Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

The Gap (Daniel 11:33-35)


LindaR

Recommended Posts

  • IFB

If you take the passage by itself, here are the weaknesses of the two interpretations:

Non-Dispensationalists:

1. Spiritualize the promises to Israel that follow the 70th week and misapply them to the church.
2. Remove the Abomination of Desolation from the 70th week when it is in the text.


Dispensationalists:

1. Separates the 70th week from the other 69 weeks.


By weakness I mean that it makes it more difficult to explain. Both sides have their way of dealing with these two weaknesses, but I believe that the dispensationalist way of dealing with it leaves the rest of the Bible unscathed. The promises to Israel remain intact, 90% Revelation is read literally as is the Olivet prophecy, Romans 9 and 11 all work with it. The other side stands these things on their head when you buy into what they’re saying here.

If you were to line up the strengths of the two interpretations throughout all the rest of Scripture, side-by-side, I believe that the dispensational view of Eschatology is stronger.

Why do you keep claiming the eschatological views you hold all belong to dispensationalists? I know many who hold to the same or nearly the same eschatological views as you yet they reject dispensationalism. A belief in dispensationalism, what many also call Darbyism, is not necessary to hold pre-mil/pre-trib and other eschatological views such as what you espouse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Advanced Member
Rick:
Non-Dispensationalists:

1. Spiritualize the promises to Israel that follow the 70th week and misapply them to the church.
2. Remove the Abomination of Desolation from the 70th week when it is in the text.


Ian ........
27
And he shall confirm the covena
nt
with many for one week:

Now we are in the 70th week - Jesus confirms the covenant by his earthly ministry, & by the Apostolic preaching after Pentecost, with the week naturally ending with Stephen formally declaring the Jews "uncircumcised." Notice that Messiah is the overall subject, never "the prince." It's "the people" who carry out the destruction. Notice also THE covenant, not A covenant, and that the covenant is neither made nor broken, but is "confirmed." It's Messiah who confirms it. The fact that the Jews are covenant breakers is not stated here.

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the
ob
lation to cease,

By Messiah's sacrifice on Calvary, when the temple veil is rent from above, & all animal sacrifices cease to be effective.
.
and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,

In the middle of the 70th week, in Jesus' last week, after specifying in great detail the abominations of the Jews, in Mat. 23, Messiah declared: 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Notice the difference between Dan. 9:38 &11:31 & Mat. 24:15.

even u
nt
il the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

All that remains for the city and the sanctuary is the prophesied destruction.

No gaps, no allegories, nothing symbolic - just a literal reading of Scripture.

Rick - & all dispies - please note: THE Abomination of Desolation .... is NOT in the text. The text reads: for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

Why do you keep claiming the eschatological views you hold all belong to dispensationalists? I know many who hold to the same or nearly the same eschatological views as you yet they reject dispensationalism. A belief in dispensationalism, what many also call Darbyism, is not necessary to hold pre-mil/pre-trib and other eschatological views such as what you espouse.


I never said they do. I just used the label to distinguish one side of the room from the other side. I know there are variations, and some people just plain hate the term dispensations even though they believe much of what they teach. If you have a better label let me know and I'd be happy to use it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

Rick - & all dispies - please note: THE Abomination of Desolation .... is NOT in the text. The text reads: for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,

Ian
Please note: Jesus Christ calls it the "abomination of desolation" and refers us to Daniel!
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB


Why do you keep claiming the eschatological views you hold all belong to dispensationalists? I know many who hold to the same or nearly the same eschatological views as you yet they reject dispensationalism. A belief in dispensationalism, what many also call Darbyism, is not necessary to hold pre-mil/pre-trib and other eschatological views such as what you espouse.

Preterism...which could also be called Origenism or Augustinism or....Catholicism....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


Ian
Please note: Jesus Christ calls it the "abomination of desolation" and refers us to Daniel!
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Steve - you are not being honest with Scripture, nor with me.
Ian: (emphases added & typo corrected.)

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,

In the middle of the 70th week, in Jesus' last week, after specifying in great detail the abominations of the Jews, in Mat. 23, Messiah declared: 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Notice the difference between Dan. 9:38 27 &11:31 & Mat. 24:15.

even u
nt
il the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

All that remains for the city and the sanctuary is the prophesied destruction.

No gaps, no allegories, nothing symbolic - just a literal reading of Scripture.

Dan. 9:27 for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even u
nt
il the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Dan. 11:
31
And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.


Mat. 23:
38
Behold, your house is left u
nt
o you desolate.


Mat. 24:
15
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)


Notice that within the 70 weeks the abominations are plural - as in Mat. 23, while in Mat. 24 a singular abomination is the signal to flee.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB



I never said they do. I just used the label to distinguish one side of the room from the other side. I know there are variations, and some people just plain hate the term dispensations even though they believe much of what they teach. If you have a better label let me know and I'd be happy to use it.

I don't know that there needs to be a label for those who believe in pre-mill/pre-trib but don't see dispensationalism as being biblical. It would just be nice if all those who do believe in pre-mil/pre-trib were not called dispensationalists when they are not.

From what I've read and studied, pre-mil/pre-trib was believed by some long before Darby invented dispensationalism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


Preterism...which could also be called Origenism or Augustinism or....Catholicism....


You are probably correct about preterism, but futurism comes from the same source, the Jesusits, Bellarmine for one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



You are probably correct about preterism, but futurism comes from the same source, the Jesusits, Bellarmine for one.

These assertions are silly. None of us rely on quotes from other than Scripture, & most doctrines have been held by adherents of a wide range of theological positions.

Preterism comes from Jesus - his Olivet prophecy. I believe that when he prophesied the destruction, he was prophesying the destruction. I have shown that there is no gap in the 70 weeks - as has Invicta.

I have further pointed out that the gap the thread is all about is to teach that the persecution of the Jews through the church dispensation is God's plan. Though the Jews haven't got that colon in their Hebrew to reassure them that their suffering down the ages is decreed by the God who made his promises to Abraham & his seed - promises that will only be fulfilled to a remnant of a future generation who survive Armageddon. Promises to 1,000 generations are NOT for the 100 generations of Jews living in the Gospel dispensation - aka the dispensation of grace.

Deuteronomy 7:9

Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covena
nt
and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandme
nt
s to a
thousand
generations
;


Psalm 105:8

He hath remembered his covena
nt
for ever, the word which he commanded to a
thousand
generations
.


This "gap" teaching is vilely anti-Jewish, & a slander against the faithfulness of God. God has a Gospel for all people. The generation that rejected their Messiah eventually perished, despite the constant invitations & warnings of the Apostles & first century preachers. They did not perish because of a gap in Daniel's prophecy, but because they rejected the Gospel. You are joining with RCs, Orthodox & Lutherans who persecuted the Jews because they killed Jesus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

Well, now, that's not very nice. I haven't persecuted anyone, other than maybe a few stray cats with my BB gun (they were getting into my trash and spraying the house), and I'm pretty sure the Catholics wouldn't want me in their camp after they read chapter six (All Roads Lead to Rome) of my Revelation book.

No one here ever said Jews can't get saved. You keep mischaracterizing us because your position is about as strong as a wet paper towel when you look at the Bible as a whole. We are consistent with Scripture when it says that God has set aside the nation of Israel but that one day He will go back to them again, and all Israel will be saved (Rom. 9, 11).

You say we're anti-sematic because we believe God gave them a chance to accept the Messiah and they rejected Him, and that the gap came (or the Church Age) as a result of that rejection. You believe God never gave them a real choice and predestined them ahead of time to reject the Messiah. We say they brought the trouble on themselves by their own decision, but you say that God brought the trouble on them because that's just what He felt like doing.



Matthew 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Well, now, that's not very nice. I haven't persecuted anyone, other than maybe a few stray cats with my BB gun (they were getting into my trash and spraying the house), and I'm pretty sure the Catholics wouldn't want me in their camp after they read chapter six (All Roads Lead to Rome) of my Revelation book.
I am not accusing you personally but the thinking behind the OP - Plenty of nasty people have justified persecution of the Jews from Scripture.

No one here ever said Jews can't get saved. You keep mischaracterizing us because your position is about as strong as a wet paper towel when you look at the Bible as a whole. We are consistent with Scripture when it says that God has set aside the nation of Israel but that one day He will go back to them again, and all Israel will be saved (Rom. 9, 11).
Yes - but how many are all Israel? Not the 100 generations of the Gospel "dispensation" & only the survivors of Armageddon.

You say we're anti-sematic because we believe God gave them a chance to accept the Messiah and they rejected Him, and that the gap came (or the Church Age) as a result of that rejection. You believe God never gave them a real choice and predestined them ahead of time to reject the Messiah. We say they brought the trouble on themselves by their own decision, but you say that God brought the trouble on them because that's just what He felt like doing.
Only the generation that persistently rejected Jesus suffered the wrath of God. The Gospel counts them all in - & rejection is personal, NOT national. Why don't you reply to what I write, rather than bang your anti-calvinist drum as if that answers everything.


Matthew 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
Happily the opposition of the Jewish leaders could not stop Jesus gathering her children - by the Apostolic Gospel.

BUT you still have made no attempt to explain away the clear reading of Scripture that shows that there is NO GAP in the 70 weeks. Ignoring my posts gets you no credibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

The Gap in Hosea

Hosea 5:14–15 KJV
14 For I will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah: I, even I, will tear and go away; I will take away, and none shall rescue him.
15 I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.

Jesus put the Jewish people out of the land of Israel for a time of indignation or judgment. Jesus restrained the latter rain and made your land a desert to save it for your return. Jesus will come back to save you when the nuclear fire falls on Israel, America, and Russia because Jewish survivors will turn to God, according to Ezekiel 39:1–8, 21–22.

Hosea 5:14–15 KJV
1 Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
3 Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.

As the end of Hosea’s two days (or two thousand years) nears, the Lord has brought you back into the land of Israel. In about 1982, the latter rain and snows came back. The rain is a sign that the Lord is coming soon. Israel is about to experience the judgment by fire and the returning to the Lord. You will live in His sight in the third day, or third thousand-year time period, which we call the kingdom age. If the third day is a thousand years long, the first two days should be two thousand years long!

Isaiah 30:8–18 KJV
8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:

TO THE WHOLE HOUSE OF ISRAEL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB


I have no idea what you mean here. Is this what you thing those who believe in pre-mil/pre-trib but don't see dispensationalism in Scripture should be called?


Well, you keep throwing Darby's name out there, and I have to keep reminding you that Preterism has some pretty strong "credentials." You keep insisting that WE stop calling certain people "dispensationalists" but then you keep dropping "Darbyism" on US. If you want US to stop "name-calling," then maybe you should think about doing the same thing.
Darby did not invent it....
Guilt-by-association arguments never work...
Pot calling kettle black....
Get over it, and stay on topic....until then, I will continue to remind you of the preterist views "credentials" so that you remember that your position has some guilt-by-association problems as well.

Now, Ian, as far as being "anti-semitic", your accusation is laughable. The Roman Catholic Church's official theological position on the book of Revelation is the exact same position as yours. It is "highly symbolic" and they also insist on the preterist view. They also happen to be THE MOST ANTI_SEMITIC institution in the world. They also insist on the preterist view of Matthew 24. Anything MORE would condemn THEM! They are always careful to distance Papal Rome from Pagan Rome. Sorry, I don't drink that kool-aid! (See Rev. 17!)

:realitycheck:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The disps on this forum have convincingly shown that they cannot deal with a simple, literal reading of Dan. 9 but resort to insults.

The whole point of the OP was to justify the persecution of the Jews on the basis of a colon. They could justify the persecution Christians on the same basis, for Christians are the true, believing Israel of God. Believing Jews are added to the Church, & are excluded from the Jewish community. Down the ages, we cannot know how many Christians are of Jewish descent.

I ask again, why should 100 generations of Jews be excluded from the covenant promises made to 1,000 generations?

This could as easily be applied to the church - comprising believing Jew & Gentile:

33
And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

34
Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

35
And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appoi
nt
ed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB



Well, you keep throwing Darby's name out there, and I have to keep reminding you that Preterism has some pretty strong "credentials." You keep insisting that WE stop calling certain people "dispensationalists" but then you keep dropping "Darbyism" on US. If you want US to stop "name-calling," then maybe you should think about doing the same thing.
Darby did not invent it....
Guilt-by-association arguments never work...
Pot calling kettle black....
Get over it, and stay on topic....until then, I will continue to remind you of the preterist views "credentials" so that you remember that your position has some guilt-by-association problems as well.

Now, Ian, as far as being "anti-semitic", your accusation is laughable. The Roman Catholic Church's official theological position on the book of Revelation is the exact same position as yours. It is "highly symbolic" and they also insist on the preterist view. They also happen to be THE MOST ANTI_SEMITIC institution in the world. They also insist on the preterist view of Matthew 24. Anything MORE would condemn THEM! They are always careful to distance Papal Rome from Pagan Rome. Sorry, I don't drink that kool-aid! (See Rev. 17!)

:realitycheck:

I don't know what preterism has to do with this and in my studies everything points to Darby as the father of dispensationalism so I don't understand why those who call themselves dispensationalists want to separate themselves from him. Darbyism and dispensationalism are one and the same so I don't see how you reach the conclusion that such is "name calling".

As I've mentioned before, I know many who hold basically the same end times views as dispensationalists yet they reject what they see as the modern, unbiblical teachings of Darby just as did Spurgeon and virtually all conservative pastors of his day. It's clear dispensationalism isn't necessary to hold certain end times views.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

The disps on this forum have convincingly shown that they cannot deal with a simple, literal reading of Dan. 9 but resort to insults.

The whole point of the OP was to justify the persecution of the Jews on the basis of a colon. They could justify the persecution Christians on the same basis, for Christians are the true, believing Israel of God. Believing Jews are added to the Church, & are excluded from the Jewish community. Down the ages, we cannot know how many Christians are of Jewish descent.

I ask again, why should 100 generations of Jews be excluded from the covenant promises made to 1,000 generations?

This could as easily be applied to the church - comprising believing Jew & Gentile:

33
And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

34
Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

35
And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appoi
nt
ed.




1. You charge us with insults, but overlook John's continued harassment against us with the charge of "Darbyism."
2. We do not - never have, and never will - JUSTIFY the persecution of the Jews. Genesis 12:3 is just as true today as it was in the day the Lord spoke the words directly to Abram. We do not condone the persecution - we are FOR Israel! However, Jesus Christ has allowed them to be persecuted because of their rejection of Him. Noting facts as they occur does not mean that we CONDONE them. There is a BIG difference.
3. You charge us with not answering your points, but Rick has done an excellent job posting our position earlier in the thread. True to Preterist form, everything he said was completely swept aside, and not dealt with. We HAVE answered you position...you just are not listening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB


I don't know what preterism has to do with this and in my studies everything points to Darby as the father of dispensationalism so I don't understand why those who call themselves dispensationalists want to separate themselves from him. Darbyism and dispensationalism are one and the same so I don't see how you reach the conclusion that such is "name calling".

As I've mentioned before, I know many who hold basically the same end times views as dispensationalists yet they reject what they see as the modern, unbiblical teachings of Darby just as did Spurgeon and virtually all conservative pastors of his day. It's clear dispensationalism isn't necessary to hold certain end times views.


I was not born yesterday, John. You are labeling us as "Darbyites" and dispensationalism as "Darbyism" as a derogatory tactic. Don't try to play games and be coy about it. You are putting Darby's name on it so that it would appear to be a man-made system, and thus condemn us. Two can play at that game....
I would remind you that your research is INCOMPLETE, and I gave you the reasons WHY it is incomplete. But as usual, you dismissed my argument out of hand, with no thought of attempting to verify what I said. So don't give me this stuff about "your research" and then continue on in the same line of reasoning as if nobody ever proved anything different. Take the fingers out of your ears, and try listening to those who know where they came from. Getting a sound history of Dispensationalism from someone who is opposed to dispensationalism is like asking Stephen Hawking to give us a history of Creationism.....the history will be distorted and perverted. I gave you the history of dispensationalism earlier, and you ignored it.
My advice is to STOP with the Darbyism claim, and STOP pretending that we are uneducated. This type of argumentation adds nothing to the discussion.
Show a little respect, please!

Now, what is dispensationalism, or who would be properly classified as a dispensationalist?
A dispensation is a period in time in which God dispenses His grace to us through His specified means during that period of time. Some people refer to these periods of time as "God's economy" for that period. You should read Ryrie's book for a better understanding of what we mean by "dispensation."
If you recognize a difference between the OT and the NT, then you are recognizing a difference between God's plan during those specific periods of time.
If you recognize a difference between the Garden of Eden and the times immediately following (pre-flood), then you are recognizing a difference between God's economy during those two specific time periods.
If you recognize the difference between God's dealing with man after the flood up until the OT Law was given, then you are recognizing that there was a difference between God's economy during the two specific time periods.
If you recognize a difference between this current Church age, and the coming Tribulation, and then the coming Millenial Kingdom, then you are admitting that God's economy changes during those times.

Now, maybe the changes are more subtle at times, and maybe there are some foundational prinicples which never change (i.e. FAITH), but we are not looking for SIMILARITIES as much as we are DIFFERENCES - something the preterists seem to abhor.
If you can recognize these differences, then you ARE a dispensationalist to some degree or another. And yes, John, we all know that there are varying forms of dispensational schemes out there. But if you understand what dispensationalism really is, then it is easier to understand why there are differences of opinion on the dispensations.
At the root of the discussion is this simple question: Do you recognize a difference between how God dealt with mankind during different periods of time? (such as Garden, pre-flood, post-flood, under the Law, After the Law, and future events?) If you do recognize those differences, then that is what dispensationalism is all about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 1 Anonymous, 11 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online


  • Recent Achievements

    • couple earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • couple earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Rando went up a rank
      Rookie
    • TheGloryLand went up a rank
      Experienced
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eagle One

      Havent been on for years, but have been studying with Jews for Jesus weekly Bible Study which has been wonderful.  Not sure any of your views on that group, but if you are from a Jewish background a great place to be grounded in the word and to learn.
      · 0 replies
    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...