God Reveals Mysteries in the Sanctuary Schedule In Type and Anti-Type

[jasd]

>>(You wouldn't go so far as to say that Isaiah as well as Ellen White got it wrong, would you? If so, I think we can address that too.)<<

No, I wouldn't say that Isaiah got it wrong. It were others, those later come to his texts. Was Isaiah actually speaking of Kiros/Cyrus in these two chapters? It appears not, as Isaiah would not have harmonized with the texts of Ezra and Daniel. Dichotomy. Anyway,

the bruit that three decrees were but a single composite begs the exclamation: "Oy vay!"

>>Secondly, we have to determine what about Jerusalem was to be restored. Is. 1:26 predicts that the judiciary would be restored, and of the three decrees, only the one of Artaxerxes' 7th year in Ezra 7 does that.<<

Be that as it may, the relevant text stipulates "... build Jerusalem", which would have been the City proper. Moreover, isn't the timeline of Gd's intent rather numinous in Isaiah 1:26? Part and parcel that prophecy -- requires that Jerusalem is called post- 'judges and counsellors' -- "The city of righteousness, the faithful city." Per this city, Writ fails to yield that fact that Ezra, who supposedly restored and rebuilt, leaves one wondering just when in that indefinite timeline until AD 70 -- that Jerusalem was ever called "The city of righteousness, the faithful city."

Until now, it cannot be said of the Old City Jerusalem...

Surely it was not by Artaxerxes suggesting to Ezra that he set a judiciary in the city -- that the requirements of Daniel 9:25 were met; that is, the to restore and to build Jerusalem. I suggest that the restoration and building of a city requires more, much more than the establishment of a judiciary. Inarguably, the closest that the requirements of Daniel 9:25 being met was in the decree given to Nehemiah in 445/44 BC.

Incidentally, the decree given Ezra by Artaxerxes gave no indication that anything was to be built, either Temple or City.

Anyway, the greater part of these dialogic points bear no credence. The fact is that Gd sealed that which has heretofore been parsed re the prophecies of Daniel (Dan 12:4). One easily makes the argument that absence of a knowledge of germ theory and that whilst 'the prophet' still maintained a horse and buggy for travel -- the book of Daniel remained sealed.

Granted, that certain peripherals, such as the Temple and the judiciary, might be considered part of a general 'restoration'; however, the nexus of Daniel 9:25 addresses the building of Jerusalem -- with "the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times" being supplementedly appended.

>>Thirdly, Dan. 9 itself points to the fact that the judiciary must be restored. Note that the Hebrew text twice in 9:25 says "restore and build." Note also that it singles out the street or plaza, and the wall or moat as being restored and built.<<

Indeed, as linguistic supplements, as neither judiciary, plaza, nor 'moat' concludes "to build Jerusalem". It was in 445/44 BC that the Persians finally gave permission "to build Jerusalem", as they had shortly before lost a major sea battle to the Greeks, which led to a Grecian/Persian treaty -- the same, denied the Persians Mediterranean ports. However, the building of Jerusalem as a forward fortification upon an utmost border was allowable in the terms of the aforesaid treaty.

The lost battle at sea and its subsequent treaty proved serendipitous to the building of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah, 445/44 BC.

[Gibs]

jasd,

Just quickly I have two reasons to believe 457 BC is the right decree. First all prophecies that are day for a yr. are by the Jubilee calendar and a Jubilee yr. starts them and a Jubilee yr is next after they are fulfilled.

Ok, 457BC was a Jubilee yr. and the next yr after the 70 wks of yrs allotted to the Jews had transpired the next yr 34 AD was a Jubilee yr. It is also significant that 490 yrs is a full and exact 10 Jubilees.

The second thing is that Messiah was cut off in the middle of that last and seventieth wk. and that then proved the prophecy and the allotted time for the Jews ended after 33 AD and went to the Gentile dispensation starting 34 AD another new beginning.

Now we are nearing the time of the end and no Jubilee will end the 6,000 yrs allotted for man if Adam fell to Satan which he did.

Our year 1994 was the last Jubilee yr. and I feel we are not to see another as from all indications we are in the very last extremely troublesome yrs, starting now, maybe even before this yr is out.

I can see you have been schooled with a different see of this prophecy and are prob. not a SDA. It is ironic SDA's got the thing right not realizing the prophecy was by the Jubilee calendar, the only calendar with a yr. for a day.

If you want to check out the Jubilee calendar starting with Adam's first yr., a Jubille by the way I can give you a link to study it out.

If I got it right here by memory it is,

www.itsaboutthattime.net/Calendar_Synopsis.htm

Glenn don't have a look at all the Jubs. from Adam but I think you can get any you want if you have enough computer software and printing abilities.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Lysimachus]

Looks like we're back to square one Dennis and Pickle!

[Gibs]

Lys,

You must know by now I will stand on the Jubilee calendar as it is absolutly correct whether you see it or not is not a problem for me. The fact also that God begins the start of our years by the spring equinox. The end of 33 AD ended the spring of 34 AD and began the year of 34 AD. which is a Jubilee and another new beginning, the Gentile times. At the same time ended the time allotted the Jews, the spring of 34 AD. We or no one can change that and I know Yah. won't as He changeth not.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[jasd]

Thanks, for the insight - I'll keep it in mind. However, I admit to not having done a great deal of study re the Jubilees and figured that they has pretty much fallen by the wayside.

I will, however, bear the Jubilees in mind and become better acquainted with the theories wherein they figure.

[jasd]

>>Looks like we're back to square one Dennis and Pickle!<<

Oy! a Troika? it speaks...? shhhhh... am listening. [/me so smiley]

No one forces you to leave your square Lysimachus. :)

[jasd]

>>Why do some versions say wall while others say moat? The correct translation of the Hebrew word is in doubt, though the root word occurs twice in 9:26, 27 where it is rendered in the KJV as "determined," something referring to God's judgment.<<

I note: the significance between the noun usage and its verb usage...

>>Lastly, note that Joel 3:14 uses the same Hebrew word for wall or moat and translates it as "decision." In the valley of decision, the valley of "Jehoshaphat" ("Jehoshaphat" means "Jehovah has judged"), God judges the nations.<<

Incidentally, the verb shapat though meaning judge also means 'to govern', and Joel 3:14 provides the cusp,"the day of the LORD", for the turning from the LORD's judging, to His governing -- lying yet future and giving relevance to the text.

Okay, however, Strong's #2742 is translated gold 6 times, as diligent 5 times, decision twice, threshing instrument twice, etc.

>>Therefore, we MUST look for a decree to restore and build the judiciary (wall/moat) and the place where judging takes place (street/plaza). The only one of the three decrees that could possibly be referred to is the decree of Artaxerxes' 7th year.<<

Not so fast with "Therefore, we MUST look..." My sweet potato pie! Why not a "restoration of gold"?--after all, Strong's #2742 as gold, is the more prevalent use; whereas, "decision" is utilized onlly twice in Writ. And, the terminologies 'building' and 'deciding/judging' are not that similarly exact. You're equating "And Gd shall judge the nations" with the required "to build Jerusalem." The grammatical similarity proves somewhat elusive.

>>And thus Ellen White was correct after all<<

Non, non, EGW cannot be let off the hook by 'appropriation of meanings' or with juxtapositions "to judge = to build". She was nowhere near "correct", and neither is the year 457 BC, as the predicate for Daniel 9:25 is the textual "all Israel", which was in its dispersion throughout the time from 457 BC to AD 34 -- and nowhere in view. Israel and Judah together are the necessary ingredients for the completion of the prophecy.

That conjunction is provided for with the lacunaic last/70th week.

[Guest DennisKean]

What was I saying all along, Marcos? For a moment I thought that I went overboard...

Some folks need to be contrary. It makes them feel they are alive.

We need to start another thread, Marcos.

Dennis

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Doesn't the fact that Leviticus 25:21 states that the increase to provide for three years address the fact that 5 harvests, rather than 6, are in view?--ipso facto, Spring Shemitah.

>>"Then I will command my blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years. And ye shall sow the eighth year, and eat yet of old fruit until the ninth year; until her fruits come in ye shall eat of the old store" (Lev. 25:21-22).

Does not the above state that they would reap enough the 6th year to last the 6th, 7th, and 8th years, 3 years, until the 9th year? If the 9th year began in the fall, then the gathering in of the fruit of the field produced during the 8th year would indeed reach until the beginning of the 9th year on Tishri 1.<<

Not exactly, it says, "...blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years." It does not say that what is harvested in the sixth year would be treble its normal production. The "blessing" would occur in the sixth year -- and from that, there would be sufficient yield through the Shemitah and beyond.

Before the Shemitah the COI would plant their normal fall sowing, which would ripen in the Shemitah, but not harvested as during the nonShemitah years. That being so, what was not taken for immediate use stood in the fields with ripened grain falling to the ground to be naturally sowed coming up once or severally over the course of time to be later gleaned.

It was Gd and nature which caused a repeated yield without a harvest to last until the sowed grain after the Shemitah could be harvested.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Speaking of "conceding" -- what of the half year lost to the Shemitah cycle should it have begun in the Fall when, in fact, the COI entered Canaanland in the Spring?

>>The Jews taught that the sabbatical cycles commenced awhile after the initial entrance into Canaan.<<

Indeed, however, the question obtains, does Holy Writ teach that?

"The reason for the fourteen-year delay in Seder ‘Olam 11 is that Rabbi Yose (primary author of the Seder ‘Olam) had the idée fixe." --Talmud

Rabbi Yose had a fixed idea that he wrangled to his satisfaction; however, the fourteen and a half year delay cannot be validated in Writ. It was notional and traditional.

>>So one should first establish that the sabbatical cycles commenced (a) before they conquered Jericho, ( after they conquered Canaan, and received and entered their inheritance, or © at some other time.<<

Gd established the Spring observance as stated in Leviticus 25:2 "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the LORD" -- as well in the book of Joshua.

It was not until Herod that the Shemitah was changed from a Spring observance to an Autumnal observance, which was just several decades before Jesus Christ.

[jasd]

>>We need to start another thread, Marcos.<<

Splendid!--and given a segue, I'll even contribute.

Re apology: it was unnecessary, DennisKean... However, it is noted and admired that you showed class.

Class is the denominator which underscores the Metro-Renaissance.

Don't forget that a man's measure is the portion of class that his breeding instills.

There is the mangled Manzanita and there is the incense Cedar... don't ever forget who you are. :)

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

"Jubilee" is not in the Hebrew text. It is not even suggested or hinted at.

So, Lysimachus, now do you see what nitpicking actually is?

However, there is a fair amount of parsing required by the text itself.

[Lysimachus]

It's a little worse than that JASD. It's called "mutilation".

If there ever was one to dissect texts and mutilate them into saying something totally different than what the translaters understood their intended meaning to be, you are king!

You get so hung up on letters and words, rather than try to understand the intent, and "thought for thought" concept in the translations.

[Lysimachus]

"The Bible with its precious gems of truth was not written for the scholar alone. On the contrary, it was designed for the common people; and the interpretation given by the common people, when aided by the Holy Spirit, accords best with the truth as it is in Jesus. The great truths necessary for salvation are made clear as the noonday, and none will mistake and lose their way except those who follow their own judgment instead of the plainly revealed will of God." {5T 331.2}

[jasd]

>>If there ever was one to dissect texts and mutilate them into saying something totally different than what the translaters understood their intended meaning to be, you are king!<<

Provide the example.

>>You get so hung up on letters and words, rather than try to understand the intent, and "thought for thought" concept in the translations.<<

For an article, definite or indefinite, turns the text.

Why do you think the .Org adjusted their fundamentals this past year to insert the word 'contiguous' into their defense of a contiguous seven-day creation epic?

See how small an indefinite article is: "a" or it may even be latent/invisible.

"Every jot and every tittle." --Jesus Christ

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

:jasd

Speaking of "conceding" -- what of the half year lost to the Shemitah cycle should it have begun in the Fall when, in fact, the COI entered Canaanland in the Spring?

The reason for that cycle starting with the Passover is because of the Passover. The significance of the Passover overrode the normal use of fall as the start of the year. God conveyed to all of us that the Savior would come to liberate the prisoners and that event was designed to take place on the Passover day.

This implies symbolism and not the counting of time or beginning of a cycle. And it was an important statement made to imply the crucifixion and liberation as a connective pair.

So, while that was a good try, it does not pan out, JASD.

[Guest DennisKean]

Marcos,

Quote:

Mat_11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

[Guest DennisKean]

Marcos,

Not only did God choose His words so that the simple minded could understand, but He designed them as well to hide them from the wise scholars

Quote:

Mat_11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

>>If there ever was one to dissect texts and mutilate them into saying something totally different than what the translaters understood their intended meaning to be, you are king!<<

Provide the example.

>>You get so hung up on letters and words, rather than try to understand the intent, and "thought for thought" concept in the translations.<<

For an article, definite or indefinite, turns the text.

Why do you think the .Org adjusted their fundamentals this past year to insert the word 'contiguous' into their defense of a contiguous seven-day creation epic?

See how small an indefinite article is: "a" or it may even be latent/invisible.

"Every jot and every tittle." --Jesus Christ

No need for Marcos to provide an example. You just did it in this very post where you requested the example! Let me show it to you!

Quote:

"Every jot and every tittle."--Jesus Christ

You misapplied the usage of the Savior. The Savior was talking about the Law, not nitpicking one individual word or phrase in the rest of the writings, which bear multiple redundancies via repetitions.

Can you see it? And do you have the courage to admit it? Or will you need more clarifications to see it?

Dennis

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Speaking of "conceding" -- what of the half year lost to the Shemitah cycle should it have begun in the Fall when, in fact, the COI entered Canaanland in the Spring?

>>The reason for that cycle starting with the Passover is because of the Passover.<<

You realize that we speak of the Shemitah, yes?

I believe the Shemitah cycle (we do speak of the Shemitah cycle, yes?) started with Abib/Nisan 1 and possibly may stretch to, in fact, start on the 10th, but can find no Biblical substantiation that it ever started on the 14th.

>>The significance of the Passover overrode the normal use of fall as the start of the year.<<

I think that Abib/Nisan 1 and the 14th overrode the "fall as the start of the year" because it was, in fact, the start of the year, as many texts attest.

The seventh month of Tishri became the First Month of the Year/The Molad of Tishrei due to influences deriving from Babylon -- for it was in Babylon that they received the calculations of the 19-year Metonic cycle. The practice of observing the seventh month as the beginning of calendrical year was/is contrary to the calendar given to the COI by Gd and Moses and has its direct origin with the Babylonian experience. This 19-yearg Metonic cycle calendar was reworked by Hillel II in and about AD 358. The final calculations were not finalized until this present millennium and is admittedly but a facsimile of the OT calendar.

>>God conveyed to all of us that the Savior would come to liberate the prisoners and that event was designed to take place on the Passover day.<<

Indeed.

>>This implies symbolism and not the counting of time or beginning of a cycle.<<

Let's not be too hasty divesting Abib/Nisan 14 of all but its symbolism -- for no matter the weight of the symbolism attached to it -- it nevertheless, was a counted and numberical day that fitted its place in the month as did all the days of the OT calendar.

>>And it was an important statement made to imply the crucifixion and liberation as a connective pair.<<

Indeed, however Pasch, sans its symbolism, was still the 14th of the month through the 17th. Moreover, many consider that the 10th through the 14th was every bit a part of Pasch as the actual day itself, as it was upon the 10th that the family selected the lamb or kid and took it into their dwelling to live until it was sacrificed.

>>So, while that was a good try, it does not pan out, JASD.<<

Okay, you see it your way, that's okay.

[jasd]

>>Not only did God choose His words so that the simple minded could understand, but He designed them as well to hide them from the wise scholars.<<

Prov 25:2 [it is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

"Every jot and every tittle." --Jesus Christ

>>No need for Marcos to provide an example. You just did it in this very post where you requested the example! Let me show it to you!

You misapplied the usage of the Savior.<<

My obvious intent was not to nitpick about usage, but to proffer the meme -- 'jot and tittle'. That was appropriately done, as Jesus Christ brought to bear the importance of jots and tittles and why they are what they are.

>>The Savior was talking about the Law,<<

Indeed, He was speaking most specifically of The Law; however, our subject was/is also Law; that is, the Torah, which is the Law of Moses. Are you saying that a principle cannot be applicable elsewhere -- that they are inflexible?--that contrarily, Jesus Christ's example would not have been used by Himself re, let's say, the book of Deuteronomy? That's a rather rigid position, yes?

>>not nitpicking one individual word or phrase in the rest of the writings,<<

I provided the importance of even the latent/unseen/invisible indefinite article. Nothing nitpicking about that except to the dilletante.

>>which bear multiple redundancies via repetitions.<<

That is rote didacticism -- for the benefit of those never having been exposed to a/the dialogic position before. Lots of lurkers tune in here.

>>Can you see it? And do you have the courage to admit it? Or will you need more clarifications to see it?<<

A niente con brio? Nah, it must be my myopia.

Yes, I see your point; however, it seems rather nitpicking, yes? That's admittance, yes?--no courage needed. Just the example.

[Lysimachus]

Marcos,

Not only did God choose His words so that the simple minded could understand, but He designed them as well to hide them from the wise scholars

Quote:

Mat_11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

That is a very good text! thanks for sharing. :)

[Guest DennisKean]

Jasd,

Let's deal with you here. I think that you believe you said something. I don't.

Quote:

I believe the Shemitah cycle (we do speak of the Shemitah cycle, yes?) started with Abib/Nisan 1 and possibly may stretch to, in fact, start on the 10th, but can find no Biblical substantiation that it ever started on the 14th.

Let's say that it is referred to as the Shemitah cycle. Well, since it has a name associated with it, then it must not be the very cycle used to represent the yearly cycle! I wish I did not have to explain this to you and get your "Rote Dedactism" reply when I do! But I'm damned if I do and if I don't. So, on with the simplistic tutorial!

One does not rename the yearly cycle to "January cycle" to gain clarity or assert a novel idea. One might say "April cycle" because April does not start with the yearly cycle starting month which is January! Can you grasp that? And if you say "Rote Dedactism" then you are calling yourself as less than intelligent. Why??? Because you should have realized that BEFORE you objected? Can you grasp that or do you need help with that too?

In sum, you make abstruse comments in order to stall and trip the posters and feel witty. But herewith you are less than witty, Jasd. Can you grasp that? Sooner or later someone had to call your bluff. You really are a paper tiger... RROOAAR!

And the remainder of your comments on this post of yours are even less impressive! Let's decapitate them too, so you can finally have something to think about, since you are sure that you are exceedingly witty.

Quote:

Let's not be too hasty divesting Abib/Nisan 14 of all but its symbolism -- for no matter the weight of the symbolism attached to it -- it nevertheless, was a counted and numberical day that fitted its place in the month as did all the days of the OT calendar.

This comment is not an objection because it has no rationale to it. It is your opinion, but it lacks what it takes for it to graduate as a valid objection. And the most amazing part of it is that you sabotage your own defense by this terminus--"as did all the days of the OT calendar"

I want to be polite and not incite a riot of reactions here with disparaging comments, but you are making it hard for me to do so! Please let me know if you got it, because I could spoon feed it to you, though I see it as too humiliating right now. So you can save face and hope that no one else catches on! Deal???

On to the next snippet of yours.

Quote:

Indeed, however Pasch, sans its symbolism, was still the 14th of the month through the 17th. Moreover, many consider that the 10th through the 14th was every bit a part of Pasch as the actual day itself, as it was upon the 10th that the family selected the lamb or kid and took it into their dwelling to live until it was sacrificed.

You have to be kidding me, Jasd. You have been doing this for a while and by using a sprinkling of Latin words some select words which fly over the head of the common person you have successfully given the impression that you are actually saying something. But having done this for a long time you have become impotent in constructing rationale to the point where you no longer recognize it when you skip rationale in your replies.

So, I am sorry to burst your bubble, Jasd, but now that you have learned to use some fancy words in Latin, go back and study the word RATIONALE. Then pick up a book in philosophy and review what it takes to construct an argument. You do realize that Philosophy 101 deals with the construct of the argument.

And if you object that you know how an argument is constructed, then please be so kind as to inform us all! It is not really that hard. I believe that you have forgotten or maybe never even knew it. But everyone else picks this up by imitation and gets pretty close to perfect. The class however makes you realize what it is that you are doing and forming arguments becomes second nature.

If however, you suffer with dyslexia I apologize, Jasd. I just find it annoying to have to scan your posts and try to understand why it is without a point most of the time.

In conclusion, you have not advanced anything to resist my argument in your last post. Do you see this reality now?

Dennis

[jasd]

Umm, did you miss your last meal? I ask this kindly, as I detect what must surely be acid reflux.

Upon reading the above post, ie: "Let's deal with you here. [...]" ad infinitum..., I am put to mind a catchall a former girlfriend loved, "Quit scratching like a chicken and peck out a tune."

What I just read is such a ramble -- it's like truckin' on down the road without an eye to the yellow lines.

So, when I suggested that you never forget who you are -- that you don't forget and what we see is what we get, eh?

I'll summarily respond to those parts of your post that, though screedal, may profit someone else reading that piece of agida -- later.

Oooommm, oooommm, mane padme om, oooommm, oooommm...

Gd make His face to shine upon you.

[Guest DennisKean]

Ha ha ha... No acid reflux, here jasd! You are very funny... You just need to come up to snuff and actually make an argument if you don't want to be taken lightly. If you think that you can bamboozle me into guessing what you are thinking, you are sorely mistaken. I am an excellent communicator and I know how to separate your meaning from my impressions of what you might be saying.

Scredal and Agida are not English words, my friend. You probably meant "Screed". And you can't modify the word to "Screedal" because it would be redundant. Screed makes the point appropriately, for what you think "Screedal" would do. Kapish?

By the way, where did you learn Latin, if it is Latin you are using occasionally. Mostly, you do not spell it correctly, but occasionally you get one or two words in their place. The last time I debated a Jesuit, he was flaunting his Latin, though far better than you, not to take away any credit from you. But he was really good. Had me flipping pages. I love languages and speak 3 of them fluently, so we are going to have fun here!

Now, concerning "So, when I suggested that you never forget who you are", Jasd, make a point so you can be understood. Leaving it for me to guess what you are thinking is not going to confuse me. It might work great on other neophytes, though. I love eloquence, though I try not to flaunt it where it does not belong... like this forum.

Eloquence is wonderful when you can use it to clarify a point and make the simple minded guess properly what was said. What you do is not only upsetting to simple minded folk, you make sure that the most eloquent cannot encapsulate what you are saying. But you did it for so long that your muscle for rationale has gone limp!

Time to come down from that branch, Jasd! I have a chain saw for your branch and it is coming down... We are going to make you work for your fame from now on! Come down to play with us paper tiger!

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

-