Moderators John317 Posted July 21, 2011 Moderators Posted July 21, 2011 Yes, that's right, pk. We can already see how those things could happen. People are already talking about how the whole world is so interconnected now that there's no real place any more for a people or nation to feel they are separate from everyone else. We all stand or fall together. People are also much more receptive now than they were even a few years ago to the idea that an International Court should have some kind of authority over all nations. We really are coming more and more to a "one world" point of view. I've read recently that some Americans are even rejecting the whole idea of being an American citizen, saying instead that they are "citizens of the world." Quote 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.
Lysimachus Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 ...Daniel 9:25 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.<< Ive bolded the only relevant phrases, as this prophecys beginning terminus is of utmost importance. Tell me how Nehemiah 1 and 2 cannot correlate with Daniel 8:25, which deals entirely with materially reconstructive matters; yet, you've managed to take the entirety of the first three decrees that dealt ONLY with the House of Gd/Temple together with a few extraneous matters and translate them as fulfilling to restore and to build Jerusalem and the street shall be built again, and the wall of Daniel 9:25! Daniel addressed the matter of the CITY and not the matter of the House of Gd/Temple. Apples and oranges. Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
Lysimachus Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 I am ‘apologizing’ for Writ as written and meant to be understood. I am showing that Daniel 9:24 depends upon the parameters set forth in Daniel 9:25 for its terminus a quo. Writ is not meant to be reverse-engineered as did those who disregarded Gd’s injunction to seal the book of Daniel until the time of the end – when knowledge shall be increased and men shall run to and fro. It can hardly be said that the book of Daniel was unsealed before either the discovery of germ theory or when men still were born, lived, and died within a 20 mile radius. Given the above, ipso facto, whatever was developed and bruited as doctrine before then cannot be entirely true or accurate. Mebbe, in part, but not in entirety. I’m showing that the 457 BC date taken to begin counting the 70-weeks prophecy – is inaccurate, as the date does not meet the requirements set down in Daniel 9:25. Moreover, prefacing the argument – there is a restrictive condition even larger – and that is, the entirety of Israel (all the tribes and not just the Jews of the Southern Kingdom) must be in view at some time during the fulfillment of the prophecy – per Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
jasd Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 Normally, I would break-up this response into several more manageable posts; however, my ‘puter is in slo-mo today – and to avoid the interminable wait to reload a reply frame – I’m posting this in its entirety – rather than concern myself whether or not someone may or may not read it. Quote: Quote:jasdProbably true. Living out here on my few acres (as EGW advises) in the country – I have only dial-up service. >>I find it interesting that you take EGW's advice,<< It was not her advice which leads me to stay upon my few acres in the country; rather, it is the dark sense of affairs that pervades our time, which keeps me at a remove from the madding crowd. I parenthesized EGW as a chide to all of you (generic) who shout EGW from the housetops – and yet remain in large population centers. (Say what!?-say it ain't so! --Pogo) >>...yet even though she endorses (more than endorses, but unequivocally declares as standing without impeachment) the commencement of the 70 weeks as beginning in 457 B.C. Essentially, when you state that the commencement of the 70 weeks begins at the "decree" of Nehemiah 1 and 2, you are basically disqualifying ALL her sound endorsements of not only the 457 date and 70 weeks,<< For the most part, EGW traveled in the limited fashion of her time, which was hardly a time of men running to and fro. She, mostly, also lived during a time, by and large, before germ theory. I could go on and on and on... She and her association by prematurely infringing upon that which Gd had sealed – invalidated their interpretations thereof. One can reach no legitimate conclusion other than – one errs to rely upon their ‘findings’ - else Gd has been made the fool. [/respect to Gd] >>...but completely dismembering the 2300 days as terminating in 1844,<< The book of Daniel was wrested beforehand. The date which determines the beginning terminus of the 2300 cannot be found in Daniel 8:14; 9:26 or in any proximate texts. >>...and disqualifying the doctrine of the investigative judgment from your beliefs.<< It may be that the IJ is overly ambitious. >>That would make the 2300 years end in 1831, which of course, nothing happened.<< As I’ve noted: the terminus a quo is rather numinous... >>Which in essence, would make Ellen White a false prophet. Therefore, you do not need to take her advice on having a "few acres".<< From Aleph – the first vision: Wherein, she embraced the shut door – after which, a period of approximately seven years passed – and the vision was redacted. That she did not protest the redaction – raises legitimate questions in the mind of an observer. To Omerta – Her Last Will and Testament: Wherein, in descending order – her church was last noted as bequeathed. No problem, as the estate had a negative net worth anyway – it being heavily in debt to numerous creditors. The church/association had to petition the court for a rescue of her life’s work – paying off the Will’s most immediate bequeathed and thereby forestalling future claims against possible worth of the estate – and undertaking to pay the numerous creditors from church/association funds. That effort took three years to accomplish. As it turns out, it was a remuneratively lucrative investment. I extemporized the above – to leave room for detractors to seize upon any error(s) I may have committed in recounting the facts. I think the woman wrote lyrically well (and I’ve not really an interest to denigrate her) for she, despite her mistakes – may have indeed been the Lord’s own... Quote: Quote: the SOP:The preaching of a definite time for the judgment, in the giving of the first message, was ordered by God. The computation of the prophetic periods on which that message was based, placing the close of the 2300 days in the autumn of 1844, stands without impeachment. The repeated efforts to find new dates for the beginning and close of the prophetic periods, and the unsound reasoning necessary to sustain these positions, not only lead minds away from the present truth, but throw contempt upon all efforts to explain the prophecies.(The Great Controversy, page 457) >>She unequivocally declares these dates as "ordained by God",<< Is there anything so unequivocal as ‘self-witness’? >>...but you would rather rely on your rusty perceptions<< I’ve been complimented upon my brandy-rusted voice – and I welcome another compliment. Always. >>...and feel it safer to rely on your questionable preference of a different starting date simply because of your issues concerning a "wall" and the "decrees" made to Nehemiah<< You forgot: 'rebuild' the 'CITY Jerusalem' and the inclusive subject – 'ALL Israel', which is formidably more than the few Jews of the hardscrabble land of Judea Post Diaspora. You’ll remember that the vast majority of Jews taken in the Babylonian Captivity chose not to return – they having settled in prosperous enclaves in Babylonia and Persia. It is historically mentioned that the required assembly in Jerusalem for the Pasch in the time of Jesus Christ saw only a few million in attendance. >>...than to rely on the prophet of the Lord when she said exactly what she meant.<< I’ve often wondered why it was that it took more than 30,000,000 word$ to do that; whereas, Holy Writ only took some 800,000 words... >>Interesting that she made that statement on page 457 in The Great Controversy? Just had to throw that in.<< That’s good. However, I’d ask what about the other [edited/emended] editions? You see, my hypothesis is not influenced by rambunctious fellows and a premature reading of the book of Daniel. Quote: Quote:LysimachusIn 1906 she made the following resounding statement: Quote: It is your privilege to know what is truth, because for more than half a century we have been guided step by step by the counsels of the Spirit of God. At this time many efforts will be made to unsettle our faith in the sanctuary question, but we must not waver. Not a pin is to be moved from the foundations of our faith. Truth is still truth. Those who become uncertain will drift into erroneous theories and will finally find themselves infidel in regard to the past evidence we have had of what is truth. The old waymarks must be preserved, that we lose not our bearings.--Letter 395, 1906, p. 4. (To S. M. Cobb, Dec. 25, 1906.) [ed.jasd] It is within these past several weeks (In the thread “By Request: Why the Catholic is NOT the Great Whore of Babylon) that in the schema of person, place, or thing re the ‘Sanctuary’ – I posted the following: “Some have in mind that "the basic meaning of sadaq is ‘just,’ ‘right,’ or some similar term" (p. 495). This kind of reasoning is somewhat oversimplified and misleading. "All lexicons agree in giving the meaning of the word as ‘to be just,’ ‘to be righteous.’ In 8:14 the word occurs in the Niphal form (the reflexive or passive), and would ordinarily be translated ‘be justified,’ or ‘be made righteous’” ” (Problems in Bible Translation, p. 175). The verb stem requires the ‘cleansing’ of the Sanctuary read as the cleansing of ‘peoples’ – rather than ‘a thing’. >>But your posts reveal to me that it is not truly your desire to become grounded and well familiarized with the sound exegetical arguments presented by our best authors on the 457 question.<< Your statement is true in part; I dismiss the argument for the terminus of Daniel 9 being 457 BC. Its foundation is prematurely wrested and clung to as no more than dogma. It, by textual reading, is total error. It never even factored the argument of the necessity of ALL Israel be in view, as required by careful reading... Per “sound exegetical arguments”: By which rule, what rote, Whose imagined pattern Structures the cloistered reign Of illusions and spectre-stuff. —Goethe Wherewith are shackles slacked And whereupon foundations laid -- Within a recess beside a brook? A landslip of crumbs and feathers? >>I would expect (one more time: EXPECT), that if you are an Adventist (or claim to have been raised one and are no longer), and if you DISAGREE with the 457 B.C. starting date, that your reasons would be based after YEARS and YEARS of research concerning the BEST exegetical works written on the subject.<< I rejected the dogma when I first read Daniel 12:4 – besides, I spent the better part of life wastefully inebriated and much too much in the world. What I have gathered is noetic. My mother was SDA and devoutly EGW, which translates to – no cakes or pastries – because EGW said that milk and sugar together in pastries turned to alcohol – or something similarly inane. >>But you have not proven that is truly in your desire to become familiar with these established works.<< Don’t take offense – but the overt disregard for Gd’s sealing of the book of Daniel until some such time as He stated – and the wresting of those same sealed texts – resulted in only a partial understanding of a much greater thing hidden. It is obvious that the complementary ‘knowledge shall be increased’ and ‘men shall run to and fro’ in our time – unseals the book of Daniel. It is now that the expositor is obliged, as a true servant of Gd, to undertake to understand the texts of Daniel – and not to function as the last parrot upon the Orinoco. Old unproven things must be wrapped in the muslin of good sense and stored away... >>It appears that your desire to have another date fixed overrides your will-power and strength to resist the temptation of avoiding having to dig deeper.<< Begging pardon, but my proffers are proofs of ‘deeper digging’. I’ve never encountered an argument made that dwelt upon the necessity of ALL Israel being in view for the fulfillment of the 70-weeks prophecy, which was never a part of a 457 BC to AD 34 thesis/dogma. Ooooooo-la! I’ve just scrolled down to see the other posts. Yumpin’ Yiminy! Loooooonnnnng posts! There will be, of necessity, some parenthesis, lacuna, gap, intermission, discontinuity, interval – did I mention also that I’m kinda lazy? Quote
Lysimachus Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 If I were you JASD, I would have skipped responding to my second post and just focused on my first one. That was the main one. Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
jasd Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 >>...focused on my first one. That was the main one.<< So many posts - sure, I'll respond to your "first one". Where is it? Quote
jasd Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Quote: Originally Posted By: jasd ...Daniel 9:25 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.<< Ive bolded the only relevant phrases, as this prophecys beginning terminus is of utmost importance. Tell me how Nehemiah 1 and 2 cannot correlate with Daniel 8:25 (read 9:25), which deals entirely with materially reconstructive matters; yet, you've managed to take the entirety of the first three decrees that dealt ONLY with the House of Gd/Temple together with a few extraneous matters and translate them as fulfilling to restore and to build Jerusalem and the street shall be built again, and the wall of Daniel 9:25! Daniel addressed the matter of the CITY and not the matter of the House of Gd/Temple. Apples and oranges. [ed.jasd.colored.red] Quote: Quote:LysimachusThe Hebrew word for "restore" is the same Hebrew word that is translated as "turn", which means to turn away from sin and go back to God. This word is used as "turn" in Ezekiel 18:32; 33:11; Jer. 31:18; Lam 5:21, and Dan. 9:13, then finally 9:25. This restoring also had to do with "restoring the judiciary matters, and establishing the priesthood", and this was all accomplished as recorded in Ezra 7. That would be a persuasive argument were the word schuwb (restore) in the qal stem – rather, than, as it is – in the hiphil stem – where it is complementary with banah (build). The sense of the passage is to restore and to build – as in actual reconstruction – with hammer and nails and stone and mortar.... Quote: Quote: LysimachusThe Hebrew word for "street" can easily mean "plaza" as John317 has already pointed out. Okay, say that is so – how then does that square with an actual permit to construct such a plaza?—show me the words in any of the decrees, commandments, etc – by Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes – permitting the actual restoration and building of such a plaza prior to that given Nehemiah 2. Quote: Quote:LysimachusAlso, Ezra admits that Artaxerxes had given authorization to build a wall in Jerusalem: "For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, AND TO GIVE US A WALL IN JUDAH AND IN JERUSALEM." (Ezra 9:9) “WALL...” is a commonly used OT metaphor indicating Gd’s protection – and was evidently utilized as such by Ezra – as he had neither writ nor word permitting the actual reconstruction of the city’s walls. Should Ezra have been speaking of an actual wall – it could have been that attendant the Temple. Quote: Quote:LysimachusQuestion: Why did you ignore this verse when I gave it before? I've already given it like 2-3 times in these forums. I’ve already advised you that I do not read all the posts, as I am on dial-up – slooowwww. Anyway, should I have responded to that particular post – I would have addressed the assumption. Quote: Quote:jasd >>A third decree, one made by King Artaxerxes, authorized Ezra to install both city and regional officers and made the city of Jerusalem the administrative center for the whole province (Ezra 7: 11-26).<< Well and good; however, how does that square with the necessity of the rebuilding of the CITY proper – Jerusalem of Daniel 8:25 (read 9:25).[ed.jasd.colored.red.] Quote: Quote:LysimachusIs not the wall part of the city? Is not the temple part of the city? Indeed; however, should someone tell me that you’ve gotten a loan from the bank to build your house – I should infer that that means you’re also rebuilding the city? Quote: Quote:LysimachusAre you saying Ezra needs a separate decree for separate buildings that are separate from the wall and the city? Not I that sayeth, but Daniel. Quote: Quote:LysimachusI have already established in Ezra 9:9 that the giving of a wall was very much part of the decree. What you wrote does not in any manner establish that the king gave Ezra permission to build either the streets or the walls of the city! Quote: Quote:LysimachusEzra wrote this, not Nehemiah. In fact, in Ezra 4:9-24, Ezra writes on how Rahum and Shimshai along with the rest of their companions wrote a letter to king Artaxerxes trying to convince him to stop the Jews from building Jerusalem. And in that letter it is revealed that they were constructing the wall and the city (verse 12). Note that Ezra is writing this as a PAST account, so Ezra is still alive. Ezra is no longer in the picture in Nehemiah 1 and 2. Indeed, and did not he also write that the king Artaxerxes caused that construction should cease. Were the Jews in legitimate possession of a [kingly] permit to build the walls – Artaxerxes could not have countermanded the order/permit. By Persian law, not even Artaxerxes could rescind a king’s decree.. Quote: Quote:LysimachusNow notice Nehemiah said in verses 3 and 4 of the book of Nehemiah:  (3) And they said unto me, The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach: the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire. (4) And it came to pass, when I heard these words, that I sat down and wept, and mourned certain days, and fasted, and prayed before the God of heaven, Question: Why on EARTH would Nehemiah be weeping and mourning over the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar over 100+ years earlier?? He grew up his whole life knowing the city was in RUINS, and now he sudden is going to weep over this news? C’mon, mebbe the man was maudlin!—more likely, he despaired the ineffectiveness of the “remnant” – as it turns out, he had every reason to despair them. Quote
jasd Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Quote: Quote:LysimachusJASD, please think again. Nehemiah is not weeping over the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. No NO NO. He is weeping over RECENT news. The expression: "the REMNANT that are LEFT of the captivity there in in the province are IN GREAT AFFLICTION AND REPROACH". In other words, those that were REBELLING against the progress of the construction of the city ATTACKED the remnant, and BROKE down the walls and burned the gates! This was RECENT news. And Nehemiah was WEEPING over it. You don't weep over something you grew up knowing about your whole life. He is weeping over a recent "affliction and reproach". I ask, “So what?” Even were the streets and the walls entirely rebuilt and the city a veritable Babylon redux – it does not correlate with the parameters established in Daniel 9:25 re “from the going forth of the commandment”. It is an attempt to reinforce wrested dogma developed awaaayyyy back then before Gd unsealed the book of Daniel – y’know, back then when desirous of attending prayer meeting – one had to hitch ol’ Dobbin to wagon – or go mare’s shank. Quote: Quote:LysimachusNotice the scenario in order: 1. City and Walls destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 B.C. 2. City and Walls built up during Ezra and after 3rd Decree of Artaxerxes. 3. Walls and gates broken and burnt by evil and rebellious people trying to hinder the work. 4. Letter of permission granted to Nehemiah to resume constructing what had already been decreed to Ezra. Point #2 – where is the text affirming this assertion?—it can more suitably be stated that some of the “City and Walls” were built – prior to the command by Artaxerxes to CEASE and DESIST. Point #3 – That is pure surmise. But that being stated, it is likely that there was some destruction of the walls that had been abuilding “without permission by the king”. Those same walls that Artaxerxes had commanded that further work upon them cease. Point #4 – It is here that an argument may be made that Nehemiah built upon those same walls that were abuilding before Artaxerxes caused work on them to cease. Quote: Quote:jasd >>In the light of its Akkadian cognates, the second noun, harus, means "town moat." It describes the "trench cut into the rock onthe exterior walls of the city in order to make the wall a more difficult obstacle for those who would attempt to attack from the outside."<< That is, admittedly, interesting; however, one cannot find any evidence in Writ that Jerusalem ever had a trench, a moat, or a ditch (other than the one for the pool of Jerusalem). Archaeology hasn’t helped either. We must remember that Jerusalem never had a lot of water... One wonders, in light of Nehemiah’s request for timber/beams for the wall of the city (Neh 2:8), which he found “broken down” (Neh 2:13) (Ezra rejoiced that the Lord gave them a wall...; however, its antecedent seems to be the “house of our Gd”) Quote: Quote:LysimachusIf you are referring to Ezra 9:9, you are ignoring the full verse which indicates of giving a wall in Judah and Jerusalem. It is metaphoric or it refers to the Temple proper, which did indeed have an outer wall. However, there is still the matter of a direct “commandment” re the CITY, as required by Daniel 9:25 – and not found in anything re Ezra. >>But even so, the decree of building the city was given to Cyrus years before in Isaiah.<< Even so... read my immediately above. Quote: quote:LysimachusPickle points out the following: Those who have abandoned Protestant historicism in favor of futurism typically contend that the only thing that the commandment (singular) of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes did was command the building of the temple. Thus, they contend, this commandment (singular) cannot fulfill Dan. 9 because it said nothing about rebuilding the temple. “Dan. 9 because it said nothing about rebuilding the temple” (sounds like my syntaxes) Aww, despite the wording in the last sentence above – bless thems thinking, rational, right-reading “futurists” – for indeed there is that obvious demarcation between the recorded decrees, commandments, etc of Cyrus, Darius, and that given to Ezra – and that specified in Daniel 9:25 as setting forth the terminus a quo for the Seventy Weeks. Quote
jasd Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Quote: Quote:LysimachusBut this ignores Isaiah. Isaiah 44:28 - "That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid." Isaiah 45:13 "I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts." So, should nonFuturists truly believe the texts of Isaiah as proffered – they would date the Seventy Weeks from Cyrus. How come not? Instead they combine three ‘decrees’ to build the House of Gd and proclaim, “See, there it is!” Help me out – “see” what in the three decrees?—other than singular directs re the House of Gd. Quote: Quote:LysimachusFuturists pride themselves on taking the Bible literally. They should therefore take these verses literally: Cyrus commanded the building of Jerusalem, not just the temple, according to the infallible Word of God. Okay, let us take Holy Writ literally... The Hebrew text does not say Cyrus. It says Kow Resh (Koresh) – meaning ‘pierced head’ (Kaf-Vav – pierced and Rosh-Shin meaning head).. Who in Writ comes to mind when ‘pierced head’ is mentioned? Moreover, was it the one whose head was pierced who is the Shephard or was it Cyrus? And, per Isaiah 45:13 – who else could this be said of than Jesus Christ whose head was pierced, “...let go my captives, not for price...” Shades of Luke 4:18? Mebbe, there are two Annointed ones? Quote: Quote:LysimachusBut then, why did not the 70 weeks begin with Cyrus' decree? Because the decree was a process that Cyrus began, Darius affirmed, and Artaxerxes completed, as indicated by the singular "commandment" in Ezra 6:14. I know you subscribe in the above to that already constructed – so, without offense – “I love a good ellipsis!” Quote: Quote:LysimachusHow did Artaxerxes complete it? Dan. 9 said "from the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem." Cyrus and Darius dealt with building, not restoring. Isaiah 1:26 - "And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city." The decree of Ezra 7 given in Artaxerxes' 7th year restored the judges to the point that they could enforce the law of God on pain of death, and thus completed the decree process foretold by Daniel. Okay, that they could do from the backs of their SUVs – no rebuilt city needed... Okay, so show me where in the ‘decrees’ of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes are the commands re the streets and walls of the CITY. Quote: Quote:LysimachusIf a futurist does not want to accept this conclusion, he should be challenged to explain why the 70 weeks cannot begin until Artaxerxes' 20th year, Been there, done that. Quote: Quote:Lysimachus...when Cyrus himself commanded Jerusalem to be built, according to the divinely inspired Isaiah. Addressed in the above. Quote: Quote:LysimachusBut this ignores Isaiah. Isaiah 44:28 - "That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid." Isaiah 45:13 "I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts." So, should nonFuturists truly believe the texts of Isaiah as proffered – they would date the Seventy Weeks from Cyrus. How come not? Instead they combine three ‘decrees’ to build the House of Gd and proclaim, “See, there it is!” Help me out – “see” what in the three decrees?—other than singular directs re the House of Gd. Quote: Quote:LysimachusFuturists pride themselves on taking the Bible literally. They should therefore take these verses literally: Cyrus commanded the building of Jerusalem, not just the temple, according to the infallible Word of God. Okay, let us take Holy Writ literally... The Hebrew text does not say Cyrus. It says Kow Resh (Koresh) – meaning ‘pierced head’ (Kaf-Vav – pierced and Rosh-Shin meaning head).. Who in Writ comes to mind when ‘pierced head’ is mentioned? Moreover, was it the one whose head was pierced who is the Shephard or was it Cyrus? And, per Isaiah 45:13 – who else could this be said of than Jesus Christ whose head was pierced, “...let go my captives, not for price...” Shades of Luke 4:18? Mebbe, there are two Annointed ones? Quote: Quote:LysimachusBut then, why did not the 70 weeks begin with Cyrus' decree? Because the decree was a process that Cyrus began, Darius affirmed, and Artaxerxes completed, as indicated by the singular "commandment" in Ezra 6:14. I know you subscribe in the above to that already constructed – so, without offense – “I love a good ellipsis!” Quote: Quote:LysimachusHow did Artaxerxes complete it? Dan. 9 said "from the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem." Cyrus and Darius dealt with building, not restoring. Isaiah 1:26 - "And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city." The decree of Ezra 7 given in Artaxerxes' 7th year restored the judges to the point that they could enforce the law of God on pain of death, and thus completed the decree process foretold by Daniel. Okay, that they could do from the backs of their SUVs – no rebuilt city needed... Okay, so show me where in the ‘decrees’ of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes are the commands re the streets and walls of the CITY. Quote: Quote:LysimachusIf a futurist does not want to accept this conclusion, he should be challenged to explain why the 70 weeks cannot begin until Artaxerxes' 20th year, Been there, done that. Quote: Quote:Lysimachus...when Cyrus himself commanded Jerusalem to be built, according to the divinely inspired Isaiah. Addressed in the above. Quote: Quote:LysimachusBut this ignores Isaiah. Isaiah 44:28 - "That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid." Isaiah 45:13 "I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts." So, should nonFuturists truly believe the texts of Isaiah as proffered – they would date the Seventy Weeks from Cyrus. How come not? Instead they combine three ‘decrees’ to build the House of Gd and proclaim, “See, there it is!” Help me out – “see” what in the three decrees?—other than singular directs re the House of Gd. Quote: Quote:LysimachusFuturists pride themselves on taking the Bible literally. They should therefore take these verses literally: Cyrus commanded the building of Jerusalem, not just the temple, according to the infallible Word of God. Okay, let us take Holy Writ literally... The Hebrew text does not say Cyrus. It says Kow Resh (Koresh) – meaning ‘pierced head’ (Kaf-Vav – pierced and Rosh-Shin meaning head).. Who in Writ comes to mind when ‘pierced head’ is mentioned? Moreover, was it the one whose head was pierced who is the Shephard or was it Cyrus? And, per Isaiah 45:13 – who else could this be said of than Jesus Christ whose head was pierced, “...let go my captives, not for price...” Shades of Luke 4:18? Mebbe, there are two Annointed ones? Quote: Quote:LysimachusBut then, why did not the 70 weeks begin with Cyrus' decree? Because the decree was a process that Cyrus began, Darius affirmed, and Artaxerxes completed, as indicated by the singular "commandment" in Ezra 6:14. I know you subscribe in the above to that already constructed – so, without offense – “I love a good ellipsis!” Quote: Quote:LysimachusHow did Artaxerxes complete it? Dan. 9 said "from the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem." Cyrus and Darius dealt with building, not restoring. Isaiah 1:26 - "And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city." The decree of Ezra 7 given in Artaxerxes' 7th year restored the judges to the point that they could enforce the law of God on pain of death, and thus completed the decree process foretold by Daniel. Okay, that they could do from the backs of their SUVs – no rebuilt city needed... Okay, so show me where in the ‘decrees’ of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes are the commands re the streets and walls of the CITY. Quote: Quote:LysimachusIf a futurist does not want to accept this conclusion, he should be challenged to explain why the 70 weeks cannot begin until Artaxerxes' 20th year, Been there, done that. Quote: Quote:Lysimachus...when Cyrus himself commanded Jerusalem to be built, according to the divinely inspired Isaiah. Addressed in the above. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.