Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

1Timothy115

Comment On Current Debate

Recommended Posts

 

Plainly, the only reasonable way to view the Bible is literally unless it plainly indicates otherwise.

Any other way just means that you make up a meaning you like.

The Bible means what it says and says what it means - including telling us by various mechanisms when it is using pictures or illustrations.

​Like weeks meaning sevens? Maybe weeks means weeks?

Could it really be that when the angel came to Daniel to bring him understanding, that he really meant 70 weeks? Just like the words say?

What happened in Daniels time 70 weeks (about 16 months and 10 days) from the explanation by the angel?

Interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, perhaps you could tell me which of the parables of Jesus were figurative and which were not?

Ummmm - parables were all illustrations - that's what a parable is.....

As to NT writers using OT references, I might remind you that application is different to understanding - a literal understanding can be applied in different ways, AND we KNOW their application is correct because they were guided specifically in it by the Holy Spirit in writing their words.

And I will also point out that this is THE BIBLE telling us a specific application of those passages - no guesswork, no ambiguity.

 

And GP - if were not so intent on opposing me you might actually read what has already been posted. ...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​Like weeks meaning sevens? Maybe weeks means weeks?

Could it really be that when the angel came to Daniel to bring him understanding, that he really meant 70 weeks? Just like the words say?

What happened in Daniels time 70 weeks (about 16 months and 10 days) from the explanation by the angel?

Interesting...

​Ah, I guess "the worm on the hook" was just too tempting, . . . so I am going to bite.

First, even if (for the sake of your argument) the "seventy weeks" of Daniel 9:24-27 do indeed refer to a literal time period of 490 days, your question is not accurate to the text of Daniel 9:25.  It would not be -- "What happened in Daniels time 70 weeks (about 16 months and 10 days) from the explanation by the angel?"  Rather, it would be -- What happened in Daniels time 70 weeks (about 16 months and 10 days) "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem"?  (Please note that I have quoted directly from God's own Word in Daniel 9:25 as inspired by God the Holy Spirit.)

Second, if (for the sake of your argument) I concede that the "seventy weeks" of Daniel 9:24-27 do indeed refer to a literal time period of 490 days, I will now ask a return question -- In what way did "the Messiah the Prince" enter into the picture 483 days after "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem"?  (Please provide some Biblically supported answer.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​Ah, I guess "the worm on the hook" was just too tempting, . . . so I am going to bite.

First, even if (for the sake of your argument) the "seventy weeks" of Daniel 9:24-27 do indeed refer to a literal time period of 490 days, your question is not accurate to the text of Daniel 9:25.  It would not be -- "What happened in Daniels time 70 weeks (about 16 months and 10 days) from the explanation by the angel?"  Rather, it would be -- What happened in Daniels time 70 weeks (about 16 months and 10 days) "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem"?  (Please note that I have quoted directly from God's own Word in Daniel 9:25 as inspired by God the Holy Spirit.)

Second, if (for the sake of your argument) I concede that the "seventy weeks" of Daniel 9:24-27 do indeed refer to a literal time period of 490 days, I will now ask a return question -- In what way did "the Messiah the Prince" enter into the picture 483 days after "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem"?  (Please provide some Biblically supported answer.)

​Well there was Cyrus, he was a prince, I have read that the name Cyrus means prince.  He was also a messiah, God's anointed, (Is 45: 1 ¶  Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus,) 

But Cyrus was obviously  not the person referred to as he was the one to publish God's previously given command to restore and build Jerusalem and he did not fulfill the rest of the prophecy.  

When the NT begins,the Jews were expecting their Messiah at that time.  In Mark 1:14 Jesus said "The time is fulfilled,"  What time but the end of the 69 weeks?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And GP - if  (you?) were not so intent on opposing me you might actually read what has already been posted. ...........

​Huh? Did I miss something? Opposing you?

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​Ah, I guess "the worm on the hook" was just too tempting, . . . so I am going to bite.

First, even if (for the sake of your argument) the "seventy weeks" of Daniel 9:24-27 do indeed refer to a literal time period of 490 days, your question is not accurate to the text of Daniel 9:25.  It would not be -- "What happened in Daniels time 70 weeks (about 16 months and 10 days) from the explanation by the angel?"  Rather, it would be -- What happened in Daniels time 70 weeks (about 16 months and 10 days) "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem"?  (Please note that I have quoted directly from God's own Word in Daniel 9:25 as inspired by God the Holy Spirit.)

​Yes, but the 70 weeks I was referring to is in verse 24. There is NO 70 weeks in verse 25. That verse talks about the 69 weeks.

Read again:

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.

And I believe I have also "quoted directly from God's own Word in" [Daniel 9:24] "as inspired by God the Holy Spirit."

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list as stated in the Bible is:

  1. to finish the transgression
  2. to make an end of sins
  3. to make reconciliation for iniquity
  4. to bring in everlasting righteousness
  5. to seal up the vision and prophecy
  6. to anoint the most Holy

Pastor Scott, my real name is Ken. I have a question. Is the list of verse 24 out of order? The anointing occurs at the beginning of the 1000 years? 

  1. seal up the vision and prophecy
  2. anoint the most Holy
  3. finish the transgression
  4. make an end of sins
  5. make reconciliation for iniquity
  6. bring in everlasting righteousness

​​But we know after the 1000 years the Devil is released and people join him in a final rebellion. That is sin. It is the same problem teacher Ian had and you rebutted. Why is sin occurring after the 490 years and the 1000 reign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​Yes, but the 70 weeks I was referring to is in verse 24. There is NO 70 weeks in verse 25. That verse talks about the 69 weeks.

Read again:

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.

And I believe I have also "quoted directly from God's own Word in" [Daniel 9:24] "as inspired by God the Holy Spirit."

​Ah, I see.  So then, you do not recognize that according to the contextual flow of thought, the 69 weeks of Daniel 9:25 are in fact the first 69 weeks of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24.  In relation to this, could I ask you to explain the intended meaning of and usage for the word "therefore" in Daniel 9:25?

Concerning my declaration that I had quoted directly for God's own Word, I was expressing that specifically (as the context of my statement would indicate) in relation to the contrast between your phrase, "from the explanation by the angel" (which is a phrase that is not found anywhere at all throughout the entirety of Daniel 9:24-27), and my phrase, "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" (which is a phrase that actually is quoted word-for-word directly from Daniel 9:25).  So then, by what means from the text itself do you make the conclusion that the 70 weeks began "from the explanation by the angel"?

Now, I am not exactly certain why you emboldened and underlined the phrase, "are determined," in your quotation of Daniel 9:25.  However, if I were to venture my best guess in (what appears to be) accord with the flow of thought in your argument, I would guess that you were seeking to emphasize the present tense nature of this verb.  Furthermore, I would guess that you were seeking to emphasize this present tense nature in order to support your position that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:25 were to begin in the present day wherein the angel was delivering his explanation unto Daniel.  If my guess is correct on this matter, then I would simply point out that making a determination for something to be done and engaging in the activity of doing that something are not the same thing.  Certainly, the Lord God had already made the determination that the 70 weeks (whatever time period they are intended to define) would occur.  However, with the explanation of Daniel 9:25 (as per the usage of the word "therefore"), these 70 weeks (or, at least the first 69 weeks of these 70 weeks) were determined actually to begin "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem."

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list as stated in the Bible is:

  1. to finish the transgression
  2. to make an end of sins
  3. to make reconciliation for iniquity
  4. to bring in everlasting righteousness
  5. to seal up the vision and prophecy
  6. to anoint the most Holy

Pastor Scott, my real name is Ken. I have a question. Is the list of verse 24 out of order? The anointing occurs at the beginning of the 1000 years? 

  1. seal up the vision and prophecy
  2. anoint the most Holy
  3. finish the transgression
  4. make an end of sins
  5. make reconciliation for iniquity
  6. bring in everlasting righteousness

​​But we know after the 1000 years the Devil is released and people join him in a final rebellion. That is sin. It is the same problem teacher Ian had and you rebutted. Why is sin occurring after the 490 years and the 1000 reign?

​​Brother Ken,

First, I would thank you for the graciousness wherein you have asked your questions.

Second, concerning your question -- "Is the list of verse 24 out of order?"  I myself believe that the flow of thought for the six-fold purpose and result statements in Daniel 9:24 presents them in a logical order, such that each of the six-fold purpose and result statements is founded upon the previous purpose-result statement, and such that the entire list reaches its climax with the anointing of "the most Holy."

Third, concerning your question -- "The anointing occurs at the beginning of the 1000 years?"  This would indeed be my present position on the matter.

Fourth, concerning your statements and your question -- "​​But we know after the 1000 years the Devil is released and people join him in a final rebellion. That is sin. It is the same problem teacher Ian had and you rebutted. Why is sin occurring after the 490 years and the 1000 reign?​"  This appears to reveal a misunderstanding on your part concerning my position.  I do not believe that the six-fold purpose and result statements of Daniel 9:24 are intended to be applied "upon" all of the people groups of the world at that time.  Rather, I believe that the six-fold purpose and result statements of Daniel 9:24 are intended to communicate only that which will occur "upon" Daniel's people, the children of Israel as a specific national group.  Indeed, this is part of the reason that I placed such emphasis and engaged with such effort concerning the meaning of the phrase, "thy people," as employed in Daniel 9:24.  This is also part of the reason that I have presented Isaiah 1:24-27, Jeremiah 3:15-19, 31:31-37, 32:36-42, Ezekiel 36:24-38, and Ezekiel 37:21-28 as corresponding passages to the purpose-result statements of Daniel 9:24.  As such, I do not believe that at the beginning of the 1,000 year reign, all the gentile people groups of the world will enter into a spiritual condition of "finished transgression," "ended sins," "reconciliation with God," and "everlasting righteousness."  Rather, I believe only that at the beginning of the 1,000 year reign, the children of Israel as a national group will enter into this spiritual condition.  Thus in accord with my position there remains the allowance for many among the gentile people groups of the world to rebel against the Lord Jesus Christ's reign at the end of the 1,000 years after the devil is released from the bottomless pit in order to stir them up and lead them unto rebellion.  So then, concerning the matter of this rebellion specifically, I would only contend that none of the children of Israel will depart from the Lord Jesus Christ's rule and will join with this rebellion against Him.

I pray that my above answers will have been helpful to answer your questions, at least concerning my position on the matter (and how it works together).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Actually 70 weeks of years is clear from the context of the whole chapter:

Dan. 9:2 claims the promised restoration after 70 years exile, so when Gabriel prophesies 70 weeks, it is natural to understand "weeks" as periods of 7 years, and the 70 weeks to run for 490 years.

Daniel counted the 70 years, and prayed accordingly. The events at the beginning of Matthew and Luke show that the Holy Spirit was preparing the people for the birth of Messiah 30 years before the beginning of his ministry at the end of week 69. At least Simeon and Anna were praying expectantly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank You Pastor Scott.

This has been a lot to think about. I have additional questions I'd like to ask. I do not want to step on Teacher Ian's territory as he may ask many of them in his next posting.

Ian, I look forward to your next posting and how you will handle Scott's last posting.

I want to thank you two men for doing this, it has been a blessing and help to me.

 

Edited by MountainChristian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​*Ah, I see.  So then, you do not recognize that according to the contextual flow of thought, the 69 weeks of Daniel 9:25 are in fact the first 69 weeks of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24.  In relation to this, could I ask you to explain the intended meaning of and usage for the word "therefore" in Daniel 9:25?

Concerning my declaration that I had quoted directly for God's own Word, I was expressing that specifically (as the context of my statement would indicate) in relation to the contrast between your phrase, "from the explanation by the angel" *(which is a phrase that is not found anywhere at all throughout the entirety of Daniel 9:24-27), and my phrase, "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" (which is a phrase that actually is quoted word-for-word directly from Daniel 9:25).  So then, by what means from the text itself do you make the conclusion that the 70 weeks began "from the explanation by the angel"?

**Now, I am not exactly certain why you emboldened and underlined the phrase, "are determined," in your quotation of Daniel 9:25.  However, if I were to venture my best guess in (what appears to be) accord with the flow of thought in your argument, I would guess that you were seeking to emphasize the present tense nature of this verb.  Furthermore, I would guess that you were seeking to emphasize this present tense nature in order to support your position that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:25 were to begin in the present day wherein the angel was delivering his explanation unto Daniel.  If my guess is correct on this matter, then I would simply point out that making a determination for something to be done and engaging in the activity of doing that something are not the same thing.  Certainly, the Lord God had already made the determination that the 70 weeks (whatever time period they are intended to define) would occur.  However, with the explanation of Daniel 9:25 (as per the usage of the word "therefore"), these 70 weeks (or, at least the first 69 weeks of these 70 weeks) were determined actually to begin "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem."

*No such thought, we were discussing, or I was anyway, verse 24. Not verse 25. And verse 24 has 70 weeks not 69.

**Determined was emboldened because it is and has been already firmly established by God as to occur in/through or whatever in 70 weeks of time.

All in all I was being 'curious' about the "what if?" idea of the possibility of something that happened that the verses 'could' have been talking about.

 

 
*That's funny, you know I was not quoting scripture. I was in reference to the 'announcement' of these verses from the messenger from God to Daniel, and what followed his 'announcement', not that the timing occurred right after the angel spoke them, but what historical thing/things occurred that those verses covered, after the angel spoke to Daniel, IF anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank You Pastor Scott.

This has been a lot to think about. I have additional questions I'd like to ask. I do not want to step on Teacher Ian's territory as he may ask many of them in his next posting.

Ian, I look forward to your next posting and how you will handle Scott's last posting.

I want to thank you two men for doing this, it has been a blessing and help to me.

I am away with family until next week,  so I can't reply properly without my desktop.  

Comments are helpful - it's not a private debate. We do need to study deeply,  especially as the teaching we have held for years is being challenged.  Thanks. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list as stated in the Bible is:

  1. to finish the transgression
  2. to make an end of sins
  3. to make reconciliation for iniquity
  4. to bring in everlasting righteousness
  5. to seal up the vision and prophecy
  6. to anoint the most Holy

Pastor Scott, my real name is Ken. I have a question. Is the list of verse 24 out of order? The anointing occurs at the beginning of the 1000 years? 

  1. seal up the vision and prophecy
  2. anoint the most Holy
  3. finish the transgression
  4. make an end of sins
  5. make reconciliation for iniquity
  6. bring in everlasting righteousness

​​But we know after the 1000 years the Devil is released and people join him in a final rebellion. That is sin. It is the same problem teacher Ian had and you rebutted. Why is sin occurring after the 490 years and the 1000 reign?

A very important question.  As all occur within the 70 weeks the order is not significant,  though Jesus' anointing/baptism is the first as it marks the beginning of his saving ministry,  while his Ascension anointing completes it. The fulfillment of prophecy was explained by Jesus in Luke 24.

The primary points of disagreement so far are that I believe that v. 24 was fulfilled within the 70 weeks - 490 years, and that Daniel's people are the LORD's people - all true believers. Everlasting righteousness is by faith.  

We will be studying Romans in my next reply.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*No such thought, we were discussing, or I was anyway, verse 24. Not verse 25. And verse 24 has 70 weeks not 69.

 

​So then, was it your intention and desire that we should consider Daniel 9:24 in a manner that is completely separated from the context of Daniel 9:25-ff?

That's funny, you know I was not quoting scripture. 

Indeed, I did know that you were not quoting Scripture, since that quote cannot be found anywhere in the passage.  That is the very reason that I expressed my point -- in order to reveal the contrast between your statement (which was not a quote of Scripture, and thus did not possess Biblical authority) and my statement (which was a quote of Scripture, and thus did possess Biblical authority, that is -- as long as my quote was not wrested out of its context).

I was in reference to the 'announcement' of these verses from the messenger from God to Daniel, and what followed his 'announcement', not that the timing occurred right after the angel spoke them, but what historical thing/things occurred that those verses covered, after the angel spoke to Daniel, IF anything.

Could I ask why it at all matters what may have happened in the 70 literal weeks that followed (that began from) the angel's announcement unto Daniel, since the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24 were not to begin from that announcement, but were to begin "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" (as per the context of Daniel 9:25)?

As far as anything that happened historically around that time period, that may have had an impact upon the children of Israel -- According to Daniel 9:1 the events of this chapter occurred "in the first year of Darius the son of Ahasueres, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans."  In relation to this Daniel 6:28 seems to indicate either that this reign of Darius the Median over the realm of the Chaldeans was concurrent with the reign of Cyrus the Persian over the whole kingdom of Persia, or that this reign of Darius the Median (since he was 62 years old when he began to reign, as per Daniel 5:31) lasted only a short time and was quickly transferred to the reign of Cyrus the Persian.  Now, according to Ezra 1 it was in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia that he made the decree for the temple in Jerusalem to be rebuilt.  For me, the most interesting aspect of this historical information is that Daniel himself would have lived long enough to know of Cyrus decree to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, since Daniel himself was still alive at least until the third year of Cyrus king of Persia (as per Daniel 10:1).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Could I ask why it at all matters what may have happened in the 70 literal weeks that followed (that began from) the angel's announcement unto Daniel, since the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24 were not to begin from that announcement, but were to begin "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" (as per the context of Daniel 9:25)?

​Uh, its called 'discussion'. And Daniel was studying about Jeremiahs prophesy, and I think he was clearly looking at the 70 years getting to a finish.

So when I read this following verse or two, I assume when the Angel came and said he was there to explain to him his concerns, he did.

So Daniel says:

2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

3 And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:

And when the angel Gabriel comes on the scene he says:

21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all as a side note for the sake of information,

I myself am not a Schofield "lover."  In fact, I do not use a Schofield reference Bible (although I do own one, which I received as a gift); and I do not ever read or reference Schofield's notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​​Brother Ken,

First, I would thank you for the graciousness wherein you have asked your questions.

Second, concerning your question -- "Is the list of verse 24 out of order?"  I myself believe that the flow of thought for the six-fold purpose and result statements in Daniel 9:24 presents them in a logical order, such that each of the six-fold purpose and result statements is founded upon the previous purpose-result statement, and such that the entire list reaches its climax with the anointing of "the most Holy."

Third, concerning your question -- "The anointing occurs at the beginning of the 1000 years?"  This would indeed be my present position on the matter.

Fourth, concerning your statements and your question -- "​​But we know after the 1000 years the Devil is released and people join him in a final rebellion. That is sin. It is the same problem teacher Ian had and you rebutted. Why is sin occurring after the 490 years and the 1000 reign?​"  This appears to reveal a misunderstanding on your part concerning my position.  I do not believe that the six-fold purpose and result statements of Daniel 9:24 are intended to be applied "upon" all of the people groups of the world at that time.  Rather, I believe that the six-fold purpose and result statements of Daniel 9:24 are intended to communicate only that which will occur "upon" Daniel's people, the children of Israel as a specific national group.  Indeed, this is part of the reason that I placed such emphasis and engaged with such effort concerning the meaning of the phrase, "thy people," as employed in Daniel 9:24.  This is also part of the reason that I have presented Isaiah 1:24-27, Jeremiah 3:15-19, 31:31-37, 32:36-42, Ezekiel 36:24-38, and Ezekiel 37:21-28 as corresponding passages to the purpose-result statements of Daniel 9:24.  As such, I do not believe that at the beginning of the 1,000 year reign, all the gentile people groups of the world will enter into a spiritual condition of "finished transgression," "ended sins," "reconciliation with God," and "everlasting righteousness."  Rather, I believe only that at the beginning of the 1,000 year reign, the children of Israel as a national group will enter into this spiritual condition.  Thus in accord with my position there remains the allowance for many among the gentile people groups of the world to rebel against the Lord Jesus Christ's reign at the end of the 1,000 years after the devil is released from the bottomless pit in order to stir them up and lead them unto rebellion.  So then, concerning the matter of this rebellion specifically, I would only contend that none of the children of Israel will depart from the Lord Jesus Christ's rule and will join with this rebellion against Him.

I pray that my above answers will have been helpful to answer your questions, at least concerning my position on the matter (and how it works together).

​Pastor Scott while in the flesh thy people are in a state of everlasting righteousness? Before Jesus is anointed King, you hold God will bring in everlasting righteousness upon thy people? While thy people are under the beasts' rule? Also do you see these thy people as being born again before Jesus returns? And thy people will have children born of the flesh in a state of everlasting righteousness? 

Sorry Ian, I was saving my questions and posted too soon. 

Edited by MountainChristian
apology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Bro. Scott, what exactly do you mean by this?

"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” (apparently among the Israelites, since that is the focus of this prophetic utterance as per the opening statement of verse 24). "

Specifically " this verse indicates that some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many".

Just curious if you mean "some" here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm posting this here to illustrate a problem I have with Pastor Scott's approach to the debate. In this fragment of a post in the debate, he employs 800 words to respond to 100 of mine, & misquotes me so refuting at length a point I didn't make.

FYI a 30 minute sermon of mine takes about 2,000 words to explain the Scripture in context & apply it's teaching. The following, apart from the [ ... ] is a selection from Pastor Markle's post. 

Posted 17 April  by Pastor Markle

Now, in your most previous posting, you did present an opposition to the grammatical and contextual evidences and support that I have provided for my position on Daniel 9:24.  Indeed, your presented opposition appears to be delivered with the following statements:

I'm not convinced that your grammatical analysis leads to a proper understanding of the prophecy, or whether it actually obscures the clear meaning of the prophecy. 

Reference to Scripture, rather than grammar . . .
We should judge prophecy both by its faithfulness to the Word, & by its fulfilment, not by grammatical analysis. There is a danger of being Pharisaical. Also, we have the mind of Christ - 1 Cor. 2:16 - so we can look at prophecy with an new covenant, spiritual, Spirit-aided understanding. 
I think in this case, the 70 weeks is so clearly specific that simple arithmetic overrules complicated grammar. 
However we analyse the grammar . . . 

[Note that I referred to "your grammatical analysis" & "complicated grammar" with no suggestion that grammatical analysis per se "of a passage is not really a help, but is actually a hindrance in Bible study, especially in relation to prophetic utterance." And I did NOT "deny the grammatical construction of any statement in God’s Holy Word." I hope it goes without saying that understanding grammar is necessary to understanding both the written word & speech. ]

Pastor Markle:

Herein you appear to reveal another premise against which I will have significant contention and opposition.  It is the premise that grammatical analysis of a passage is not really a help, but is actually a hindrance in Bible study, especially in relation to prophetic utterance.  In opposition to this premise, I would contend that grammatical analysis is the arithmetic of communication.  By definition, grammar deals with the meaning of individual words, the meaning of grouped words by phrases and sentences, and the meaning of contextual statements within paragraphs.  Grammar is the very means by which words, phrases, and sentences have precise meaning in communication.  

For example, can we discern any real meaning from the following set of words –

world whosoever Son life him he God the only his everlasting begotten should perish loved have gave believeth that that so not for but in”

On the other hand, can we discern real meaning from the following set and structuring of words –

 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

No, in the first presentation for this set of words, we cannot discern any real meaning.  On the other hand, in the second presentation for this set of words, we can indeed discern real meaning, and that a very precise meaning.  The reason that we can do this in the second presentation is specifically due to the grammatical structuring by which the words are presented.  Grammar is the very means by which word structuring provides meaning.  To deny grammatical analysis is to deny the precise meaning of any given statement. 

Indeed, to do deny grammatical analysis for a statement of God’s Holy Word is to deny the precise meaning of that statement as inspired by God the Holy Spirit in God’s Holy Word.  The Lord our God chose to communicate His truth and wisdom unto us by means of the words of His Holy Word and the grammatical structuring of those words, as inspired by God the Holy Spirit.  Thus God’s Holy Word is not simply inspired by God the Holy Spirit word-by-word, but also grammatical construction-by-grammatical construction.  Therefore, to deny the grammatical construction of any statement in God’s Holy Word is to deny the inspired meaning and communication of God the Holy Spirit with that statement. 

Furthermore, grammar is not only the very means by which word structuring provides meaning, but is also the very means by which statements are narrowed in their application.  For example –

If I simply employ the word “ball,” then the application is quite broad (although the definition of the word, which is also a point of grammar, does narrow the intention from not including such things as birds, cars, pinwheels, etc.). 

On the hand, if I employ the grammatical phrase, “the ball,” then the application is now more narrow, not referring to any ball in general, but to one specific ball.  (In fact, this use of a the definite article “the” is the very grammatical construction by which you yourself argue that the “covenant” of Daniel 9:27 cannot be just any covenant, but must be some definitely specific covenant.  Even so, I would challenge you that if you do not wish to focus upon grammar as a means to Biblical understanding, then you need to quit pushing this point.)

Now, if I employ the grammatical phrase, “the ball in the car,” then the application is now even more narrow, not referring to the ball in the house, or in the field, or under the car, or beside the car, but to the ball that is to be found in the car.  Grammatically, each modifying phrase narrows the application for the meaning of any given statement.  So then, to deny a modifying phrase that God the Holy Spirit inspired for any given statement is to deny the correct understanding and application that God the Holy Spirit intended for that statement.

Grammatical analysis is not a hindrance to understanding God’s Holy Word correctly, for grammar is the means by which the Lord our God communicated to us in His Holy Word by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.  Indeed, grammatical analysis is the means by which we can correctly understand that which the Lord our God has communicated unto us through His Holy Word by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.

Actually I question that final statement. Most people who can read have enough grammar to understand what they are reading.  Only believers have a spiritual understanding - an understanding aided by the indwelling Holy Spirit - as they believe & practise what they read & understand. Many (most?) theologians & preachers fail to understand correctly what they read, teach & preach, however perfect their grammar. 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Bro. Scott, what exactly do you mean by this?

"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” (apparently among the Israelites, since that is the focus of this prophetic utterance as per the opening statement of verse 24). "

Specifically " this verse indicates that some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many".

Just curious if you mean "some" here. 

 

  

​Our preacher this evening said "If you can't find anything I said in the bible or for that matter what any other preacher says don't believe us. "

I  cannot find the following in Daniel.  

some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many".

But I can find    "he shall confirm the covenant with many"

Note the definite article.  He shall confirm the existing covenant with many.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​Our preacher this evening said "If you can't find anything I said in the bible or for that matter what any other preacher says don't believe us. "

I  cannot find the following in Daniel.  

some “he” will “confirm” some “covenant with many".

But I can find    "he shall confirm the covenant with many"

Note the definite article.  He shall confirm the existing covenant with many.

​Good point Invicta! That little word 'the' says to me that this is a covenant that already existed beforehand too.

Well Bro. Scott? Should you have said it differently, or do you mean 'a peace treaty' like others have said, or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you are determined to misunderstand Brother Scott's point it is not difficult to know what he meant.

If any of you would like to show which particular covenant is being referred to - without guessing - it would clear it up immediately.

The point is that Brother Scott was not quoting scripture at that point but pointing out that the covenant is not defined in the passage - it just noted as "the covenant", not which particular covenant.

It would be like me saying "the car sped away from the crime scene" - you would know it was an individual and specific car, but not which car - was it a ford or a chevy? Was it green or blue?

In that instance you could also say some car sped away and it would still make sense.

However, if you are determined to find fault with him you can feign ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 21 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...