A Puzzle Piece Falls in Place:Dan.9:24-27

[asterisktom]

Well, there is no need in reinventing the wheel. I see that I already had this article from two years ago on the timing of Daniel 9. Here it is, with a few additions and updates. After this I plan to continue on this topic, exploring other fascinating aspects of this prophetical portion, like counting back from these Seventy Weeks and from the seventy years of captivity to the early period of national Israel's period. There are several scriptural markers to guide our way, like the specific time-period of the Promise Land's Sabbath neglect - contrary to God's specific injunction. But more on that later. First this:

A Puzzle Piece Falls in Place
​

Every once in a while some major piece of the Bible puzzle seems to come into place, and it is always exciting when it does. This is what had happened to me with Daniel 9. But please don't mistake candor for bluster, as if my epiphany is your truth . Your mileage may vary. I am just explaining how I felt when these pieces came into place.

For a long time, although being clear on the sixfold Messianic fulfillment during the 1st century (see article below), and on the events of AD 70, what eluded me was the starting point of this prophetical time. I was led to unwarranted assumptions by a number of writers.


CITY, NOT TEMPLE
Most of these writers trained me - and maybe you? - to look in the wrong direction. The focus was on the temple, and who gets credit for initiating the temple decree that supposedly started the countdown of the 70 weeks. Moreover, adding to the confusion, I hadn't stopped to really study the Daniel passage first of all. Daniel 9:25 never mentions a temple, but the city, Jerusalem. The temple isn't mentioned until verse 26. As far as the timing is concerned, the temple is actually irrelevant.

QUICK SUMMARY
Here is Daniel 9:24 - 27, with emphasis and a few brief interspersed notes added:

24. Seventy weeks are determined upon your people and upon your 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.


The seventy weeks come out to 490 years, "seventy sevens". This period of time is determined ("cut off" *) for Daniel's people and the holy city. It is important to note that in this summary of the very purpose no mention of the temple. The anointing of the "Most Holy" is a reference to the Person of Messiah, not the temple (More on this later).

25. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.


Here we learn when the period starts; from the beginning of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. But whose command, Cyrus (536 BC), Darius, or Artaxerxes (454 BC)? Later I will try to show why Artaxerxes is the only likely candidate, and why 454BC (with some "slop factor" either way) is the date that fits. The "troublous times" (tribulation) is sufficiently attested to in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (and Esther, according to some). The builders of the holy city faced enemies both within and without; opposition, infiltration, accommodation, etc. Just like today for those who are part of the City of Zion.

This period totalling 69 weeks (483 years) brings us to AD 29, the very beginning of Messiah's ministry!

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, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.


Christ is not cut off precisely at the end of the 69th week. We are only told that it is after it. More precise information comes in the following verse. What we do learn from this is that He will be cut off not for His own sins ("not for Himself"). And, once again, in the last part of the verse we have subsequent events foretold that are not fixed in relation to the end of this period, only that they come afterward. But all of these events are "determined", just as the duration of the 490 years is "determined".

27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


This is perhaps the most misinterpreted prophetical verse in the Bible, the error being helped along by many modern translators who, by using distinguishing lowercase, or by footnotes, identify this confirmer and "breaker" of the covenant be Antichrist.


Actually, this passage is purely Christ.
He is the Confirmer of the Covenant, "This is the New Covenant in my blood".
He causes the sacrifices to cease by His own righteous and God-satisfying once-for-all offering. When He said "It is finished" it was finished.

Since this article is mostly about the timing of the 490 years I will just keep myself to this summary of the other verses for now. I already mentioned that article (below, "Six Promises of Christ for His People") that goes into much greater detail into these six blessings from Messiah.

Continued in next post.

 

[asterisktom]

A Puzzle Piece Falls into Placeaniel 9:24-27 (2nd part)

Continuation of previous:



Getting back to the timing issue:

IS THIS PASSAGE ABOUT 490 YEARS AT ALL, OR SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT?
First, a certain credibility issue for the prophecy as a whole needs to be dealt with. The interpretation has been raised that this whole prophecy has nothing to do with a time period, or that 490 years, at least are not meant, but an indefinite period. The best way to answer this is to consider the context. This very chapter begins with Daniel "understanding by the books the number of the years specified by the word of the LORD through Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem". Jeremiah had written about the length of this captivity in Jer. 25:9-12. Was this a definite period? Of course it was.

Now why did Daniel just at that time begin to understand, to have a burden and to pray for his people? I believe it was partly from having just witnessed the Medes overcome the Chaldeans. Having read Isaiah's prophecies (Isaiah 44:24-45:2) and putting together Jeremiah's passage with that, he would have recognized Cyrus and the Medes as divinely appointed instruments of delivery. Cyrus, after all, was prophesied of by actual name, long before he ever existed. And Daniel's recent adventure with Belshazzar on the last night of the Chaldean Empire was bound to have reminded him of as he read Jeremiah 25. That very passage that speaks of seventy actual years of captivity in Babylon (do we spiritualize these too?) then goes on to describe delivery from Babylon. Notice the details: After seventy years "I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation", v. 12. God had said, moreover, to Jeremiah to take the wine cup from His hand and give it to the nations and make them drink, 15- 17. This was typified by Belshazzar at his wine party. He thought he was just drinking from Jewish cups, but He was actually drinking from the wine of God.

Daniel actually witnessed all this in very recent memory. So as all these pieces came together he knew that surely the time for, not only the Jew's release, but their return to the land must be at hand. This motivated him to pray. Then Gabriel came to him with his answer and consolation. Now what kind of consolation would it have been to Daniel and for his people if the promised deliverance was not in definite years? They had suffered real shame and affliction, deserved though it was, for a definite period. Should not the consolation also be definite? Yes, much of what is promised is spiritual, but relief from this predicament has to also be physical, since that is the world we live in.

I didn't meant to write this much on this, but I believe it is easy to fall into two traps. Either we make things too literal, or altogether literal; or we make things too spiritual (allegorical, actually) or altogether spiritual.

ARTAXERXES I AND THE ONLY DECREE THAT FITS
Artaxerxes the first is also called Longimanus, for supposedly having hands that touch his knees when he stands erect! (according to Adam Clarke. But Ussher maintains that he had one hand longer than the other.) But more importantly he was the one who issued the decree for those returning to the land to restore and rebuild the holy city.

Why then do so many Christian books make such a fanfare of the decree of Cyrus, as if he is the only one who could have fulfilled this? Honestly, I just don't know, other than to say that no other options were being taught. Because if you read Cyrus's proclamation, and then read Daniel 9:25 (see above), you should know that this can't have been the decree spoken of. There was no mention of the temple. And Cyrus's edict is all about building the temple. Eliminating Cyrus as the starting point of the 490 years shouldn't even be hard **.

The second two decrees that are seriously considered are both from the same man, Artaxerxes Longimanus. the last one, the one we speaking of, being in 454 BC. This is the one that fits the chronology and the parameters.

More on Daniel 9:24-27
Here is the point where we should be somewhat wary of the surmises by people like Sir Andersen who, out of mathematical necessity, convert Jewish years into 360 days each in order to have the near-endpoint of the prophecy, the 69th week, end up in the years of Christ's incarnate life. This gives him a credible endpoint, though using incredible means (as if the Jews of the day did not have their intercalary corrections). Once again, this is fallacious: Were the seventy years of captivity based on 360 days (Seventy years of 360 days each)? No, of course not. Neither are these 490 years.


454 BC IS THE BEST DATE THAT FITS - BOTH WAYS
Why does this fit? More to come later, as well as why 454 BC should be preferred over 444 BC.

Footnotes:
* I am especially indebted to Kim Riddlebarger for cluing me in on the pervasive covenant terminology used in our passage. "Determined" translates the Hebrew term which is the same root used to describe "cut a covenant". However I don't see all the supposed covenantal details that Riddlebarger sees in other parts of the Old Testament.

** The version which I quoted left "prince" uncapitalized, as if it was not the Prince of the verse just previous. But this is unwarranted, as I have explained at length in the other article, Six Promises to His People.

*** Many modern Christians - on this point at least - have a common viewpoint with those Jews who disregard Jesus as being their Christ. Both groups - though for different reasons - make much of the physical temple, and are looking for a future temple. Looking for a future, physical temple slights the present, spiritual one; and the present reality of the city of Zion, "whose builder and maker is God".

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Concernign the timing issue, you are not alone in your understanding:

John Gill:

that from the time of the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem; this commandment is the beginning of the seventy weeks or four hundred and ninety years, and from it they are to be reckoned; and which designs not the proclamation of Cyrus in the first year of his reign, which was only to rebuild the temple, and not the city of Jerusalem, Ezr 1:1, nor the decree of Darius Hystaspes, which also only regards the temple, and is only a confirmation of the decree of Cyrus, Ezr 6:1 and for the same reasons it cannot be the decree in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes; which only confirmed what his predecessors had granted concerning the temple, and provision for sacrifices, and exemption of the priests from toll, tribute, or custom, Ezr 7:7, but has not a word of building the wall and streets of Jerusalem, as that has, which was made in the twentieth year of his reign; and seems therefore to be the commandment or decree here referred to,

 

[asterisktom]

Concernign the timing issue, you are not alone in your understanding:

John Gill:

that from the time of the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem; this commandment is the beginning of the seventy weeks or four hundred and ninety years, and from it they are to be reckoned; and which designs not the proclamation of Cyrus in the first year of his reign, which was only to rebuild the temple, and not the city of Jerusalem, Ezr 1:1, nor the decree of Darius Hystaspes, which also only regards the temple, and is only a confirmation of the decree of Cyrus, Ezr 6:1 and for the same reasons it cannot be the decree in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes; which only confirmed what his predecessors had granted concerning the temple, and provision for sacrifices, and exemption of the priests from toll, tribute, or custom, Ezr 7:7, but has not a word of building the wall and streets of Jerusalem, as that has, which was made in the twentieth year of his reign; and seems therefore to be the commandment or decree here referred to,

John Gill is only one of several who pretty much followed the same interpretation. It has only been in the last century or so, it seems, that this view has become quite the minority view. I am not sure why. It fits perfectly with Scripture IMO.

 

[Winman]

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, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Christ is not cut off precisely at the end of the 69th week. We are only told that it is after it. More precise information comes in the following verse. What we do learn from this is that He will be cut off not for His own sins ("not for Himself"). And, once again, in the last part of the verse we have subsequent events foretold that are not fixed in relation to the end of this period, only that they come afterward. But all of these events are "determined", just as the duration of the 490 years is "determined".

27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

This is perhaps the most misinterpreted prophetical verse in the Bible, the error being helped along by many modern translators who, by using distinguishing lowercase, or by footnotes, identify this confirmer and "breaker" of the covenant be Antichrist.

Actually, this passage is purely Christ.
He is the Confirmer of the Covenant, "This is the New Covenant in my blood".
He causes the sacrifices to cease by His own righteous and God-satisfying once-for-all offering. When He said "It is finished" it was finished.

Sorry, I don't agree with you on this. Look at Dan 9:26 again.

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, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The first part of this verse is about Christ. He shall be cut off. But when it speaks of the prince that shall come and destroy the city it is speaking of the antichrist. How do we know this? Because it says the end shall be with a flood. And this is what is shown in Revelations 12.

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Verse 5 is speaking of Jesus and his crucifixion and resurrection. He was caught up to God where he now sits on the right hand of God.

But verse 6 takes us forward to the final 70th week. This is speaking of the tribulation. The thousand two hundred and threescore days are half of the tribulation (3.5 times 360).

Then down in verses 13-16 we see the flood mentioned in Dan 9:26.

Rev 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

In verse 14 again we see the three and a half years (1260 days). This is half of the final 70th week. And in verses 15 and 16 we see the flood spoken of by Daniel.

Oh, and I have wondered if the great eagle shown in verse 14 could be a reference to the United States? I really don't think so, but it is interesting that this verse happens to mention the very symbol of our country. And when it says "into her place" is it speaking of Israel's return to their ancient homeland? Interesting things to ponder.

 

[asterisktom]

Sorry, I don't agree with you on this. Look at Dan 9:26 again.

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, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The first part of this verse is about Christ. He shall be cut off. But when it speaks of the prince that shall come and destroy the city it is speaking of the antichrist. How do we know this? Because it says the end shall be with a flood. And this is what is shown in Revelations 12.

The people of the Prince to come = the Jews.
The Prince to come = the Prince that was just mentioned - Messiah.
When interpreting a passage it is better to first look around in the immediate context for important clues for understanding rather than go all the way to the other end of the Bible.

Also, the people are doing the destroying, not the prince. Your answer above, the way you phrased it, at least, gives the impression to me that you haven't weighed that fact in.

As far as "flood" being conclusive: There are several flood metaphors in the Bible. You shouldn't just go to Revelation - although that is connected, though not in the way you seem to think.

 

[Winman]

The people of the Prince to come = the Jews.
The Prince to come = the Prince that was just mentioned - Messiah.
When interpreting a passage it is better to first look around in the immediate context for important clues for understanding rather than go all the way to the other end of the Bible.

Also, the people are doing the destroying, not the prince. Your answer above, the way you phrased it, at least, gives the impression to me that you haven't weighed that fact in.

As far as "flood" being conclusive: There are several flood metaphors in the Bible. You shouldn't just go to Revelation - although that is connected, though not in the way you seem to think.

Sorry, still don't agree with you. And there are verses in Zechariah that support what I said.

Zech 12:6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.
7 The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.
8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

You see in verse 6 that it speaks of "her own place" as shown in Revelations 12. And it says in that day the LORD shall defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem. That did not happen in 70 A.D.

This reference to "her place" is shown again in Zechariah 14.

Zech 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Notice Jesus will set down on Mt. Olivet and the mountain will divide allowing the Jews to escape this invading army. This is what Jesus spoke of to his disciples.

Matt 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Notice how it references this fleeing in Zech 14:5.

Revelations also speaks of a great earthquake that will divide the city into three parts.

Rev 16:18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.
19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.

This I also believe will be when Jesus sets foot on Mt. Olivet. There will be a tremendous earthquake as the world has never known. The geological features of Israel will be changed as shown in Zech 14:10.

And notice how the Lord will kill these nations that come against Israel. In Zech 14:12 it says their flesh will consume away while they are standing on their feet, their eyes will consume away in their sockets, and their tongues shall consume away in their mouths. This hardly happened in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. This actually sounds like the effects of an atomic bomb.

But notice the islands fled away in Rev 12:20-21 and great hailstones fell on men. None of these things have happened yet.

 

[asterisktom]

Sorry, still don't agree with you. And there are verses in Zechariah that support what I said.

Zech 12:6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.
7 The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.
8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

You see in verse 6 that it speaks of "her own place" as shown in Revelations 12. And it says in that day the LORD shall defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem. That did not happen in 70 A.D.

This reference to "her place" is shown again in Zechariah 14.

Zech 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Notice Jesus will set down on Mt. Olivet and the mountain will divide allowing the Jews to escape this invading army. This is what Jesus spoke of to his disciples.

Matt 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Notice how it references this fleeing in Zech 14:5.

Revelations also speaks of a great earthquake that will divide the city into three parts.

Rev 16:18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.
19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.

This I also believe will be when Jesus sets foot on Mt. Olivet. There will be a tremendous earthquake as the world has never known. The geological features of Israel will be changed as shown in Zech 12:10.

And notice how the Lord will kill these nations that come against Israel. In Zech 12:12 it says their flesh will consume away while they are standing on their feet, their eyes will consume away in their sockets, and their tongues shall consume away in their mouths. This hardly happened in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. This actually sounds like the effects of an atomic bomb.

But notice the islands fled away in Rev 12:21 and great hailstones fell on men. None of these things have happened yet.

With all due respect, this discussion won't go anywhere because you keep seeing details literally. I have no way to make you see things spiritually. Yet, the bible is a spiritual book. Very often the details - especially in the prophetical books - need to be looked at that way.

One thing you can do also is to study that phrase "in that day" in Zechariah. If I can get you to agree that it is referring to the same period then we can get somewhere.

I don't mean to sound insulting. I do know where you are coming from because I used to use the same arguments (3 of them in this page alone) for 20 years. But it just doesn't fit.

 

[Winman]

With all due respect, this discussion won't go anywhere because you keep seeing details literally. I have no way to make you see things spiritually. Yet, the bible is a spiritual book. Very often the details - especially in the prophetical books - need to be looked at that way.

I'm sorry, but that is a silly thing to say. How am I to know you are spirtually interpreting the scriptures properly? I could ask one hundred different people for their spiritual interpretation, and I am sure to get one hundred different opinions.

This is the trouble when you approach the scriptures from your perspective. The scriptures become meaningless, every person will interpret them differently. How can anyone know the truth if your method is correct?

The scriptures should be interpreted literally, else they would be meaningless.

 

[asterisktom]

I'm sorry, but that is a silly thing to say. How am I to know you are spirtually interpreting the scriptures properly? I could ask one hundred different people for their spiritual interpretation, and I am sure to get one hundred different opinions.

This is the trouble when you approach the scriptures from your perspective. The scriptures become meaningless, every person will interpret them differently. How can anyone know the truth if your method is correct?

The scriptures should be interpreted literally, else they would be meaningless.

There is no way past this impasse. I am not going any further down this path.

Have a good evening.

 

[Winman]

There is no way past this impasse. I am not going any further down this path.

Have a good evening.

What impasse? You are wanting all of us to take your word on this stuff, to accept your personal interpretation of scripture. Are you a prophet?

The problem is, Joe Snow can come along and give his personal spiritual interpretation of the same scriptures and they might completely disagree with yours. Then who am I to believe?

Do you see a problem with this method of interpreting scripture?

 

[asterisktom]

What impasse? You are wanting all of us to take your word on this stuff, to accept your personal interpretation of scripture. Are you a prophet?

The problem is, Joe Snow can come along and give his personal spiritual interpretation of the same scriptures and they might completely disagree with yours. Then who am I to believe?

Do you see a problem with this method of interpreting scripture?

If I was a prophet then I would know I am wasting my time. The impasse is that what I am writing seems "silly", it shows me that you are still aren't ready to seriously examine your way of interpreting the Bible.

The Bible is a spiritual book. It is interpreted spiritually. We can read it and see a world of metaphors illustrating the most important spiritual truths - or we can see antichrist everywhere, atom bombs and helicopters.

Another reason for the impasse is that you never interact with the verses and points I brought up but just sail on to other verses, saying "No I disagree because of verse X (elsewhere)". Nothing can ever be proven this way.

I'm sorry, but I have learned a few things in my 56 years. One is to know when to fold them.

I'm not going away mad or anything of the sort. In fact, I am going to write another silly article.

Take care.

 

[Grasshopper]

The scriptures should be interpreted literally, else they would be meaningless.

Then I'll ask you this simple question. If Revelation (not Revelations) 1:1,3 are taken literally does it not destroy your entire view?

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Very simple concepts that are very clear. So do you take it literally?

 

[Winman]

Then I'll ask you this simple question. If Revelation (not Revelations) 1:1,3 are taken literally does it not destroy your entire view?

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Very simple concepts that are very clear. So do you take it literally?

Well, I agree, to man it seems like a long time. But God here must have been speaking from his perspective. To God a thousand years is as a day.

2 Pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

These verses almost seem to be answering your very question. Yes, to us it seems like a long wait. Some men might argue that God is very slack. But God is giving man every a chance to repent. So to us is is a long time, but to God who has been alive forever, two thousand years is nothing.

So these verses do not cause me a problem, and I still understand them to be literal.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

 

[OldRegular]

The scriptures should be interpreted literally, else they would be meaningless.

Winman

Please interpret the following literally or at face value as Ryrie would say:

Daniel 9:27b: and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

John 6:53-56
53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

 

[Winman]

If I was a prophet then I would know I am wasting my time. The impasse is that what I am writing seems "silly", it shows me that you are still aren't ready to seriously examine your way of interpreting the Bible.

The Bible is a spiritual book. It is interpreted spiritually. We can read it and see a world of metaphors illustrating the most important spiritual truths - or we can see antichrist everywhere, atom bombs and helicopters.

Another reason for the impasse is that you never interact with the verses and points I brought up but just sail on to other verses, saying "No I disagree because of verse X (elsewhere)". Nothing can ever be proven this way.

I'm sorry, but I have learned a few things in my 56 years. One is to know when to fold them.

I'm not going away mad or anything of the sort. In fact, I am going to write another silly article.

Take care.

I was saying your specific argument was silly. If scripture has only spiritual meaning, then who is to decide what the proper interpretation is? Wouldn't I have to take you at your word? What if some other person disagrees with your interpretation, how would I know who is correct?

If I can say when the Lord walked on water that that did not really mean he walked on water but flew through the air, couldn't someone else say it meant he swam to the bottom of the sea? Or maybe it did not mean any physical action on his part, who knows?

That is the problem, everybody will have their own opinions of what a passage really means, and there would be no sure test as to what is correct.

If that doesn't make sense to you, well, I don't know what to say. It is just common sense.

 

[Grasshopper]

[

QUOTE=Winman;1489642]Well, I agree, to man it seems like a long time. But God here must have been speaking from his perspective. To God a thousand years is as a day.

Can you not see your hypocrisy? You demand a literal interpretation except when it doesn't fit your view! So now "shortly" and "near", as man knows it ,isn't really how God uses the term therefore it is not literal to us.

2 Pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Ok, if you can play games like this so can we. The 1000 year reign in Revelation is actually only 1 day long.

So these verses do not cause me a problem, and I still understand them to be literal.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Hard to argue with someone who insists stars literally fall to the earth but then denies near means near. asterisktom had the right idea and bowed out. I shall do the same unless someone else picks up the conversation.

 

[amilltruth]

grasshopper, asterisk RIGHT ON BROTHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Winman]

[

Can you not see your hypocrisy? You demand a literal interpretation except when it doesn't fit your view! So now "shortly" and "near", as man knows it ,isn't really how God uses the term therefore it is not literal to us.



Ok, if you can play games like this so can we. The 1000 year reign in Revelation is actually only 1 day long.




Hard to argue with someone who insists stars literally fall to the earth but then denies near means near. asterisktom had the right idea and bowed out. I shall do the same unless someone else picks up the conversation.

Who's playing games? 2 Peter 3:9 addresses your very question. Read it carefully and you will see.

2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Peter said the Lord is not slack concerning his promise. Slack is defined as delay. But carefully notice he then says, "as some men count slackness". Did you see that? Do you understand what it is saying? From God's perspective he is not slack, but from man's perspective he is. Peter is explaining this.

So, nobody is playing games, Peter was answering "some men" (not pointing fingers) who seemed to believe the Lord was not being completely honest and was slack in fulfilling his promise.

And when the scriptures say the stars will fall to earth, it is surely speaking of meteorites, or pehaps an asteroid. Did you know an asteroid approached very close the the earth not long ago?

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/pressinfo/1997XF11.html

The ancients called stars, planets, comets, and meteorites stars. There have been great meteorite showers on earth at times, and they are known to strike the earth.

Pretty sad when you have to explain something like this.

Jude 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

You see "wandering stars" there? Jude is speaking of the planets which today we do not consider stars at all. They can be observed to move and change position among the stars. But in ancient times, all things that showed light in heaven such as stars, comets, or meteorites were simply called stars.

 

[OldRegular]

Winman [or anyone since he hasn't]

Please interpret the following literally or when taken at face value as Ryrie would say:

Daniel 9:27b: and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

John 6:53-56
53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.