eschatology continued 2

Your 1st quote from K&D is what we said.

 

Sorry I meant that K&D agreed with us mostly.

 

The commentary cited by John to support the view that the 70th week is separated from the 69th week, & is still awaited rejects that interpretation.

As I understand the futurist/dispensational interpretation of prophecy, it in no way depends on the separation of the 70th week. There are plenty of other Scriptures to misinterpret.

 

But it DOES depend upon FACT. And a big ole bear of a FACT is, the prophesied eschatological events have simply NOT YET OCCURRED. All preterist legitimacy depends upon its believers being able to provide ***PROOF/EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTATION*** those prophesied events have already occurred. Without such proof, all pro-pret comments are moot and untrue.

 

So far on this thread we are discussing Gabriel's 70 weeks prophecy in Dan. 9, not preterism. The separation of week 70 from the first century fulfilment is refuted by the reference John of Japan cited.

You don't have to believe us - read the K&D commentary John referred us to.

 

My mum used to say, "There's none so blind as those who won't see"

 

The bible is not referring to shooting stars, whih are not stars at all but fragments of space dust. They don't fall to earth but burn up in the atmosphere.
Revelation 1:16-20 tells us that stars represent people in prophey.

 

I have given the answers in previous posts. Do we have to keep repeating the same things like Robycop3.

 

The above in the opening post is what we are discussing, and I posted full details on a previous thread.

 

I posted a reply to that earlier today.

 

The references on this thread to me and the K&D (Keil & Delitszch) commentary that I recommended are all completely off the mark. I did not refer to K&D in reference to their take on the 70 weeks. Are you kidding me? I would not do that, since they were both probably post-mil, being Church of England.

In other words, prophecy70 and company completely misapprehended my meanings. Therefore, I see no need to participate on this thread as regards the 70 weeks.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say in this post. I cited no commmentaries about the 70th week--didn't even discuss it, though I may have briefly mentioned it. I cited no commentaries about the 70 weeks at all, in fact, and don't intend to.