The 1260 Year Interpretation of Protestantism

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

...Please explain how my "theories as you put it" are complicated. Please cite specifically what I have said on this current subject that is so complex. Be specific. In other words PROVE your allegation.

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Prove it to whom?

Things can be proved and yet not be believed by everyone.

Originally Posted By: miz3

I am only following you John317. You ask others to "prove" it. Why can't I.

Does this mean that when John317 asks people to "prove it" it actually a meaningless question?

The thing is you are asking people to prove something that has already been proved over and over again.

It's like your asking people to prove that humans are free moral agents, or that the day-for-a-year principle is in the Bible, or that the 1260 day prophecy is a valid interpretation, or that the earth-beast of Rev. 13 is the papacy, etc.

It is not as if these things have not been well established by Bible and historical evidence.

Just because you or I don't believe those things is no evidence that they are not true. You could argue with a teacher in math that you cant' see how a math formula is true, and ask him to prove it over and over, but that wouldn't show that the formula is wrong. It just means that for whatever reason, some people don't get it and won't ever get it.

After a while, when the evidence and arguments have been rehashed till people are blue in the face, it just makes sense to say, Let everyone make up his own mind as to the truth.

Ok, so we let people make up their own minds. I guess that means you and I will never again ask people to "PROVE IT". Does that mean the "RULE" WILL GO FOR BOTH OF US?

However we still have yet to establish how my "theories" as you put it are sooooo complicated!

In fact when ever I have asserted something it has actually been very simple and straight forward from the Bible.

For example our discussion on JUSTIFICATION was very simple. I used no complex theories, no complex human authors, no math complexities, no linguistic magic, etc.

I use Romans chapter five only to keep it simple for you!

On the year/day thing. I only cited the two references where the year/day is actually mentioned and showed in simple straight forward language how those two texts were only "local events" and not part of some complex "global system".

I believe God keeps things very "simple" for us. Thus, I have always avoided the complexities that are used by so many on this forum.

This is why I ask you again to show where I have been "complex"? That means you need to give me more than just an assertion that I am complex. This means you can show the elements of my complexity.

Notice I am not asking you to PROVE IT. I am asking you to demonstrate the complexities of my theology. Whether others agree or not is up to them, we will let them decide.

[teresaq]

That is a unique thought. I'm not sure its right, but it is worth investigating.

Tribes, I have to disagree with you this time. Daniel 11:40-45 has nothing to do with Jerusalem of old. Verse 40 is the time of the end when the papacy received its deadly wound at the hand of atheistic France in 1798.

This wound is going to be healed and the papacy, the king of the north, will regain its supremacy. "He will (again) plant the taberncales of his palaces between the seas and the glorious holy mountain." Dan.11:45. In other words, a time is coming when this statement will again be fulfilled: "He has set up his throne between God and man, to appropriate the adoration that belongs to God alone."" E.G. White, 7B.C.1119.

In verse 41 we read, "He shall also enter the glorious land"

In the old Testament, yes, Jerusalem was the glorious land, at least part of it. But after 1798 the "glorious land" is where the truth of God is and that is in the Advent Movement.

As the enemy succeeded in entering Jerusalem of old, he has succeeded in enteting Modern Israel.

"The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem." Lamentations 4:12.

This prophecy has a double significance.

So the papacy will rule the world again but for a short time. At the time of the fifth plague, the eyes of the world will be opened and all who had supported the king of the north will then withdraw their support and the king of the north will have none to help him at that time. Dan.11:45.

All who will have been deceived by him will turn against him and bring him down to the pit as shown in Revelation 17.

sky

[miz3]

Let's start with the day-year principle miz3.

How do you get around applying the day/year principle to the 70 weeks?

No where in Daniel chapter nine does it say either directly or by any standard of implication that a day equals one year (using any and all definitions of a year, lunar, solar, rabbinical, etc.).

In addition, you cannot use Numbers 14:34 and/or Ezekiel 4:6 because these two instances are "local events" and are in no way shape or form "global events".

It is very simple. This we can all understand. No complexities of any kind.

Next.

[John317]

It is not as if these things have not been well established by Bible and historical evidence.

Just because you or I don't believe those things is no evidence that they are not true. You could argue with a teacher in math that you cant' see how a math formula is true, and ask him to prove it over and over, but that wouldn't show that the formula is wrong. It just means that for whatever reason, some people don't get it and won't ever get it.

After a while, when the evidence and arguments have been rehashed till people are blue in the face, it just makes sense to say, Let everyone make up his own mind as to the truth.

Originally Posted By: miz3

Ok, so we let people make up their own minds. I guess that means you and I will never again ask people to "PROVE IT". Does that mean the "RULE" WILL GO FOR BOTH OF US?

"Proving it" doesn't entail debating or arguing an issue without end until every single person is absolutely satisfied that the conclusion has been proven. All it means is that the evidence has been presented until all sides of an issue are no longer bringing any more new evidence or arguments to the discussion. When that occurs it is usually best to simply allow people to make up their mind. It isn't necessary for both sides of a discussion to agree that one argument is right and the other wrong.

On the Forum, what most people enjoy reading is a discussion where both sides of a question present the evidence and the best arguments and then allow the readers to decide on their own which argument has the best evidence and reasoning in its favor.

[12tribes]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

Let's start with the day-year principle miz3.

How do you get around applying the day/year principle to the 70 weeks?

No where in Daniel chapter nine does it say either directly or by any standard of implication that a day equals one year (using any and all definitions of a year, lunar, solar, rabbinical, etc.).

In addition, you cannot use Numbers 14:34 and/or Ezekiel 4:6 because these two instances are "local events" and are in no way shape or form "global events".

It is very simple. This we can all understand. No complexities of any kind.

Next.

This is just an excuse not to believe the day/year principle. Just remember Moses was a prophet, Ezekiel was a prophet and Daniel was a prophet so the day/year principle applies. So you don't believe that the 70 week prophecy is about Christ?

[miz3]

...Please explain how my "theories as you put it" are complicated. Please cite specifically what I have said on this current subject that is so complex. Be specific. In other words PROVE your allegation.

However John317 we still have yet to establish how my "theories" as you put it are sooooo complicated!

In fact when ever I have asserted something it has actually been very simple and straight forward from the Bible.

For example our discussion on JUSTIFICATION was very simple. I used no complex theories, no complex human authors, no math complexities, no linguistic magic, etc.

I use Romans chapter five only to keep it simple for you!

On the year/day thing. I only cited the two references where the year/day is actually mentioned and showed in simple straight forward language how those two texts were only "local events" and not part of some complex "global system".

I believe God keeps things very "simple" for us. Thus, I have always avoided the complexities that are used by so many on this forum.

This is why I ask you again to show where I have been "complex"? That means you need to give me more than just an assertion that I am complex. This means you can show the elements of my complexity.

Notice I am not asking you to PROVE IT. I am asking you to demonstrate the complexities of my theology. Whether others agree or not is up to them, we will let them decide.

[ClubV12]

I like that definition of minor vs major points. Major points being tied to the plan of salvation and immediately applicable to any given person at any given time.

Therefore, "it varies" which are major and minor for each of us. Oh sure, SOME points are pretty clear cut for 90% of us at any given time. The Sabbath issue, for instance, once the concept has been grasped, the study is done, it's pretty straight forward for most, but not all, folks.

As to the King of the North, for me, where I'm at right now, I accept the basic premise that it is the Papacy in some form. I don't know the details, and for me I don't think it's a salvational issue at this time. But it could rise to that level.

For a baptized Seventh-day Adventist member it would be fair to say the 28 fundamental beliefs come as close as you can get to "major" points, right now, for every "member". If you have a major problem with one or more, that's certainly a major problem you need to focus on and resolve. This is not something to put away for another time. If you haven't dealt with the 28 to full satisfaction, who the King of the North is becomes a minor issue indeed!

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

No where in Daniel chapter nine does it say either directly or by any standard of implication that a day equals one year (using any and all definitions of a year, lunar, solar, rabbinical, etc.).

In addition, you cannot use Numbers 14:34 and/or Ezekiel 4:6 because these two instances are "local events" and are in no way shape or form "global events".

It is very simple. This we can all understand. No complexities of any kind.

Next.

This is just an excuse not to believe the day/year principle. Just remember Moses was a prophet, Ezekiel was a prophet and Daniel was a prophet so the day/year principle applies. So you don't believe that the 70 week p/drophecy is about Christ?

No excuse just fact. You say its an excuse because you have no cogent answer. The fact that they were all prophets is not a proof that the year/day is valid in Daniel.

Just because Daniel and Moses were prophets does not mean that Moses is correct in regard to the "Sabbath". The Sabbath is correct because it so states "EXPLICITLY SO IN EXODUS CHAPTER TWENTY". The Sabbath is the Sabbath because it is clearly stated so in the writings of Moses, and not because Moses and Daniel are prophets.

To make your assertion is just simply sloppy Bible study.

As to whether the 70 weeks applies to Christ is not something I have said one way or the other. We were not talking about that. We were talking about the year/day.

[Lysimachus]

No where in Daniel chapter nine does it say either directly or by any standard of implication that a day equals one year (using any and all definitions of a year, lunar, solar, rabbinical, etc.).

In addition, you cannot use Numbers 14:34 and/or Ezekiel 4:6 because these two instances are "local events" and are in no way shape or form "global events".

It is very simple. This we can all understand. No complexities of any kind.

Next.

Last time a checked, without using Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, the Hebrew word "shabua" means exactly what we have said it to mean: "WEEK".

You know what else?

Last time I checked, a week consists of 7 days.

If 70 weeks represents 490 years, this FORCES the day-year application, whether you like it or not.

It is very simple. This we can all understand. No complexities of any kind.

Next.

[Lysimachus]

Miz3, your ship is sinking.

[Lysimachus]

You guys hit it on the head. Miz3 realizes that all his options have deteriorated. His last resort is to question whether the 70 weeks is a prophecy of the Messiah--the only prophecy capable of converting a Muslim to Christianity. He knows his ship is sinking, so he resorts to the most dreadful tactics--of even denying the very prophecy pointing toward Christ, the Messiah.

To reject the very prophecy pointing forward to Jesus Christ is, in a nutshell, a denial of Christianity. Hence, in all honesty I have great difficulty even considering you a Christian miz3, because you deny the very time prophecy foretelling of the coming First Advent.

[12tribes]

As to whether the 70 weeks applies to Christ is not something I have said one way or the other. We were not talking about that. We were talking about the year/day.

If the day/year principle does not apply to Daniel 9 then it cannot be about Christ but if it does apply then it is about Christ it requires just a simple yes or no. also if the day year does apply to it which it does then all your teachings on the time prophecies go out the window

[John317]

...As to whether the 70 weeks applies to Christ is not something I have said one way or the other. We were not talking about that. We were talking about the year/day.

You have to be kidding.

Why don't you say one way or the other? Why the secret?

Is the prophecy speaking literally of seven weeks?

Why does the prophecy speak of "seventy sevens" or "seventy weeks"? Why doesn't it refer to literal time instead of putting the time period in symbols?

[John317]

This is why I ask you again to show where I have been "complex"? That means you need to give me more than just an assertion that I am complex. This means you can show the elements of my complexity.

I never said you were "complex." You got me confused with someone else.

I am saying your arguments contradict the plain language of the Bible, including all of Romans and Galatians.

Again, if people aren't justified by faith, why does Paul say over and over again that a man is justified by faith?

Never does the Bible say "all humanity was justified when Christ died" or anything close to it. Certainly Christ gave his life for all of humanity-- He paid the full price for every man's salvation-- but the Bible doesn't claim Christ's work on the cross justified all mankind.

"Justified" means declare or make righteous. God did neither of things to all mankind. What God did do was give all humanity proof that He loves us, is our friend, and invites us to enter into His grace BY FAITH.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

[12tribes]

His thoughts are confusing they are not straight forward that is why I said they are complex

[Lysimachus]

So true 12tribes!

[cheddar]

You guys hit it on the head. Miz3 realizes that all his options have deteriorated. His last resort is to question whether the 70 weeks is a prophecy of the Messiah--the only prophecy capable of converting a Muslim to Christianity. He knows his ship is sinking, so he resorts to the most dreadful tactics--of even denying the very prophecy pointing toward Christ, the Messiah.

To reject the very prophecy pointing forward to Jesus Christ is, in a nutshell, a denial of Christianity. Hence, in all honesty I have great difficulty even considering you a Christian miz3, because you deny the very time prophecy foretelling of the coming First Advent.

I never considered you a Christian to begin with and I wouldn't give two cents for your Christian experience.

Just another hard working Adventist who trusts in the commandments (aka good works) and not Jesus Christ.

[John317]

Why is that, Chedder?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

No where in Daniel chapter nine does it say either directly or by any standard of implication that a day equals one year (using any and all definitions of a year, lunar, solar, rabbinical, etc.).

In addition, you cannot use Numbers 14:34 and/or Ezekiel 4:6 because these two instances are "local events" and are in no way shape or form "global events".

It is very simple. This we can all understand. No complexities of any kind.

Next.

Last time a checked, without using Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, the Hebrew word "shabua" means exactly what we have said it to mean: "WEEK".

You know what else?

Last time I checked, a week consists of 7 days.

If 70 weeks represents 490 years, this FORCES the day-year application, whether you like it or not.

It is very simple. This we can all understand. No complexities of any kind.

Next.

Sorry! Weeks means weeks. Daniel nine does not say it means "years". Seventy weeks does not mean or represent four hundred and ninety years. You are putting something into the Bible that is not there.

You can't "force"!

You cannot force one plus two to equal four. One plus two equals three.

Thus, Daniel nine means exactly what it says, "490 weeks"! There are NO YEARS.

[cheddar]

Why is that, Chedder?

For the better part of my Christian experience I was a hardcore legalist so I know that spirit very well.

Jesus finally beat it into my thick skull that was the wrong way. I feel it's my duty to point people in the opposite direction.

[John317]

Thus, Daniel nine means exactly what it says, "490 weeks"! There are NO YEARS.

So explain the meaning of Daniel 9: 24-27. What's it a reference to?

[Lysimachus]

Sorry! Weeks means weeks. Daniel nine does not say it means "years". Seventy weeks does not mean or represent four hundred and ninety years. You are putting something into the Bible that is not there.

You can't "force"!

You cannot force one plus two to equal four. One plus two equals three.

Thus, Daniel nine means exactly what it says, "490 weeks"! There are NO YEARS.

So 70 weeks then means 490 days, which means 1.4 years.

Please tell me miz3, where in history do these 1.4 years fit in?

[John317]

OK, I think I know where you're coming from. :-)

[John317]

So 70 weeks then means 490 days, which means 1.4 years.

Please tell me miz3, where in history do these 1.4 years fit in?

This is kind of a good question. Wonder what the answer will be.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Thus, Daniel nine means exactly what it says, "490 weeks"! There are NO YEARS.

So explain the meaning of Daniel 9: 24-27. What's it a reference to?

I am not defending anything.

Lysimachus, John317, etc. are defending the year/day.

I see that you cannot defend it except to shoot vinegar my way and/or make lame assertions that are NOT in the text.

You have yet to give compelling evidence that a year=day in Biblical Scripture other than the two "local" texts already cited.