The 1260 Year Interpretation of Protestantism

[Lysimachus]

You're also cluttering up my thread. Too many quotes.

[fccool]

Quote:

Fccool, there are so many layers and solid layers of material that Adventism is built upon, and you still have MOUNTAINS to go through to realize just how solid our platform is.

And I believe this is one of the greatest pitfalls of super-spiritual theological movements that need libraries of books to explain something that should be rather simple and straightforward.

When you appeal to complexity, you essentially can prove just about anything. You can pull the wool over the eyes of people with the intricate "scheme and connections" in a way that in the end "will make sense". And then you call it "clear as day".

It's similar to evolutionary scientists dumping a mountain on information with all of the assumed and connected dots, and then say ... "See how clear and obvious it is?".

I don't think you are considering that there are more ways and more perspectives that can be considered and perhaps evaluated. And you don't see it for a very simple reason. You basically believe that you've been chosen by God to convince that your view is correct, or in the very least to warn them that these things will happen and they should believe you, because somehow their lives and salvation hang on whether they believe you or they don't.

Yet, can you clearly defend your position all of the books aside with only a Bible on the table? Or better yet, with no books or Bible at all? Can you in plain words defend your position? If you can't, then why do we even need it? That's not Christianity. That's college-level theological maze. I find very little love or care for humanity in the middle of all of this, which sort of supported by you following statement.

Quote:

Your disbelief in the Testimonies, and your disbelief in solid foundations that have made Adventism will overcome in the final days when we are brought before courts and trials--that is, if you do not make up your mind to overcome your disbeliefs now, and choose NOW with a decided stand to give up your cherished doubts concerning our Adventist pillars. It would be the BEST and most WISE move you ever made in your life. This I'm totally persuaded of.

That's not how God works. And you've convinced yourself that that's how He works. He's not interested in your theology and complete understanding of eschatology. He is interested in you loving people. You are reducing Christianity to be a college class test that you have to get right to be on God's side. That's not how God works. He works through loving people who love others on his behalf in true sense of this word. Anything else is upside down and backwards.

Quote:

It's time to LAY DOWN your doubts, and take up this message with great zeal and determination!

And then what? So, you convince all the world that Adventist eschatology is correct. You convince all of the world that Sabbath commandment should be kept. And then what?

Do you really believe that that's what the problem with the world is? That they don't understand Adventist eschatology, or that they don't follow Adventist teachings?

The problem with the world is a misplaced love! That's the starting point. You can't force someone to love. To say to someone what you just said to me, "Choose NOW with a decided stand to give up your cherished doubts concerning our Adventist pillars", that's not understanding. That's not love. It's like walking over to someone and saying, "Choose now... to marry me".

The Gospel is not for theologians. The Gospel is not for "smart people". The gospel is for little kids, because it's really that simple. They understand love. They understand example of love, and they understand it's power.

And somewhere down the road, Adventism took a turn in the direction that eventually leads one to believe that one needs a mountain of books to understand what God is all about. And when they arrive with that understanding, of course, there's an urge to prove to the world how vast our knowledge and great our understanding of end times.

IT WILL NOT SAVE YOU!

Get back to simplicity. It's beautiful. It's profound. And it really does change people. That's the only reason that I'm still Christian. God is not found in eschatology. He is not found in Biblical narrative. He is not found in dogmatic correctness. He is found in those who truly love other. That's the only real way of knowing God and having relationship with Him.

Quote:

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

These people did not even know that they were doing God's work. Their work did not revolve around going around and making sure that everyone knew the correct eschatology. Their work was simple and it was the most important one.

The only way to tell people about God is to love them first.

[miz3]

I'm not sure we are reading her counsel the same way. I am not sure what you read her to say in the paragraphs I posted.

[Lysimachus]

Let me ask you a few questions fccool. I want straight-forward, yes or no answers, if at all possible:

1. Do you believe that saved Christians are to keep the 4th commandment Sabbath holy?

2. Do you believe that the Papacy is the predicted Antichrist/Beast/Harlot/Little Horn/Man of Sin/Son of Perdition predicted in Daniel, Revelation and 2 Thessalonians?

3. Do you believe that Sunday sacredness is the Mark of the Beast?

4. Do you believe the Sunday vs. Sabbath controversy will be a central issue in the last days?

I just need to know where you stand.

If your answer is no to number 2, then what is the beast? and if it is no to 2, then obviously it must be no to 3 also. Then that leads to the next question: What is the mark of the beast?

[teresaq]

I'm trying to understand what you appear to disagree with. are you saying this counsel can be disregarded because "important stuff" is now being discussed? You are saying,(its a question) that you can now "speak" to others as you did below?

Quote:

I feel like fleeing from the place lest I receive the mold of those who cannot candidly investigate the doctrines of the Bible....,

which leads to the denouncing of others and passing judgment upon their brethren. Envy, jealousy, evilspeaking, evil surmising, judging one another, has been considered a special gift given of God in discernment, when it savors more of the spirit of the great accuser who accused the brethren before God day and night...

When the Spirit of God rests upon you, there will be no feeling of envy or jealousy in examining another’s position; there will be no spirit of accusation and criticism, such as Satan inspired in the hearts of the Jewish leaders against Christ...Unless the teacher is a learner in the school of Christ, he is not fitted to teach others...human passions which was bitterness of spirit, because some of their brethren had ventured to entertain some ideas contrary

teresaq,

Please Teresa. All those who were investigating doctrines and not doing it candidly, and were arguing with one another at Minneapolis in 1888 were NOT ARGUING over the foundations! They were arguing about the book of Galatians, Alamanni vs. Huns, and Righteousness by Faith! They were arguing over ADVANCED POINTS OF CONTENTION.

They were not discussing the BASIC foundations that were LONG established!

[fccool]

Let me ask you a few questions fccool. I want straight-forward, yes or no answers, if at all possible:

1. Do you believe that saved Christians are to keep the 4th commandment Sabbath holy?

2. Do you believe that the Papacy is the predicted Antichrist/Beast/Harlot/Little Horn/Man of Sin/Son of Perdition predicted in Daniel, Revelation and 2 Thessalonians?

3. Do you believe that Sunday sacredness is the Mark of the Beast?

4. Do you believe the Sunday vs. Sabbath controversy will be a central issue in the last days?

I just need to know where you stand.

If your answer is no to number 2, then what is the beast? and if it is no to 2, then obviously it must be no to 3 also. Then that leads to the next question: What is the mark of the beast?

[teresaq]

If any of us want to see heaven we have to leave off the derogatory comments we make to each other.

Of course all are free to see if they can get into heaven without leaving them off, if it is that important to them.

Personally I'm not going to risk it.

Yes, miz3. I am also too guilty!

[miz3]

Let me ask you a few questions fccool. I want straight-forward, yes or no answers, if at all possible:

1. Do you believe that saved Christians are to keep the 4th commandment Sabbath holy?

2. Do you believe that the Papacy is the predicted Antichrist/Beast/Harlot/Little Horn/Man of Sin/Son of Perdition predicted in Daniel, Revelation and 2 Thessalonians?

3. Do you believe that Sunday sacredness is the Mark of the Beast?

4. Do you believe the Sunday vs. Sabbath controversy will be a central issue in the last days?

I just need to know where you stand.

If your answer is no to number 2, then what is the beast? and if it is no to 2, then obviously it must be no to 3 also. Then that leads to the next question: What is the mark of the beast?

fccool can answer for himself!

My answers to these questions are:

1. NO! NO! NO!

2. NO! NO! NO!

3. NO! NO! NO!

4. NO! NO! NO!

[Words here deleted by the moderator.]

INTERESTING!

[BobRyan]

Here are some outstanding articles from Bob Pickle. He shows unequivocally how it is impossible to force 69 prophetic lunar years (or a total o 173,880 days) between mark 14, 445 B.C. and April 6, 32 A.D. He also deals with Hoehner's calculations as well besides Anderson's. I deal with all of the following articles extensively in my The 70 Weeks of Daniel 9 - Vindicating the Historical-Messianic Computation article.

1. "An Examination of Anderson's Chronological Errors Regarding Daniel 9's First 69 Weeks." Dispensational eschatology, as portrayed on Left Behind, depends on an adequate explanation of the first 69 weeks. Anderson is often quoted, and yet his theories are contradicted by plain facts about calendars and history.

...

gold mine after gold mine!!

Thanks again!

in Christ,

Bob

[Lysimachus]

Yet, can you clearly defend your position all of the books aside with only a Bible on the table? Or better yet, with no books or Bible at all? Can you in plain words defend your position? If you can't, then why do we even need it? That's not Christianity. That's college-level theological maze. I find very little love or care for humanity in the middle of all of this, which sort of supported by you following statement.

[Lysimachus]

fccool can answer for himself!

My answers to these questions are:

1. NO! NO! NO!

2. NO! NO! NO!

3. NO! NO! NO!

4. NO! NO! NO!

[Words here deleted by the moderator.]

INTERESTING!

Then there was no need for you to answer. I wasn't asking you.

[BobRyan]

I will dissect fccool's post in two parts..

First the most obvious.

Key factors in the Jewish calendar

When the Jewish calendar is analyzed, it is found that there are three very special times each year. These are the three times that the men of Israel were commanded to appear before the Lord.

The feast of unleavened bread, following the Passover, was a 7-day period in early spring. The feast of harvest, or first fruits, which the NT calls "Pentecost", came 49 days (seven weeks), or the 50th day (hence "Pente-cost"), after the day following Passover approximately 45 days after the end of the feast of unleavened bread.

The calendar date was usually between Sivan 3 and Sivan 5. The small discrepancies here arise because sometimes Jewish months were 29 days long and sometimes they were 30, and sometimes days were counted inclusively (ie counting the beginning and ending days) and sometimes they were counted exclusively (ie not counting the beginning and ending days).

Finally, the third time of general gathering came in early fall. This was a 21-day period commencing with the Feast of Trumpets, continuing on to the Day of Atonement, and culminating in the Feast of Ingathering, or Tabernacles.

The seven annual holidays, called "holy convocations", all fall within these three times. They are:

1) Abib 14 = Passover;

2) Abib 21 = The last day of Feast of Unleavened Bread;

3) Sivan 3,4, or 5 = Pentecost; Feast of Firstfruits;

4) Ethanim 1 = Feast of Trumpets (also called Rosh Hashanah: New Years Day);

5) Ethanim 10 = Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur);

6) Ethanim 15 = The first day of Feast of Tabernacles;

7) Ethanim 21 = The last day of Feast of Tabernacles.

While that has almost no use when talking about the day for year principle in the book of Daniel - which comes squarely from its use in Daniel 9 where we are talking about a 490 year time span from the rebuilding of the temple in the 5th century BC to the coming of Christ in the first century A.D. - it is in fact very helpful if you remember that material when reading Romans 14 where we are told that some people observe one of those Holy days "Above another" while another person observes them ALL.

So don't lose that post above just because fccool did not place it in the right discussion. It still has value.

in Christ,

Bob

[miz3]

Lysimachus, the TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST is JESUS CHRIST!

You are trying to make the Testimony of Jesus Christ, everything but Jesus Christ!

You are making the Gospel "the testimony of prophecy" and the "testimony of complexity" and the "testimony of human calculation"!

Like I said my manner and my speech do not make me guiltless but you sure are an "ADVERTISEMENT OF HATE AND ANGER"!

[BobRyan]

Going back to Lysimachus' argument about Solar Years vs Lunar Years and problems with fitting these into these number of days... i.e. 1:

The 3 1/2 "times" or years of Dan 12 seems to be identical with the 3 1/2 "times" of Rev 12:14, which in turn appears to be identical with the 42 months of Rev 11:2 and the 1,260 days of Rev 11:3; 12:6. It seems that all these prophetic time periods use a month of 30 days. Thus, 3 1/2 years = 3 1/2 x 12, or 42 months = 42 x 30, or 1,260 days.

Now, some may object by saying that the problem is that 30 day months were Babylonian calendar. Yet, let's discuss the Jewish one for a minute.

Key factors in the Jewish calendar

...(BobRyan comments: this section already addressed in my prior post)

Many significant events in Israel's Bible history, far too numerous to list here, occurred on these special days. Other days in the Jews' annual cycle were relatively unimportant.

Relevant to this discussion are the following points:

1) From Abib 21 (the last day of the Passover "cluster") to Ethanim 21 (the last day of the Tabernacles "cluster") is exactly 1/2 year.

2) From Ethanim 21 to Abib 21 is, of course, exactly 1/2 year also.

3) Thus, a time period that begins with either Abib 21 or Ethanim 21, and runs precisely 3 1/2 years, will end on the other of the two.

4) A time period beginning Ethanim 21 and ending Abib 21, with another 45 days (1,335 less 1,290) added on, would climax at the third significant date in the Jewish calendar (Sivan 3, 4, or 5) -- Pentecost.

5) A 30-day period is the difference between the 1,290 days and the 1,260 days.

The Jews generally added 13th month to their calendar every third year or so. This was done to keep their calendar in line with the seasons, since their months were either 29 or 30 days, and thus their ordinary year was only about 354 days. 11 1/4 days added up each year, so that every third year (or more precisely, 7 years out of every 19) an extra month was needed. So, assuming that a 3-year period would necessitate one month, we have the reason why 3 1/2 years of 30-day months (ie 1,260 days) becomes 1,290 days -- the addition of precisely one month. Using a 30-day model, then, there are exactly 1,290 days from the end of the Tabernacles "cluster" of holy days (including Yom Kippur and the week-long Feast of Tabernacles) to the end of the Passover "cluster" of holy days (including the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread) 3 1/2 years later. And another 45 days (for a total of 1,335) brings us to the final "holy convocation" day, and the third "general assembly" of the year -- Pentecost.

fccool just shot his own argument in the foot.

1. The intercalary month added every 3 years as well as other adjustments - is what syncs the Jewish Calendar to the solar year. Thus over large time spans such as 1260 years or 490 years - the solar calendar is the "the resultant effect" when you pay close attention to the insertion of the intercalary months.

2. The rule used in Rev 11 and 12 simply shows how to translate months of years in 42 months (where each day in the month is a year) to the more flat structure "days" in 1260 days -- showing that when using the "day for year" principle the grouping of years allows you to refer to them either in Times, or in Months, or in Years for that 1260 year period of the dark ages.

3. The dark ages are themselves pretty hard to miss. In Dan 7 the dark ages are the span of time that goes from the fall of the 4th beast until the time of the judgment and the 2nd coming. Impossible to miss both in real life history and in the chapter.

In Rev 12 the dark ages are the large span of years that take you from an event after the resurrection of Christ where persecution of the saints has begun - until the rise of the Lamb Like beast, the move to the Americas of the persecuted saints etc.

Impossible to ignore in actual history.

The much more convoluted meandering "day not day, year not year" solution that fccool argues not only ignores proven history - it destroys the sequence that you see in Dan 7 and in Rev 12.

in Christ,

Bob

[miz3]

Sorry but there is still NO YEAR/DAY!

Without the year/day all your complexities go kaput!

[Lysimachus]

fccool just shot his own argument in the foot.

1. The intercalary month added every 3 years as well as other adjustments - is what syncs the Jewish Calendar to the solar year. Thus over large time spans such as 1260 years or 490 years - the solar calendar is the "the resultant effect" when you pay close attention to the insertion of the intercalary months.

2. The rule used in Rev 11 and 12 simply shows how to translate months of years in 42 months (where each day in the month is a year) to the more flat structure "days" in 1260 days -- showing that when using the "day for year" principle the grouping of years allows you to refer to them either in Times, or in Months, or in Years for that 1260 year period of the dark ages.

3. The dark ages are themselves pretty hard to miss. In Dan 7 the dark ages are the span of time that goes from the fall of the 4th beast until the time of the judgment and the 2nd coming. Impossible to miss both in real life history and in the chapter.

In Rev 12 the dark ages are the large span of years that take you from an event after the resurrection of Christ where persecution of the saints has begun - until the rise of the Lamb Like beast, the move to the Americas of the persecuted saints etc.

Impossible to ignore in actual history.

The much more convoluted meandering "day not day, year not year" solution that fccool argues not only ignores proven history - it destroys the sequence that you see in Dan 7 and in Rev 12.

in Christ,

Bob

This was an outstanding post Bob. Thank you for sharing!

[Lysimachus]

Sorry but there is still NO YEAR/DAY!

Without the year/day all your complexities go kaput!

In your dreams!!

[fccool]

Quote:

fccool just shot his own argument in the foot.

1. The intercalary month added every 3 years as well as other adjustments - is what syncs the Jewish Calendar to the solar year. Thus over large time spans such as 1260 years or 490 years - the solar calendar is the "the resultant effect" when you pay close attention to the insertion of the intercalary months.

I think you've completely missed the point of the post. The entire prophetic timeline was given to a Jew, who is used to Jewish understanding of feasts, prophecies concerning Jewish nation, and Jewish calendar feast days.

The argument was not merely that something goes by lunar or solar calendar. The argument was that these days fit really well into Jewish feast cycles.

Quote:

2. The rule used in Rev 11 and 12 simply shows how to translate months of years in 42 months (where each day in the month is a year) to the more flat structure "days" in 1260 days -- showing that when using the "day for year" principle the grouping of years allows you to refer to them either in Times, or in Months, or in Years for that 1260 year period of the dark ages.

There is no rule in Rev 11 and 12. There's a statement that you assume a rule to interpret it against .

Quote:

3. The dark ages are themselves pretty hard to miss. In Dan 7 the dark ages are the span of time that goes from the fall of the 4th beast until the time of the judgment and the 2nd coming. Impossible to miss both in real life history and in the chapter.

These are not the only "dark ages" of world's history. If you think that the era prior to "dark ages" was any brighter, why do you think that? Did it have less religious persecution? More understanding and enlightenment? By no means.

Quote:

In Rev 12 the dark ages are the large span of years that take you from an event after the resurrection of Christ where persecution of the saints has begun - until the rise of the Lamb Like beast, the move to the Americas of the persecuted saints etc.

Impossible to ignore in actual history.

The history only makes sense given a certain mindset that you are interpreting it with. For the persecuted people the persecuting Rome was the beast.

People who were persecuted in China or experienced Muslim persecution would have different perspective. I hope you can see where I'm going with this. Your view of the world is fairly narrow when you make the events in Europe to be representative and global.

Quote:

The much more convoluted meandering "day not day, year not year" solution that fccool argues not only ignores proven history - it destroys the sequence that you see in Dan 7 and in Rev 12.

It only destroy the sequence that you you establish through your interpretation. Right now you don't conceive any other possibilities, because they simply don't exist in your mind-frame. There are other possibilities, but I think I've made it clear that it should not be "make it or break it" issue in our Christian walk. We should be more concerned with other things, which in IMO are more important.

[teresaq]

fccool, I'm interested in what you were saying regarding the feasts, or was that just to make a point?

I am still interested in the objections you have, tho I won't be able to read some of the responses to what you say since I am trying so hard to eradicate that "mold", "stamp", from my soul. :)

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

>>Daniel 7:25 “And he shall speak [by legislation] great words against the most High....”<<

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Curious... how do you justify the insertion into text of [by legislation]?

Quote:Lysimachus

>>Revelation 13:12 uses similar language in "causing". Remember, the focus in Daniel 7:25 is "changing times and laws". One must employ legislation to "speak" in regards to changing God's laws.<<

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Sorry, in checking Revelation 13:12 – even the sense ”by legislation” escapes me. As for “changing times and laws” – one cannot take the phrase to mean literally and only – Gd’s laws. That’s a rather narrow view...

>>This is what we believe it to mean.<<

Okay. I was curious as to why you inserted “[legislation]” – as though it held significant meaning above and beyond Writ’s use of – “speak”. To me, ‘speak’ means ‘speak’ – without the necessity of embroidery.

>>If you choose to not interpret it this way, that is your prerogative.<<

Right, ...am fond of my prerogatives.

>>But we believe that legislation is most certaintly implicated. One can only "cause" something concerning laws by legislation.<<

Mt 8:8 ... but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

Mt 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this [man], ...

One (horn/king) in authority need only speak; moreover, legislating against the “most High” is somewhat problematic...

>>The attack is on the "Most High", and the "changing of times and laws" is juxtoposed to an attack on the Most High in the same verse:

"And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." (Daniel 7:25)

You're talking about who here? The Little Horn. According to Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 Horns represent Kings or Kingdoms. Kingdoms enact legislation.<< [ed.jasd]

You may note the colored conjunctive “and” in the above – together with its implicative; that is, the one in authority does both – speak and think to change times and laws – both independent clauses. Moreover, whereas, the Pope, according to you, has already effectively changed times and laws – the “diverse” horn – only thinks to change times and laws.

>>Understanding that this is in relation to changing God's laws through legislation is more clearly discernable than your dispicalbe decapitation of the 70th week of Daniel.<<

Again, presuming that the “times and laws” refer directly to the 4th commandment – is a rather narrow view.

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

>>Daniel 7:25 “And he shall speak [by legislation] great words against the most High....”<<

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Curious... how do you justify the insertion into text of [by legislation]?

Quote:Lysimachus

>>Revelation 13:12 uses similar language in "causing". Remember, the focus in Daniel 7:25 is "changing times and laws". One must employ legislation to "speak" in regards to changing God's laws.<<

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Sorry, in checking Revelation 13:12 – even the sense ”by legislation” escapes me. As for “changing times and laws” – one cannot take the phrase to mean literally and only – Gd’s laws. That’s a rather narrow view...

>>This is what we believe it to mean.<<

Okay. I was curious as to why you inserted “[legislation]” – as though it held significant meaning above and beyond Writ’s use of – “speak”. To me, ‘speak’ means ‘speak’ – without the necessity of embroidery.

>>If you choose to not interpret it this way, that is your prerogative.<<

Right, ...am fond of my prerogatives.

>>But we believe that legislation is most certaintly implicated. One can only "cause" something concerning laws by legislation.<<

Mt 8:8 ... but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

Mt 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this [man], ...

One (horn/king) in authority need only speak; moreover, legislating against the “most High” is somewhat problematic...

>>The attack is on the "Most High", and the "changing of times and laws" is juxtoposed to an attack on the Most High in the same verse:

"And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." (Daniel 7:25)

You're talking about who here? The Little Horn. According to Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 Horns represent Kings or Kingdoms. Kingdoms enact legislation.<< [ed.jasd]

You may note the colored conjunctive “and” in the above – together with its implicative; that is, the one in authority does both – speak and think to change times and laws – both independent clauses. Moreover, whereas, the Pope, according to you, has already effectively changed times and laws – the “diverse” horn – only thinks to change times and laws.

>>Understanding that this is in relation to changing God's laws through legislation is more clearly discernable than your dispicalbe decapitation of the 70th week of Daniel.<<

Again, presuming the “times and laws” as referring directly to the 4th commandment – is rather parochial.

[jasd]

>>... your dispicalbe decapitation of the 70th week of Daniel.<<

Tskity, tskity, tsk, tsk, tsk. Language, my good fellow, language – for you’ve done the same re the throne of David and its continuity – advancing a “decapitation” of rightful ascendancy during a period of six centuries – claiming that Jesus Christ..., (following)

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

Yes, and Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of that Davidic Promise. Jesus, the Son of David, in that same line of David, fulfills that Davidic Kingship, and He is sitting on the Davidic Throne in Heaven: (from the thread Re: The Truth About Dispensational Futurism!)[ed.jasd]

You’ve decapitated the throne from David’s descendants – through Zedekiah to Jesus Christ – six centuries; whereas, it is not until Revelation 11:15 that the kingdoms of the world “are become” the LORD’s and his Christ’s...

As I said, “Language, language, good fellow...”

>>I find it ironic how you accuse Adventists of not having verses that are clear enough to back up what we believe, even though you will rely on a theology that is FAR more based on guess work (such as detaching the 70th week, and making a Beast with 10 horns into one single man) than what Adventists rely on.<<

I’ve presented Writ; whereas, others present rote, learned rote, from those who wrested the sealed book of Daniel.

Show me where in text or in history – that the predicating subject of Daniel 9 – that is – ALL Israel, is in view from 457 BC through AD 32-34 – according to rote, if you wish.

You cannot – for the Northern Kingdom was in its dispersion – during the time of your purported interpretation of Daniel 9. As per “detaching the 70th week” – Jesus Christ ‘parenthesized’ the prophecy of Isaiah 61 when He stood up to speak...

Where a parenthesis is required by text – the rightful expositor recognizes that fact and addresses it.

>>... and making a Beast with 10 horns into one single man<<

I cannot recall mentioning anything of the “Beast with 10 horns” being “one single man”.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Speaking of ‘justifying’ – how is it that you have the 1260 day periods of Daniel representing years with the equivalent in Revelation – obviously meaning literal time?

Quote:Lysimcahus

>>Someone help me? I'm not sure what you mean. No offense, but I have a harder time understanding your posts more than anyone.<<

Quote:

Quote:jasd

No offense taken. Sometimes, when we’ve been inculcated in a thing to an extreme extent – other viewpoints escape our comprehension. It is understandable. However, again,

it is as it reads...: Daniel was a book sealed. Full stop. Period. Not to be wrested – until the time when given events were to occur simultaneously; whereas, Revelation was an open book all along. Revelation superintends Daniel. All references to a period of 1260 can only be read in the book of Revelation as – literal time – no this for that – in other words, no manglement permitted. Ipso facto, those same time periods in the book of Daniel – must be taken to correlate, at least in function, as do those in Revelation. That is,

literal time. No fancy-schmanzy this for that manglement.

They are to be treated as End-time Events.

>>Expositors the world over recognized this fact in 1798, as the publishing houses exploded with tracts recognizing the fulfillment of prophecy.<<

That may be – however, they built their graphs from works which preceded them by as much as 1000 years – from the time of Jewish expositors of the eighth century as well the Reformationists of the sixteenth century.

One need only to review the Napoleonic Wars to evaluate the claim of ‘knowledge increasing and men running to and fro’ is wishful thinking – at best. The nation’s military have always had the finest and the finest of the European militaries at the time represented profound and widespread ignorance that traveled, at best, in sailing vessels – sheets to the wind sailing vessels.

>>The movements that followed testify of this fact--even to the point where thousands of children who could not even read began to proclaim the judgment hour message and preach and quote scriptures perfectly, as the Spirit of God took hold of their lips. Many of these children were later interviewed, and they testified that it was the power of God that took hold of them. Thousands of people were converted in Scandinavia as thousands of children began to preach, in different parts all over Europe. This was truly a sign that the judgment hour message was truly from God.<<

Without seeming disrespectful – that is anecdotal. How does that prove the simultaneous increase of knowledge and men running to and fro?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

>>I have a feeling that had it not been for that Bubonic plague, the Ostrogoths would have never been able to retake Italy.<<

Quote:jasd

But, in fact, they did – thereby proving false – at least the exactness of the various dates proffered.

[Lysimachus]

You're still ranting on in this thread jasd? lol. Must be eating you up. You like to pick on small little things I notice, but always fail to deal with the major arguments I present. The small arguments that you raise do not topple the main ones.

I don't have time to deal with all your posts. Won't be available for another month.

[Aliensanctuary]

Dan 9:27

Quote:

He will strike a firm alliance with many people

for the space of a week;

and for the space of one half-week

he will put a stop to sacrifice and oblation,

and on the wing of the Temple will be the appalling abomination

until the end, until the doom assigned to the devastator."

Dan 12:11

Quote:

From the moment that the perpetual sacrifice is abolished and the appalling abomination set up: a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

The halting of the sacrifices and the Abomination are committed by "a prince who is to come" according to Dan 9. He must indeed be a long-liver to stop the sacrifices, then 1290 years later, set up the Abomination. What did he do with himself during that time period, nearly 1300 years?

Either the author of Daniel was mistaken above, or those who turn days into years are.

In years, 1290 days is approximately 3.58 years.

[miz3]

Truth is there is no year/day stuff!

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

>>The legal sanction was already in force. It had already gone into effect. The Ostrogoths were not able to hold Italy for very long. Why? Because they had already received a huge blow in 538 A.D. So it was the beginning of the end for the Ostrogoths.<<

Quote:jasd

So, what you’re saying is, “The fact that the Pope was taken in AD 1798 by Berthier – was but a temporary thing – and therefore, dismissable in the larger scale of expositive facts.”

>>The Pope being taken prisoner in 1798 was only a small piece of the pie that makes 1798 stand out.<<

However that may be – the fact that the Pope was captured in Ad 1798 does not say a thing about it being the “time of the end”.

>>Adventists have historically dated the end of the reign of the papacy from the year 1798. This date has been challenged by detractors for several reasons. Among them are the following:

1. The pope didn't die until 1799. So much for a 1798 "deadly" wound"<<

We are presently witnessing the greatest “deadly wound” in all of history – the ‘supposed’ dissolution of the Soviet Empire.

>>To these we might simply reply that 1798 has been understood to b neither the end of the papacy's existence, nor the low-point of its power; nor the date of the death of a pope. Rather, it was the death of the "beast part of the papacy", the national part. In 1798 Rome became a republic and the papacy became a church alone, rather than a church ruling a nation.<<

The “church” rules more than a billion people. That far exceeds the hundreds of millions of Europeans during the bruited Papal Rule. That is to say – greater than the ‘Papal’ portion of its European rule.

>>The papacy existed for many years as a movement in the church. Paul talked about it existing in his day. It was the mystery of iniquity that was gaining power among the Christian congregations.<<

Weren’t the crucifying and Judaizing Jews of St Paul’s day a rather iniquitous lot?—as opposed (or convergent?) to the amorphous “mystery of iniquity”?

>>But this papacy does not show up in prophecies of the world's empires until it becomes a world empire. It does not appear as a beast until it exists as a nation. When did it become an empire? In 538 it did take over the management of Rome and its environs, a very small l and area, but associated with a very large amount of power. In 1798 it lost civil authority over the same land area.<<

Beginning from a point of origin – one going backwards, always encounters what one expects to find.

An ‘authorizing writ’ is only as good as it can be implemented, enforced, and backed-up by power. It was AD 562 that saw the Italian peninsula finally entirely under Byzantia rule. Six years later, that is, AD 568 the Lombards invaded Italy and ruled Northern Italy – and Rome –for approximately two centuries.

The purported year AD 538 saw the inauguration of Papal rule, interrupted for a coupla years, Papal rule again, interrupted again, Papal rule again from AD 555 or 562 – blep, blep, blep, oy vay! – after which the Lombards invaded in AD 568. [/head spinning]

Rather an inauspicious beginning, yes? Not much primacy there...

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Lysimachus

>>Needless to say, I do not think I need to repeat all that I have written what I believe makes 538 A.D. stand out. And I'm sure you've already learned that it is not the uprooting of the Ostrogoths.<<

Quote:jasd

Weren’t the Ostrogoths and the Emperor enemy combatants? If so, then it matters that an ‘authorization’ granted a Bishop could not be implemented at a date certain. It is singularly significant.

>>It matters only in the sense of being able to "enforce legislation", which was done in 538. While the Ostrogoths did come back later and take over, it was the defeat in 538 that ENABLED Justinian to secure his laws in the west for the first time. So yes, that's how the defeat of the Ostrogoths comes into play, but it is not the "marking" point itself of the 538 A.D. date. The marking point is the implementation of those laws, primarily its Sunday Legislation in both the 28th Canon of the Third Synod of Orleans coupled with the repressive Sunday Law enforced in Justinian's Code.<<

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Anyway, what were the Lombards?—chopped liver?

>>What do the Lombards have to do with anything we're discussing?<<

Their invasion of Italy kinda aborted the temporal powers of the Papacy, did it not?—for nigh-on two centuries, matter-of-fact... Thems so-called ‘heretickal’ Arian Lombards – natural allies with the Trinitarian Popes..., yes?

I don’t think so. :-(