eschatology continued 2

[prophecy70]

We were on the 70 weeks of Daniel in the last post

You are thinking in English. Hebrew grammar is quite different. If you have e-Sword, download the K&D commentary, which deals with the Hebrew in this passage

Not less doubtful is the matter of the definition of the terminus ad quem of the seventy שׁבעים, and of the chronological reckoning of the whole period. As for the terminus ad quem, a sharply defined factum must form the conclusion of the sixty-ninth week; for at this point the public appearance of Christ, His being anointed with the Holy Ghost, is named as the end of the prophecy. If this factum occurred, according to Luk 3:1, in the year of Rome 782, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes - i.e., the year 455 b.c., according to the usual chronology - would be the year 299 A.U.C.; if we add to that sixty-nine weeks = 483 years, then it gives the year 782 A.U.C. In the middle of this last week, beginning with the appearance of the Anointed, occurred His death, while the confirming of the covenant extends through the whole of it. With reference to the death of Christ, the prophecy and its fulfilment closely agree, since that event took place three and a half years after His baptism. But the terminus ad quem of the confirming of the covenant, as one more or less moveable, is capable of no definite chronological determination. It is sufficient to remark, that in the first years after the death of Christ the ἐκλογή of the Old Covenant people was gathered together, and then the message of Christ was brought also to the heathen, so that the prophet might rightly represent the salvation as both subjectively and objectively consummated at the end of the seventy weeks for the covenant people, of whom alone he speaks (Hgst. pp. 163f., 180). Thus also Auberlen, who, however, places the end of the seventy weeks in the factum of the stoning of Stephen, with which the Jews pressed, shook down, and made full to the overflowing the measure of their sins, already filled by the murder of the Messias; so that now the period of grace yet given to them after the work of Christ had come to an end, and the judgment fell upon Israel.

Against this new attempt to solve the mystery of the seventy weeks, Hofmann, in Schriftbew. ii. 2, p. 594, raises the objection, "that in Dan 9:26 a period must be described which belongs to the past, and in Dan 9:27, on the contrary, another which belongs to the time of the end; this makes the indissoluble connection which exists between the contents of the two verses absolutely impossible." In this he is perfectly right. The close connection between these two verses makes it certainly impossible to interpose an empty space of time between the cutting off of the Anointed, by which Fries understands the dispersion of Israel among the heathen in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and the coming of Antichrist, a space which would amount to 1800 years.

 

[David Kent]

We were on the 70 weeks of Daniel in the last post

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

 

[prophecy70]

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

what do you mean? I took it from covenant's post because no one replied to it before the thread was closed, I apologize if I should of quoted it different.

 

[David Kent]

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

 

[prophecy70]

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

Oh yes what what I'm gathering that was the conclusion of the K&D commentary. Daniels 70 weeks are consecutive. No need for a 2000 year plus time gap.

 

[Covenanter]

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.

 

[robycop3]

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.

 

[prophecy70]

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.

Show me PROOF/EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTATION
Revelations 6:13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.
on how that is literally possible. Until you do that, your literal interpretation of the events is moot and untrue.

 

[TCassidy]

Show me PROOF/EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTATION
Revelations 6:13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.
on how that is literally possible. Until you do that, your literal interpretation of the events is moot and untrue.

You have never heard of a shooting star? Did you grow up in a cave?

 

[Covenanter]

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.

 

[David Kent]

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.

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

 

[David Kent]

You have never heard of a shooting star? Did you grow up in a cave?

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.

 

[TCassidy]

The bible is not referring to shooting stars,

And how do you know that?

whih are not stars at all but fragments of space dust.

Yes, we all know that.

They don't fall to earth but burn up in the atmosphere.

Really?

 

[TCassidy]

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

You can't give a cogent answer so you just resort to ad hominem?

 

[David Kent]

You can't give a cogent answer so you just resort to ad hominem?

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

 

[David Kent]

We were on the 70 weeks of Daniel in the last post

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

 

[David Kent]

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.

I posted a reply to that earlier today.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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.

 

[David Kent]

The bible is not referring to shooting stars, whic

And how do you know that?

Yes, we all know that.

Really?

View attachment 1780

That is not a star but a meteor.