melvin mccarty Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 I prefer to consider it as I have outlined. mel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 14, 2008 Moderators Share Posted August 14, 2008 OK. Would you like to talk about the reasoning and evidence that causes you to prefer it? How did you come to that conclusion? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin mccarty Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 I just cited what scripture says. It says the beast was killed and burned and the other beasts continued for a time and a season. I'd like to see these things on our timeline. mel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 14, 2008 Moderators Share Posted August 14, 2008 I just cited what scripture says. It says the beast was killed and burned and the other beasts continued for a time and a season. I'd like to see these things on our timeline. mel Great point. Does it seem to you that the text is saying the beast was destroyed and burned and that the other beasts afterwards continued to live for a time and a season? In other words, does the text seem to you to be saying the other beasts are existing some time after the fourth beast loses its dominion and is destroyed by fire? When do you believe it is destroyed by fire? Notice in this connection the reading of the NIV of v. 13. Also notice vvs. 14, 15. What is the subject of those verses and how do they relate to verses 9-13? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin mccarty Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 That is exactly what it says. I'm asking you to put it on a timeline. In any case it seems obvious that it is speaking of the end of the 4th beast which you have said is Rome. mel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 15, 2008 Moderators Share Posted August 15, 2008 That is exactly what it says. I'm asking you to put it on a timeline. In any case it seems obvious that it is speaking of the end of the 4th beast which you have said is Rome. mel I would like to know if you agree that the fourth beast is Rome. I am interested in what you yourself believe here. Let's look carefully at the context of the entire passage, Daniel 7: 9- 14. Ask yourself what is happening immediately preceding the prophet's hearing the boastful words of the little horn (v. 11)? Also ask yourself what happens in verses 13 and 14, after the text mentions the burning of the beast (v. 11)? Finally, could the reference in verse 12, to the "rest of the beasts," be a parenthesis and not intended to be giving the sequence of events? Notice the way the NIV understands v. 13. The Ancient of Days Reigns 9"I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire. 10"A river of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him; Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him; The court sat, And the books were opened. 11 "Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire. 12 "As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time. The Son of Man Presented 13"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin mccarty Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 So? I think you are interesting in muddying the water so you do not need to face the facts. Let's just agree that the beast is Rome and the little horn is the antichrist. Now the beast (Rome) is destroyed...are the horns still on the beast? BUT the rest of the beasts are allowed to continue on though with no authority. That is what it says. But you dont seem to like what it says. It does not mesh with your ideas so it must mean something else. mel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 15, 2008 Moderators Share Posted August 15, 2008 ... I'm asking you to put it on a timeline. ... I believe the evidence supports the following sequence of events: 1) thrones placed; 2) Ancient of days seated; 3) Son of man welcomed; 4) judgment held; 5) Son of man and saints rewarded, and 6) beast destroyed. Check out 2 Thess. 1: 7-10 and 2: 3-9. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 15, 2008 Moderators Share Posted August 15, 2008 So? I think you are interesting in muddying the water so you do not need to face the facts. Let's just agree that the beast is Rome and the little horn is the antichrist. Now the beast (Rome) is destroyed...are the horns still on the beast? BUT the rest of the beasts are allowed to continue on though with no authority. That is what it says. But you dont seem to like what it says. It does not mesh with your ideas so it must mean something else. mel Help me with the facts you speak of. Show how I'm muddying the waters. What facts am I avoiding? Feel free to show or tell. Do you believe that the fourth empire is Rome and the little horn is the Antichrist? I wouldn't want you to say that if you personally don't believe it. Once the beast is utterly destroyed, there are no more horns or worldly governments. Compare Daniel 2 where the kingdom of God comes after the fourth kingdom and breaks in pieces and consumes all earthly kingdoms. Daniel 2: 44, 44. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fausto Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 Here goes (I don't have a lot of patience like John does), but let me introduce to a chart my friend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 15, 2008 Moderators Share Posted August 15, 2008 Very nice, chart, Fausto. Do you have the one of the 70 week prophecy of Daniel 9: 24-27? If you do, could you please post that chart also? Thanks. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fausto Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 Lets see...nope, I will try and find one the one I have contains the entire 2300 year prophecy, but yeah the 70 week is there explicitly (I hope). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fausto Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 Found one John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 15, 2008 Moderators Share Posted August 15, 2008 Those are excellent, very clear charts. We can study and discuss all the individual aspects as we work our way through the book of Daniel. Right now we're still looking at Daniel 2, 7, and 8. But it won't be very long until we're into Daniel 9. At Daniel 8: 14, we take up the 2300 day prophecy. Thanks very much for all 3 of those illustrations, Fausto. We can copy and paste them again if we need to once we arrive at the point where we're looking at them in detail. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fausto Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 No problem John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Quote: Quote:John317 Let's be really clear about this: ... Ahh, ...an appropriate quote from which to segue. Yes, certainly, one might wish for greater clarity of text; however, Gd declared that He ‘conceals things’. I am repeatedly baffled by the ‘laissez-faire’ approach to Writ that many .orgs adopt... Daniel 12:4 (...shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.) is proscription against development of dogmas and doctrines of preterism; yet, .orgs blithely go on, and on, in seminars advancing this theory, that hypothesis, this conjecture, that..., as epiphanic. An example of ‘laissez-faire’ exposition (and tying-in with the matter at hand; that is, elliptical exegesis concerning the temporal expression “many shall run to and fro”): The Sabbath/Fourth Commandment expressly proscribes even one’s livestock from being worked upon the Sabbath; yet, we find our Sabbath v Sunday ‘Pioneers’ dismissing that particular injunction by saddling ol’ Dobbins or hitching her to cart, wagon, or carriage to take the Sabbath-keeper to meeting on that particular and singular day. What’s THAT!? selective exegesis? Anyway, the visible disorder, which characterizes a disregard for the temporal expression (well, the 'softer' one, anyway) in Daniel 12:4 obviates all prematurely derived inferences and renders moot those matters upon the subject – whether proffered verbally or as GIFs – either in black and white or dayglo. (...my considered opinion, for what it’s worth) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 18, 2008 Moderators Share Posted August 18, 2008 Please explain how you are using "preterism" here. How is Daniel 12:4 a proscription against studying Daniel and writing books about it? And since you believe that Daniel is no longer sealed, how does its having been sealed in Daniel's day relate to our study of Daniel's prophecies today? By any chance, would you be suggesting that the charts and everything else we have said up to this point about Daniel 2, 7, and 8 is invalid because it was all done in opposition to your understanding of Daniel 12: 4? In other words, is it your contention that your view of Daniel 12: 7 is enough to disprove those things? If it is, then it would be necessary to show that your view of Daniel 12:4 is correct, and I don't see evidence of that, either historically, grammatically, and theologically. Do you know of any commentator who has argued this point before and has written a defense of it? I would like to read it if anyone has. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 18, 2008 Moderators Share Posted August 18, 2008 An example of ‘laissez-faire’ exposition (and tying-in with the matter at hand; that is, elliptical exegesis concerning the temporal expression “many shall run to and fro”): The Sabbath/Fourth Commandment expressly proscribes even one’s livestock from being worked upon the Sabbath; yet, we find our Sabbath v Sunday ‘Pioneers’ dismissing that particular injunction by saddling ol’ Dobbins or hitching her to cart, wagon, or carriage to take the Sabbath-keeper to meeting on that particular and singular day. What’s THAT!? selective exegesis? .... Are you yourself a strict Sabbath keeper? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 18, 2008 Moderators Share Posted August 18, 2008 Hey Fausto, Wondering if you might explain briefly the 1,290 and 1,335 days and also tell how that time prophecy is related to the year AD 508. Daniel 12: 12 says, "Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the 1,335 days." What does it mean? Could you also relate the 1,290 days to Daniel 12: 11? John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Quote: Quote:jasd as epiphanic. >>Please explain how you are using "preterism" here.<< From the Latin praeter/past. Believing and/or teaching that ‘end time events’ have already found their fulfillment – having already occurred. >>How is Daniel 12:4 a proscription against studying Daniel and writing books about it?<< John317, sometimes, I believe you either do not read my responses – or you read them slightly. I have, on numerous occasions, stated that now is the time we should apply studies on the Book of Daniel – as I believe this past century has seen its unsealing. Note: “this past century” is opposed to the 14th, 15th, 16th, or other time prior to this past century. One might read anything to one’s advantage (even write) – however that advantage might be measured. >>And since you believe that Daniel is no longer sealed, how does its having been sealed in Daniel's day relate to our study of Daniel's prophecies today?<< Need you ask? :-o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 18, 2008 Moderators Share Posted August 18, 2008 Quote: Quote:jasd as epiphanic. >>Please explain how you are using "preterism" here.<< From the Latin praeter/past. Believing and/or teaching that ‘end time events’ have already found their fulfillment – having already occurred. What needs to be done to support your view is to show strong evidence that the events you allude to as "end time events" are indeed end time events. What events have not yet been fulfilled that have been described as having happened? You deny that these things have been fulfilled but you do not show a reason why this is the case. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted August 18, 2008 Moderators Share Posted August 18, 2008 Yes, please explain your viewpoint. Show from the Bible that "sealing" the book of Daniel meant that no one would understand it until "this past century." Also, reason and evidence would need to be shown why Daniel's sealing 2, 600 years ago necessarily means everything that has been thought about it before 19-- ? must be wrong and rejected. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 >>By any chance, would you be suggesting that the charts and everything else we have said up to this point about Daniel 2, 7, and 8 is invalid because it was all done in opposition to your understanding of Daniel 12: 4?<< Is there more needed saying? It is Gd speaking..., not jasd - and if Daniel cannot be understood as written - well, the BRIs of the several .orgs prove insufficient. And yes, I suggest as much. >>In other words, is it your contention that your view of Daniel 12: 7 is enough to disprove those things?<< [Dan 12:4 - ed.jasd] I’ve noticed that the .Org has no trouble identifying proscriptive language per Exodus 20 – why does it and its adherents have such difficulty apprehending the proscriptive language in Daniel 12? Curiouser and curiouser... >>If it is, then it would be necessary to show that your view of Daniel 12:4 is correct, and I don't see evidence of that, either historically, grammatically, and theologically.<< No, it is not necessary that I hold anyone’s hands while they muse upon such as “...shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” There could hardly be a more plainly spoken “Thus saith the word of Gd.” It is easily understood and noted that it is – Gd-speak. Per the ...llys above – I notice. >>Do you know of any commentator who has argued this point before and has written a defense of it? I would like to read it if anyone has.<< Of course, it is Gd. “...shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” Yes, a straightforward read of the word of Gd, the commentator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Quote: Quote:jasd What’s THAT!? selective exegesis? >>Are you yourself a strict Sabbath keeper?<< Are there any? Anyway, it is not I, jasd, Pioneer, extraordinaire and remnantized – who asks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fausto Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Hey Fausto, Wondering if you might explain briefly the 1,290 and 1,335 days and also tell how that time prophecy is related to the year AD 508. Daniel 12: 12 says, "Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the 1,335 days." What does it mean? Could you also relate the 1,290 days to Daniel 12: 11? John, let me look it up as this particular prophecy is rather confusing to me, maybe this way I'll get to understand it! I'd say it is a point of contention to me as I don't understand it really, here is a link that also leads to an inconclusive conclusion (oxymoron?) if there is a such a word. Daniel 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts