Comment On Current Debate

[DaveW]

As usual, instead of addressing the question and the point, you want to introduce as many side points as possible to muddy the waters.

Once the grammar issue is dealt with then maybe we can move onto the many other claims and issues you have introduced - and deal with them one at a time, in order.

 

But not with me - I am not interested in dealing with either of you when you won't deal with the issue at hand.

You are the ones who have accused Brother Scott of changing the Bible by his analysis - prove it.

[Covenanter]

Dave, I am a patient man, but my patience is limited.

The summary statement of the prophecy is:

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.

No amount of grammatical analysis, however exhaustive (or exhausting) can change 70 weeks into 350 weeks - and counting. 

Rather than reading my posts (Bro. Scott's), you may find it more convincing to read Paul's letter to the Romans, particularly noting his teaching on "righteousness." 

 

[John81]

 

The summary statement of the prophecy is:

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.

No amount of grammatical analysis, however exhaustive (or exhausting) can change 70 weeks into 350 weeks - and counting. 

This is the key point. If we are to take Scripture literally then why are the 70 weeks not literal? Where is it stated that the 70 weeks will consist of 69 consecutive weeks which will be followed by hundreds of weeks that don't count until at some unspecified time the 70th week will finally begin?

Unless or until this key point can be settled much of the rest is left hanging. ​

[DaveW]

That is not the grammatical issue in view,  and you know it.

These last few posts of yours are the perfect example of the "bait and switch" which is used by JW's and Mormons.

You hope to confuse the issues so that you can avoid questions you can not answer.

This is not a personal attack - it is an observed truth.

[DaveW]

This is the key point. If we are to take Scripture literally then why are the 70 weeks not literal? Where is it stated that the 70 weeks will consist of 69 consecutive weeks which will be followed by hundreds of weeks that don't count until at some unspecified time the 70th week will finally begin?

Unless or until this key point can be settled much of the rest is left hanging. ​

Actually John, whilst it is A key point, it is not the current issue.

And it has been amply displayed in previous Dan 9 discussions.

I am sure when the debate reaches this issue it will be covered.

[John81]

Actually John, whilst it is A key point, it is not the current issue.

And it has been amply displayed in previous Dan 9 discussions.

I am sure when the debate reaches this issue it will be covered.

​I hope it gets covered because so much hangs upon this. All these side arguments are pointless if this key point can't be rightly addressed.

[1Timothy115]

​I hope it gets covered because so much hangs upon this. All these side arguments are pointless if this key point can't be rightly addressed.

​It wasn't an argument until just very recently. Mostly, the thread has been brethren in agreement without dissimulation. However, I made the OP comment because the thread I was drafting a reply to suddenly closed before I could post. I'm ready for this one to close. 

[Genevanpreacher]

These last few posts of yours are the perfect example of the "bait and switch" which is used by JW's and Mormons.

Not nice 'brother'.

[Alimantado]

​I hope it gets covered because so much hangs upon this. All these side arguments are pointless if this key point can't be rightly addressed.

​Actually it's already been covered. Cov and Pastor Scott disagree on what 70 weeks does mean, but they both agree that it doesn't mean what it says in English. The word 'week' is unambiguous in English, but both Cov and Pastor Scott reject it's literal English meaning. From the opening posts:

Pastor Scott: "Now, the distance of time between these events are known by historical record to be greater than a period of sixty-nine literal weeks.  Rather, we understand by the historical record that the distance of time between these events encompassed a multitude of years (indeed, 483 years).  Therefore, we are brought to understand that the “seventy sevens” of this context are a reference unto seventy groupings of seven years each.

Cov: "Now the LORD is very specific in this 70 weeks prophecy. All agree that that means 490 years...."

So Pastor Scott rejects a literal 70 weeks because of extra-Biblical sources disagreeing with the English meaning of the word 'week', and Cov agrees that it isn't a literal 70 weeks.

It was this bit of the discussion (the opening posts) that prompted me to ask whether Cov and Pastor Scott would be interpreting English words in English or whether they would be using the underlying Greek to support their arguments at times. Pastor Scott replied to say that he definitely would be.

[1Timothy115]

So, we are split along sectarian lines?

The IFB historical perspective of premillenialism vs. preterist view we're living in the millennium.

Do I have this right?

[Covenanter]

So, we are split along sectarian lines?

The IFB historical perspective of premillenialism vs. preterist view we're living in the millennium.

Do I have this right?

​Not necessarily. My views are compatible with premil - but dispensationalists build on the delayed 70th week to support their end-of-time tribulation/millennial views. 

There could, of course be a serious tribulation before Jesus' return. Many Christians around the world are suffering very serious tribulation. See 2 Thes. 1. 

It's not premil vs preterist, although I hold an amil, partial pret position. I understand Invicta supports me from a premil understanding. 

[Alimantado]

You both seem to be missing a critical point.

There are one of three possibilities here:

1. His grammatical analysis is incorrect - please show where.

2. If his grammatical analysis is correct, but you still say his conclusion is wrong, then the language must be wrong - the Bible itself is therefore in error.

3. His grammatical analysis is correct and his conclusion is correct.

 

There simply is NO ROOM for his analysis to be correct and his understanding of that grammar to be incorrect.

The Bible passages you refer to either do not apply in the way you suggest, or they do not conflict with the grammar in the way you suggest.

We all agree that the passage say what it says, but the grammar is essential in understanding.

The cross references will not nullify the grammar, but will agree with it.

 

Note: I am not saying his overall conclusions are correct, but those which stem directly from the passage analysed.

​Ok, I'll bite.

Dave says that it's not possible for someone to correctly "analyse" the grammar of a sentence and yet draw incorrect conclusions about what the grammar means. This argument relies on a premise that grammar is like maths: it's totally unambiguous when used correctly.

I reject that premise, with a hypothetitical example. Let's say I publish a book with three co-authors, and lets say I get my own little acknowledgments section. I want to thank my co-authors and I want to thank two other people who helped me whose names are Rod and Jane. So here goes:

"I wish to thank my co-authors, Rod and Jane."

Then Timmy comes along and reads the sentence and thinks, "ah, this person's co-authors are called Rod and Jane."

So let's look at what's happened:

Did I use grammar correctly? Yes I did. I used the most popular British way of listing items in a sentence, which is to omit the serial comma before the word "and".

Was Timmy's "analysis" of my grammar invalid? Nope. It's common for people to use a comma to put things in apposition. In this case, according to Timmy, the co-authors and their names. Therefore it's perfectly possible that I did mean to thank the co-authors and give their names, and Timmy's analysis isn't invalid.

Was Timmy's conclusion about what my grammar means correct? No, he got it wrong. His analysis was valid--it's correct to use a comma like that--but his conclusion was wrong because I employed the comma in an equally valid way that means something different. In other words, the grammar in the sentence is ambiguous.

So I argue that at least in principle it is possible for Pastor Scott's analysis of the grammar of that (or any) passage to be correct and his understanding of that grammar to be incorrect. In other words, grammar is not like maths. It might be more like maths than the meaning of words, but it isn't us unambiguous as all that.

And here's what I'm not arguing:

That all grammar is ambiguous. I'm not saying that. Maybe the passage in question in this discussion lends itself to no other valid grammatical interpretation. But Dave appears to be making a general argument about interpreting grammar and it's specifically that "critical point" I'm arguing with.

That I wrote a book that got looked at by Timmy. I'm not saying that. It's a hypothetical example.

That the problem in the hypothetical example is unavoidable. I'm not saying that. Obviously I could write the sentence with a serial comma, or bullet-point the people I want to thank. Or Timmy could look up the co-authors. But that's all irrelevant to the point the hypothetical example is supposed to illustrate.

[Alimantado]

Oh, I forgot to say, I notice that Covenanter has 'liked' John's appeal for the debaters to explain why they aren't interpreting 70 weeks as literally seventy weeks, i.e. 490 days. Pastor Scott has already explained why--he has interpreted that bit of scripture in the light of extra-Biblical sources. Cov, will we get yours? I'm sure it's been posted already on the forum in the past, but hey what hasn't...

[wretched]

Good point Alimantado. I would interject faith in God that His Word is written for all do understand it in context from beginning to end. However the more complex doctrines require grammatical mastery or we run into issues like this.

Faith is the key. If we believe it is true our only hope to understand it all is mastery of the grammar, word usage and definition after we are born again. The Word makes no reference or footnotes to any "mans" history or books. It is completely independent of all other written materials.

It stands alone. The problems like preterism are based on misunderstanding of grammatical context and the interjection of 'man's' written perversion of history to prove a false idea.

I have seen 'mens' interpretation and recording of historical facts throughout my lifetime and of hundreds of example, nothing written soon after those events came close to true in the details. However, God's Word is absolute truth in every jot and tittle.  The original conjurers of preterism placed equal weight of fact on these perverted written records as they do Scripture.

And lets face it, no one enjoys being wrong especially when they fall on their swords blindly in the defense of a false idea.

[Alimantado]

Good point Alimantado. I would interject faith in God that His Word is written for all do understand it in context from beginning to end. However the more complex doctrines require grammatical mastery or we run into issues like this.

Faith is the key. If we believe it is true our only hope to understand it all is mastery of the grammar, word usage and definition after we are born again.

Well, I agree that we're guided by the Holy Spirit and we should walk in faith. However I don't think this truth can be levered in a discussion about scripture. Firstly because any person can say "my interpretation is correct because the Holy Spirit has told me" and secondly because by entering into a discussion about scripture, I'd argue we are acknowledging that the Holy Spirit uses such discussions to teach us (else why have the discussion?). And if we accept that, aren't we also accepting in principle that it could be us that the Holy Spirit is trying to correct, not the other person?

    The Word makes no reference or footnotes to any "mans" history or books. It is completely independent of all other written materials.It stands alone.

Have to say I've never really understood this argument. The Bible doesn't have an appendix where it explains English grammar rules (or ancient Greek etc.), so aren't we relying on teaching we're received outside the scriptures? If I was to question some of Pastor Scott's grammatical analyses, I guess he would back up his arguments by making reference to English books about grammar. Ditto for word meanings.

The problems like preterism are based on misunderstanding of grammatical context and the interjection of 'man's' written perversion of history to prove a false idea. I have seen 'mens' interpretation and recording of historical facts throughout my lifetime and of hundreds of example, nothing written soon after those events came close to true in the details. However, God's Word is absolute truth in every jot and tittle.  The original conjurers of preterism placed equal weight of fact on these perverted written records as they do Scripture.

​I'm not sure why you've brought this up in response to me unless it is because you are responding to this statement of mine: "Pastor Scott has already explained why--he has interpreted that bit of scripture in the light of extra-Biblical sources." If you are, then I'm confused because I don't think Pastor Scott is a preterist. Or is he?