate thread and in external threads, I am still unable to determine exactly which specific "the covenant" you believe is being referenced in Daniel 9:27.  Brother, it might be of help to me if you would more directly and precisely answer the specific questions that I have posed concerning this matter --

1.  Do you believe that this passage (Acts 3:24-27) is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of the Old Testament from Samuel forward was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

2.  Do you believe that this passage (Acts 3:24-27) is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

3.  Do you believe that this passage (Acts 3:24-27) is teaching that every single prophetic utterance of Daniel 9:24-27 was about those days and was to be fulfilled in those days?

4.  Which specific "the covenant" do you believe that Peter was referencing in Acts 3:25?

5.  In what way do you believe that this "the covenant" reference relates precisely to that which is presented in Daniel 9:24-27?

In addition, 6.  What specific "the covenant" do you believe that Daniel 9:27 is referencing?