The 1260 Year Interpretation of Protestantism

[John317]

Have you ever read or heard of A.T. Jones' book, The Rights of the People? A subtitle of this book is Or Civil Government and Religion. It was first published in 1895 by the Pacific Press and contains 377 pages.

I picked it up a little while back at a second hand book store. From what I've read of it, it looks excellent. It really deserves to be reprinted, but I don't think it ever has been.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

This is your problem not mine.

You are the one asserting you know the solution. You are the one asserting the year/day. I am merely saying that you are wrong in this assertion. Now defend what you have asserted or:

Could it be that you just don't know how to explain Daniel chapter nine?

If you tell me "I can't explain how 490days or one point four years fits into Daniel nine", I will except your honest testimony.

But when you make it up and "force" the Bible to say what it does not say, that I cannot go along with. I have to question the voracity of such Scriptural interpretation

I have no real burden to respond to this miz3. You have practically admitted that you are ALONE in your interpretation. You are floating out to sea in your own little boat without chart or compass, pretending that these 70 weeks cannot be interpreted. Not even all your Dispensational friends, who disagree with the day/year principle as well, agree with you that the 70 weeks do not represent 490 years. Their argument rests on saying that the Hebrew word "shabuam" means "sevens", and not weeks. That is their only hope of trying to get off the hook of employing the day/year principle. But since you miz3 have seen this argument refuted, you are FORCED to resort to an UNORTHODOX position that the 70 weeks cannot be interpreted. I find this so appalling, that I'm surprised I'm still sitting on my seat able to finish this sentence.

This is EXACTLY what the Jews wanted everyone to think!

Your spirit is NO DIFFERENT THAN THE RABBINIC CURSE AGAINST THE 70 WEEKS:

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Header-Downloads-References-RabbinicCurse.html

Read those well miz3!

1. Typical! Lysimachus you keep saying that TRUTH is TRUTH because of "majority" status. You also keep asserting that unTRUTH is unTRUTH because of its "minority" status.

The Bible does not support TRUTH BY MAJORITY nor does it say that unTRUTH IS ALWAYS MINORITY BASED. In that light why do you keep telling me that I am wrong because I take a "minority position"?

You can continue to believe in the unBiblical position that TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD ARE BASED ON MAJORITY OR MINORITY STATUS. However that is not how God operates. Jesus Christ in His day was constantly in the MINORITY POSITION yet Jesus Christ was ALWAYS TRUTH!

Thus, your continual appeal to "social majority TRUTH status" and "social minority FALSEHOOD status" is BOGUS AND NOT BIBLICAL and NOT LIKE JESUS CHRIST.

I will not be intimidated by your continual name calling and social (amaturish high school immature status) assertions. Please grow up and act like a "mature Christian" instead of speaking like an "immature Babylonian child".

2. It appears the only reason you choose not to respond is because you have no BIBLICAL TRUTH ANSWER!

3. I never ever said or asserted that the "Seventy weeks" prophecy could not be interpreted. I am saying that your interpretation is not correct and/or is NOT BIBLICAL TRUTH.

I am also asserting that you still cannot answer my post which is why you choose not to answer.

4. I do not have "Dispensational friends". I have human friends who are Christian and who speak in a Christian manner even when we do not agree on Bible interpretation. I do not rely on any "human entity" for support.

I RELY ON GOD! God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit support me.

5. You claim to know and have the Truth but you fail to answer my assertions and questions on the year/day with any Biblical credibility. You can only lash out invectives and vinegar! Is that your view of how a Christian should respond?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Your welcome. Yes, I believe so. Taking John's own day as the point of reference is only speculation whereas taking verse 3 of the chapter as the revealed point of reference makes everything fits like into a glove and is in perfect harmony with adventist eschatology.

sky

Super. It's amazing how Adventist eschatology flows so smoothly with historical events. Yes, while Adventists are not immune to a number of difficulties, I find far fewer difficulties with the Adventist eschatological framework than I do any other framework.

Have you purchased Heidi Heiks books yet? Gotta get them classics on your shelf bro.

Being a hundred miles wrong is no different than being ten miles wrong. Both are still "wrong".

Thus, if SDA are only slightly wrong compared to others who are widely wrong is no comfort because "wrong is wrong" no matter what.

You idolize comparison theology. This is not the way to know TRUTH.

TRUTH IS TRUTH BECAUSE IT IS TRUTH!

TRUTH is never ever correct because it seems better than other things.

This is why your theology is not Biblical because you are always trying to compare what you believe with what others believe.

TRUTH IS NOT RIGHT BECAUSE OTHER THINGS ARE LESS.

TRUTH IS RIGHT BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH.

[Lysimachus]

Forget majority or minority miz3.

If the day/year is not applied to the 70 weeks, then it means it is 1.4 years in length.

Tell me what Messiah showed up at the end of any 1.4 years. That should be a simple enough question.

And no, it is NOT our problem to figure out. We have it figured out! We know WHO the Messiah is who showed up at the end of the 69 weeks!

The ball is in YOUR court, not ours. It is now YOUR problem to deal with.

[miz3]

Forget majority or minority miz3.

If the day/year is not applied to the 70 weeks, then it means it is 1.4 years in length.

Tell me what Messiah showed up at the end of any 1.4 years. That should be a simple enough question.

And no, it is NOT our problem to figure out. We have it figured out! We know WHO the Messiah is who showed up at the end of the 69 weeks!

The ball is in YOUR court, not ours. It is now YOUR problem to deal with.

Wrong again.

1. Ok, I can accept an actual seventy weeks or 1.4 years because that is what the Bible states.

2. Daniel chapter nine is not talking about the "Messiah" (Jesus Christ).

Daniel nine states that it is either, "the Anointed One" or "an anointed one". Using the term "anointed" does not mean Jesus Christ. The term "anointed" could refer any number of humans or humans in their specific roles.

For example:

a. King Saul was "anointed". Both his person and his role as king are referenced when using the term "anointed" concerning King Saul.

b. King David was "anointed". Same notation as King Saul.

c. Priest Aaron was "anointed". Both his person and his role as priest are referenced when using the term "anointed" concerning Priest Aaron.

In those examples we can see that both "priests" and "kings" were "anointed ones".

As such Daniel chapter nine verse twenty-five must be referring to some human king or priest or priest-king.

Thus, it is not a given that Daniel nine verse twenty-five is talking about Jesus Christ even though He was both a Priest and King. When we take the "literal" time of 70 weeks or 1.4 years we know that it cannot be Jesus Christ. Therefore it must mean some other human King or Priest or King/Priest.

Translating Daniel nine verse twenty-five as "Messiah" is clearly a mistranslation (mistake). NO MESSIAH!

You see the Bible is very straight forward and simple. The Bible does not speak through complex calculations, filled with linguistical tricks, complex historical mumbo jumbo, etc.

God never expected that His People would have to write or have to read whole sets of complex books in order to explain what the MESSAGE IS FROM GOD!

[Lysimachus]

Oh brother! You just don't give up miz3. *shakes head*

Please tell me who this "anointed" ruler was in 1.4 years. I need his name. If you can't come up with a name of an anointed ruler that came about in 1.4 years from the command of the king to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, then you have nothing against the traditional interpretation that if we count 69 weeks, or 483 years from 457 B.C., we arrive at 27 A.D. when "Christ" (anointed one--Greek translation for "Messiah") was baptized and anointed by the Holy Ghost.

Anyway, to be quite frank: Your rejection of the 70 weeks pointing forward to Jesus Christ is downright tragic and despicable.

The Bible does not speak through complex calculations is right. That's why Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34 tell us a day stands for a year, and that's why counting 70 weeks as 490 years is extremely simple. A 3rd grader can figure it out. Apparently to you, 3rd grade math is "complex".

So far, your reasoning only continues to get more nonsensical as we go. I think I have reached the point where I have every right to judge you as not being a Christian.

You are the only Christian on the entire planet that I know who pretends to believe in Jesus, yet denies the very prophetic time prophecy pointing to His arrival. You should be highly ashamed of yourself.

It is no wonder you feel you have such a case against the day/year principle. In order to not have to accept the day/year principle, you must give up the very prophecy pointing toward the Messiah. It only reveals your true colors: That you do not want to have to accept what the Adventist Message through the Word of God has been trying to teach you. Your stubbornness is at such HIGH PEAK, that you will do ANYTHING to not have to accept it--even by giving up the 70 weeks as being symbolic time.

Your stubbornness is so rotten miz3. It is beyond human comprehension.

You can really tempt a guy, because you are an unreasonable piece of work that wears people out!

[jasd]

QR frame:

Perhaps, we've reached the point where the self-supposed lights of Xtian Adventism can just

leave the "Abba, dabba, dabba..." in their freakin' pockets!?

The rest of us are trying to explore and understand Holy Writ :(

[ClubV12]

miz3 asks, (again,,, and again,,, and yet again,,,)

"You claim to know and have the Truth but you fail to answer my assertions and questions on the year/day with any Biblical credibility."

The answer has been offered in many threads, for many months, many times, by many different people. You consistently reject the evidence, the counsel of the brethren, the writings of Ellen White and the fundamental position of the Seventh-day Adventist church. There is nothing more that can be said or done.

Your delusion deepens with each post, miz3, I say that with all the love and kindness that is possible for one who's path has become so dark.

[miz3]

Oh brother! You just don't give up miz3. *shakes head*

Please tell me who this "anointed" ruler was in 1.4 years. I need his name. If you can't come up with a name of an anointed ruler that came about in 1.4 years from the command of the king to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, then you have nothing against the traditional interpretation that if we count 69 weeks, or 483 years from 457 B.C., we arrive at 27 A.D. when "Christ" (anointed one--Greek translation for "Messiah") was baptized and anointed by the Holy Ghost.

Anyway, to be quite frank: Your rejection of the 70 weeks pointing forward to Jesus Christ is downright tragic and despicable.

The Bible does not speak through complex calculations is right. That's why Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34 tell us a day stands for a year, and that's why counting 70 weeks as 490 years is extremely simple. A 3rd grader can figure it out. Apparently to you, 3rd grade math is "complex".

So far, your reasoning only continues to get more nonsensical as we go. I think I have reached the point where I have every right to judge you as not being a Christian.

You are the only Christian on the entire planet that I know who pretends to believe in Jesus, yet denies the very prophetic time prophecy pointing to His arrival. You should be highly ashamed of yourself.

It is no wonder you feel you have such a case against the day/year principle. In order to not have to accept the day/year principle, you must give up the very prophecy pointing toward the Messiah. It only reveals your true colors: That you do not want to have to accept what the Adventist Message through the Word of God has been trying to teach you. Your stubbornness is at such HIGH PEAK, that you will do ANYTHING to not have to accept it--even by giving up the 70 weeks as being symbolic time.

Your stubbornness is so rotten miz3. It is beyond human comprehension.

You can really tempt a guy, because you are an unreasonable piece of work that wears people out!

It is difficult for you except what the Bible actually says. You like to tinker, add to, etc. because that suits the human need to be the center of everything, including the Word of God.

Why can you not accept that God is the Center and is in fact the whole thing? Why do you insist that the human entity be anything at all except the recipient of God's Free Grace?

You seem to never be satisfied unless the human entity plays at minimum a significant role in all things. This is the MAJOR FLAW IN YOUR THEOLOGY!

As far as the "anointed one" is concerned regardless of who this entity is Daniel chapter nine tells us everything we are supposed to know.

1. The "anointed one" will come sixty-nine weeks after the issuance of the decree (or word) to rebuild Jerusalem.

2. After the sixty-two sevens the "anointed one" will be cut off and have nothing.

3. Did you notice that the sixty-nine weeks is split into seven weeks and sixty-two weeks?

This is all Daniel chapter nine says about the "anointed one". There is no other information given about the "anointed one".

Thus, you ask who is this "anointed one"? It is clear from Daniel chapter nine that no name is given for who this "anointed one" actually is.

We must accept that God chose not to specifically identify who this "anointed one" is. Why? Because God made it that way.

Thus, if your not knowing frustrates you then you are frustrated with God. Apparently God thought it not important enough to let Lysimachus know exactly what the "name" of the "anointed one" is!

4. The Jews idolized (worshiped) their "tradition" so when you use words like, "traditional interpretation" it smacks of the same idolatry that plagued the Jews of Christ's day.

5. I could say "the traditional interpretation" in my family of how to cure cancer is to put a chewed piece of gum in a glass of milk for forty-eight hours exactly. After the forty-eight hours exactly the cancer will be cured. In fact in this illustration I further assert that this "traditional interpretation" has gone back in my family for over 1200 years.

I ask you, Lysimachus, does this make my "traditional interpretation" true just because I don't accept the views of modern medicine and the fact that modern medicine has not "solved" the cancer problem?

OF COURSE NOT!

The fact that "modern medicine" cannot answer all the questions and even in some ways actually knows nothing about how cancer works does not mean that my "family traditional interpretation" stands as TRUE!

Thus your argument in which you state:

"If you can't come up with a name of an anointed ruler that came about in 1.4 years from the command of the king to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, then you have nothing against the traditional interpretation that if we count 69 weeks, or 483 years from 457 B.C., we arrive at 27 A.D. when "Christ" (anointed one--Greek translation for "Messiah") was baptized and anointed by the Holy Ghost."

is NOT VALID any more than my illustrated "family traditional interpretation" about curing cancer is valid.

6. "Anyway, to be quite frank: Your rejection of the 70 weeks pointing forward to Jesus Christ is downright tragic and despicable."

.

I ask you Lysimachus concerning these words you wrote:

Is this the Judgment of God or is this a statement of your flawed human nature?

[fccool]

Forget majority or minority miz3.

If the day/year is not applied to the 70 weeks, then it means it is 1.4 years in length.

Tell me what Messiah showed up at the end of any 1.4 years. That should be a simple enough question.

And no, it is NOT our problem to figure out. We have it figured out! We know WHO the Messiah is who showed up at the end of the 69 weeks!

The ball is in YOUR court, not ours. It is now YOUR problem to deal with.

The same word is used for David and Saul. It simply means "anointed one".

The 70 weeks are not "weeks". The vision was about 70 sevens of something. Since the context in the beginning of the chapter was shown that the original was 70, it would seem that Israel was given 7 times the period discussed, which was indeed 70 sevens, or 490 years. Which is in fact a literal interpretation in terms of context.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

Forget majority or minority miz3.

If the day/year is not applied to the 70 weeks, then it means it is 1.4 years in length.

Tell me what Messiah showed up at the end of any 1.4 years. That should be a simple enough question.

And no, it is NOT our problem to figure out. We have it figured out! We know WHO the Messiah is who showed up at the end of the 69 weeks!

The ball is in YOUR court, not ours. It is now YOUR problem to deal with.

The same word is used for David and Saul. It simply means "anointed one".

The 70 weeks are not "weeks". The vision was about 70 sevens of something. Since the context in the beginning of the chapter was shown that the original was 70, it would seem that Israel was given 7 times the period discussed, which was indeed 70 sevens, or 490 years. Which is in fact a literal interpretation in terms of context.

Those who translated the Hebrew word "shabuam" (plural) as "weeks" surely knew what they were doing. Even the 70 Jewish scribes who translated the Old Testament into Greek, making the Septuagint, translated it into "hebdomas", which is consistently translated as "weeks".

In every where the Hebrew word "shabua" is used, it is translated as "week".

The only reason why some of you get so confused, is because shabua does mean "seven". However, it is a word consistently used to mean "seven DAYS". Days are implicated in it, regardless of how you look at it.

Revelation talks about "42 months". A month consists of "30 days". Would it make any sense to say "42 thirties"? Of course not. Seven is to Week as 30 is to Month.

We also know that the same word is used for David and for Saul. But why? Because Saul and David were types of Christ in the sense that they were taking the place of the real King of Israel. Jesus, the TRUE anointed one, comes from that royal line of David.

The context of Daniel 9 is unequivocally referring to not just the anointed one, but the "Messiah the PRINCE". It qualifies the word PRINCE. Daniel 11:22 refers to this "Prince of the Covenant", that "great Prince" (Dan 12:1). He is the "Prince of princes" (8:25).

What other Messiah but Jesus Christ was "cut off"? What other Messiah but Jesus Christ made strong a covenant? What other Messiah but Jesus Christ caused the sacrifices and oblation to cease?

None. There are no other options. No one showed up 1.4 years later from the time of Daniel, nor did anyone show up 1.4 years after either the decree in 457/8 BC or 444/445 BC. Nothing fits. Scholars know this. The only alternative is to make 70 weeks as 490 years.

Careful mathematical deductions have forced a 457 B.C. date, an anointing date of the Messiah in 27 A.D., the crucifixion in 31 A.D. and the termination of the 70 weeks in 34 A.D. when Stephen was stoned and the gospel went out to the Gentiles. It all fits perfectly like a glove.

I even know some Dispensational teachers who are now adapting the Adventist dating for the 70 weeks. Except they still detach the 70th week, put it in the yet distant future, and terminate the end of the 69th week at 27 A.D. lol. Talk about confusion.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

Forget majority or minority miz3.

If the day/year is not applied to the 70 weeks, then it means it is 1.4 years in length.

Tell me what Messiah showed up at the end of any 1.4 years. That should be a simple enough question.

And no, it is NOT our problem to figure out. We have it figured out! We know WHO the Messiah is who showed up at the end of the 69 weeks!

The ball is in YOUR court, not ours. It is now YOUR problem to deal with.

The same word is used for David and Saul. It simply means "anointed one".

The 70 weeks are not "weeks". The vision was about 70 sevens of something. Since the context in the beginning of the chapter was shown that the original was 70, it would seem that Israel was given 7 times the period discussed, which was indeed 70 sevens, or 490 years. Which is in fact a literal interpretation in terms of context.

[John317]

Those who translated the Hebrew word "shabuam" (plural) as "weeks" surely knew what they were doing. Even the 70 Jewish scribes who translated the Old Testament into Greek, making the Septuagint, translated it into "hebdomas", which is consistently translated as "weeks".

In every where the Hebrew word "shabua" is used, it is translated as "week".

The only reason why some of you get so confused, is because shabua does mean "seven". However, it is a word consistently used to mean "seven DAYS". Days are implicated in it, regardless of how you look at it.

Revelation talks about "42 months". A month consists of "30 days". Would it make any sense to say "42 thirties"? Of course not. Seven is to Week as 30 is to Month.

We also know that the same word is used for David and for Saul. But why? Because Saul and David were types of Christ in the sense that they were taking the place of the real King of Israel. Jesus, the TRUE anointed one, comes from that royal line of David.

The context of Daniel 9 is unequivocally referring to not just the anointed one, but the "Messiah the PRINCE". It qualifies the word PRINCE. Daniel 11:22 refers to this "Prince of the Covenant", that "great Prince" (Dan 12:1). He is the "Prince of princes" (8:25).

What other Messiah but Jesus Christ was "cut off"? What other Messiah but Jesus Christ made strong a covenant? What other Messiah but Jesus Christ caused the sacrifices and oblation to cease?

None. There are no other options. No one showed up 1.4 years later from the time of Daniel, nor did anyone show up 1.4 years after either the decree in 457/8 BC or 444/445 BC. Nothing fits. Scholars know this. The only alternative is to make 70 weeks as 490 years.

Careful mathematical deductions have forced a 457 B.C. date, an anointing date of the Messiah in 27 A.D., the crucifixion in 31 A.D. and the termination of the 70 weeks in 34 A.D. when Stephen was stoned and the gospel went out to the Gentiles. It all fits perfectly like a glove.

I even know some Dispensational teachers who are now adapting the Adventist dating for the 70 weeks. Except they still detach the 70th week, put it in the yet distant future, and terminate the end of the 69th week at 27 A.D. lol. Talk about confusion.

Originally Posted By: miz3

That is actually hilarious.

Twists, writhing, tweaking, etc.

That is not what Daniel says as I have pointed out to you and you continue to ignore it (that is your privilege).

You have to and have constantly "manipulated" instead of reading what the straight Word says.

Why don't you like the straight Word just as God made it?

What's hilarious about it? Where are "the twists, writhing and tweaking" and the "constant manipulation" in what Lysimachus has said in the above?

[John317]

I have no real burden to respond to this miz3. You have practically admitted that you are ALONE in your interpretation. You are floating out to sea in your own little boat without chart or compass, pretending that these 70 weeks cannot be interpreted. Not even all your Dispensational friends, who disagree with the day/year principle as well, agree with you that the 70 weeks do not represent 490 years. Their argument rests on saying that the Hebrew word "shabuam" means "sevens", and not weeks. That is their only hope of trying to get off the hook of employing the day/year principle. But since you miz3 have seen this argument refuted, you are FORCED to resort to an UNORTHODOX position that the 70 weeks cannot be interpreted. I find this so appalling, that I'm surprised I'm still sitting on my seat able to finish this sentence.

This is EXACTLY what the Jews wanted everyone to think!

Your spirit is NO DIFFERENT THAN THE RABBINIC CURSE AGAINST THE 70 WEEKS:

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Header-Downloads-References-RabbinicCurse.html

Read those well miz3!

Originally Posted By: miz3

1. Typical! Lysimachus you keep saying that TRUTH is TRUTH because of "majority" status. You also keep asserting that unTRUTH is unTRUTH because of its "minority" status.

The Bible does not support TRUTH BY MAJORITY nor does it say that unTRUTH IS ALWAYS MINORITY BASED. In that light why do you keep telling me that I am wrong because I take a "minority position"?

You can continue to believe in the unBiblical position that TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD ARE BASED ON MAJORITY OR MINORITY STATUS. However that is not how God operates. Jesus Christ in His day was constantly in the MINORITY POSITION yet Jesus Christ was ALWAYS TRUTH!

Lysimachus is not claiming that truth is determined by how many believe something. But he has a good point that you need to realize that you are alone in your interpretation, and while that is not proof by itself that you are wrong, it should cause you to carefully think through your interpretation and ask why virtually no one else sees what you are seeing in Daniel 9.

So the point is not that you are in a "minority position." The point is that you are evidently ALL ALONE in your position. That is a totally different matter.

I don't judge a position on the basis of how many people believe something or on who believes it; what's really important are the reasons/reasoning and evidence which people show in support of their belief.

What are your reasons and your evidence for your interpretaion of Daniel 9?

Stop attacking Lysimachus and explain your own view and interpretation of Daniel 9: 24-27.

[John317]

...Translating Daniel nine verse twenty-five as "Messiah" is clearly a mistranslation (mistake). NO MESSIAH!

Isaiah 45 also refers to Cyrus as God's messiah, or anointed one. Those various anointed ones were types of the REAL anointed One, Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ IS the Messiah-- the Anointed Leader of God. That is what the word Messiah means, an anointed one. It certainly refers to "Christ," which is the Greek word for Messiah, or Anointed. Jesus Christ=Jesus the Anointed One.

And actually the word "Messiah" is a transliteration of the Hebrew word used in Daniel 9: 25.

David, Saul, Cyrus were all "anointed ones," but there is only one "THE Anointed One," and that is Jesus Christ. The others are dead whereas Jesus Christ is still alive and still Anointed, continuously doing God's work FOR US in the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrews 8: 1, 2.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: miz3

...Translating Daniel nine verse twenty-five as "Messiah" is clearly a mistranslation (mistake). NO MESSIAH!

Isaiah 45 also refers to Cyrus as God's messiah, or anointed one. Those various anointed ones were types of the REAL anointed One, Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ IS the Messiah-- the Anointed Leader of God. That is what the word Messiah means, an anointed one. It certainly refers to "Christ," which is the Greek word for Messiah, or Anointed. Jesus Christ=Jesus the Anointed One.

And actually the word "Messiah" is a transliteration of the Hebrew word used in Daniel 9: 25.

David, Saul, Cyrus were all "anointed ones," but there is only one "THE Anointed One," and that is Jesus Christ. The others are dead whereas Jesus Christ is still alive and still Anointed, continuously doing God's work FOR US in the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrews 8: 1, 2.

[John317]

Good morning, pk! You arrived just in time for me to hit the sack. It is almost 5:30 on the West coast.

God willing, I will be back in a few hours.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

I have no real burden to respond to this miz3. You have practically admitted that you are ALONE in your interpretation. You are floating out to sea in your own little boat without chart or compass, pretending that these 70 weeks cannot be interpreted. Not even all your Dispensational friends, who disagree with the day/year principle as well, agree with you that the 70 weeks do not represent 490 years. Their argument rests on saying that the Hebrew word "shabuam" means "sevens", and not weeks. That is their only hope of trying to get off the hook of employing the day/year principle. But since you miz3 have seen this argument refuted, you are FORCED to resort to an UNORTHODOX position that the 70 weeks cannot be interpreted. I find this so appalling, that I'm surprised I'm still sitting on my seat able to finish this sentence.

This is EXACTLY what the Jews wanted everyone to think!

Your spirit is NO DIFFERENT THAN THE RABBINIC CURSE AGAINST THE 70 WEEKS:

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Header-Downloads-References-RabbinicCurse.html

Read those well miz3!

Originally Posted By: miz3

1. Typical! Lysimachus you keep saying that TRUTH is TRUTH because of "majority" status. You also keep asserting that unTRUTH is unTRUTH because of its "minority" status.

The Bible does not support TRUTH BY MAJORITY nor does it say that unTRUTH IS ALWAYS MINORITY BASED. In that light why do you keep telling me that I am wrong because I take a "minority position"?

You can continue to believe in the unBiblical position that TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD ARE BASED ON MAJORITY OR MINORITY STATUS. However that is not how God operates. Jesus Christ in His day was constantly in the MINORITY POSITION yet Jesus Christ was ALWAYS TRUTH!

Lysimachus is not claiming that truth is determined by how many believe something. But he has a good point that you need to realize that you are alone in your interpretation, and while that is not proof by itself that you are wrong, it should cause you to carefully think through your interpretation and ask why virtually no one else sees what you are seeing in Daniel 9.

So the point is not that you are in a "minority position." The point is that you are evidently ALL ALONE in your position. That is a totally different matter.

I don't judge a position on the basis of how many people believe something or on who believes it; what's really important are the reasons/reasoning and evidence which people show in support of their belief.

What are your reasons and your evidence for your interpretaion of Daniel 9?

Stop attacking Lysimachus and explain your own view and interpretation of Daniel 9: 24-27.

[Lysimachus]

]Isaiah 45 also refers to Cyrus as God's messiah, or anointed one. Those various anointed ones were types of the REAL anointed One, Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ IS the Messiah-- the Anointed Leader of God. That is what the word Messiah means, an anointed one. It certainly refers to "Christ," which is the Greek word for Messiah, or Anointed. Jesus Christ=Jesus the Anointed One.

And actually the word "Messiah" is a transliteration of the Hebrew word used in Daniel 9: 25.

David, Saul, Cyrus were all "anointed ones," but there is only one "THE Anointed One," and that is Jesus Christ. The others are dead whereas Jesus Christ is still alive and still Anointed, continuously doing God's work FOR US in the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrews 8: 1, 2.

That was super John317!! :D

[Lysimachus]

1. I am not alone in my interpretation. As I have told you before God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible are with me and agree with me. That is not being alone.

2. I have explained some of my position in previous posts. Maybe you did not like them and that's OK but they were posted.

But your positions, as we have shown, do not have the support of God's Word. Your interpretations are built upon sand, and upon spurious, private, and off-the-wall imaginations. You have provided nothing to sustain your arguments. The brethren disagree with you. We're telling you that you have gone astray. But you refuse to accept the UNANIMOUS counsel of the brethren. To go against the UNANIMOUS counsel of the brethren, according to God's Word, is contrary to Scripture. AS John317 has already iterated, you are alone in your private interpretation.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

...Translating Daniel nine verse twenty-five as "Messiah" is clearly a mistranslation (mistake). NO MESSIAH!

Isaiah 45 also refers to Cyrus as God's messiah, or anointed one. Those various anointed ones were types of the REAL anointed One, Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ IS the Messiah-- the Anointed Leader of God. That is what the word Messiah means, an anointed one. It certainly refers to "Christ," which is the Greek word for Messiah, or Anointed. Jesus Christ=Jesus the Anointed One.

And actually the word "Messiah" is a transliteration of the Hebrew word used in Daniel 9: 25.

David, Saul, Cyrus were all "anointed ones," but there is only one "THE Anointed One," and that is Jesus Christ. The others are dead whereas Jesus Christ is still alive and still Anointed, continuously doing God's work FOR US in the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrews 8: 1, 2.

That is not what Daniel chapter nine says.

You want it to be "Messiah" but it is clearly not "Messiah" and it is also clearly not talking about Jesus Christ.

Daniel nine does not translate into "Messiah" but translates into "Anointed One" or "an anointed one". You are mishandling the translation in order to fit your view. This is called "stretching".

The words "an anointed one" is NOT "the" One.

Also CONTEXTUALLY DANIEL CHAPTER NINE DOES NOT REFER TO JESUS CHRIST BECAUSE THE "ANOINTED ONE" COMES DURING THE REBUILDING OF JERUSALEM AFTER THE "DECREE" IS GIVEN TO REBUILD.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

1. I am not alone in my interpretation. As I have told you before God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible are with me and agree with me. That is not being alone.

2. I have explained some of my position in previous posts. Maybe you did not like them and that's OK but they were posted.

But your positions, as we have shown, do not have the support of God's Word. Your interpretations are built upon sand, and upon spurious, private, and off-the-wall imaginations. You have provided nothing to sustain your arguments. The brethren disagree with you. We're telling you that you have gone astray. But you refuse to accept the UNANIMOUS counsel of the brethren. To go against the UNANIMOUS counsel of the brethren, according to God's Word, is contrary to Scripture. AS John317 has already iterated, you are alone in your private interpretation.

You keep referring to the "brethren" as if they were God. The "brethren" are not God. In fact through out the history of the SDA Church and in my own life-time I have seen how the "brethren" have not been "God's Servants" but in fact have been the servants of the "evil one".

Their lust for power, greed for money, and manipulative spirit makes them clearly not God's Servants.

So much for the "brethren"!

What you said is also false in that my interpretations have been and do have the support of the Bible (God's Word). It is in fact your spurious theories that are the ones built on sand and off the wall imaginations.

[phkrause]

That is not what Daniel chapter nine says.

You want it to be "Messiah" but it is clearly not "Messiah" and it is also clearly not talking about Jesus Christ.

Daniel nine does not translate into "Messiah" but translates into "Anointed One" or "an anointed one". You are mishandling the translation in order to fit your view. This is called "stretching".

The words "an anointed one" is NOT "the" One.

Also CONTEXTUALLY DANIEL CHAPTER NINE DOES NOT REFER TO JESUS CHRIST BECAUSE THE "ANOINTED ONE" COMES DURING THE REBUILDING OF JERUSALEM AFTER THE "DECREE" IS GIVEN TO REBUILD.

So who do you think the Anointed One is, if not the Messiah/Jesus?

The Jews even accept this to be talking about the Messiah! They just don't believe that the Messiah is Jesus, that's the only difference between Jews and Messianic Jews & most Christians.

[Lysimachus]

You keep referring to the "brethren" as if they were God. The "brethren" are not God. In fact through out the history of the SDA Church and in my own life-time I have seen how the "brethren" have not been "God's Servants" but in fact have been the servants of the "evil one".

Their lust for power, greed for money, and manipulative spirit makes them clearly not God's Servants.

So much for the "brethren"!

What you said is also false in that my interpretations have been and do have the support of the Bible (God's Word). It is in fact your spurious theories that are the ones built on sand and off the wall imaginations.

Nope. Sorry miz3, that's not how it works. You can dream all day, but your hopes will be dashed to pieces, and in the end, you will be overwhelmingly disappointed.

The "brethren" are not God. But God speaks to us through the brethren. There may be brethren today who have lust for power, greed for money, and have a manipulative spirit. But the only reason such brethren have the truth is because they inherited these truths from HUMBLE brethren who have gone before them!

So when I say "unanimous" counsel of the brethren, I am specifically referring to the unanimous voice of those HUMBLE brethren who have gone before us, and the few that still exist today.

It is THESE that you have rejected, closed the door to, and therefore, are sealing your own fate for tragic disappointment and eternal sorrow. It is the rejection of these brethren which is the same as rejecting the Bible, Jesus, and Eternal Truth.

There's no getting out of this miz3. We have spoken. We have told you the absolute, cutting, living, Biblical, and painful truth. It's now for you to accept it, or reject it. To think that there will be no consequences for rejecting these counsels is to live in a fantasy world headed for eternal ruin and sorrow in your life.

But the good news is, there is still hope for you miz3. The door is still open. Do not procrastinate. Do not postpone. Accept Jesus into your life now. And to accept Jesus is to accept the truth that comes with Him. Though you may think you have already, I can assure you, this you have not done.

[Lysimachus]

That is not what Daniel chapter nine says.

You want it to be "Messiah" but it is clearly not "Messiah" and it is also clearly not talking about Jesus Christ.