Who are the seven heads of Revelation 17?

[Pickle]

8 hours ago, MCBGM said:

The past is perfect. The future is imperfect.

In Greek "have loosed" would be an example of the perfect tense, and "was loosing" would be an example of the imperfect tense. Imperfect is not future in Greek.

I suspect that Young's Literal Translation may not have any future tenses in its OT.

 

[Pickle]

I learned something new. I've wondered why Dan. 9:26 says Messiah will be cut off after 62 weeks instead of in the midst of the 70th week.

Bill Shea pointed out in the DARCom series that Dan. 9:25-26 contains a literary structure or pattern:

• ... Messiah the prince ...
• ... shall Messiah be cut off ...
• ... people of the prince ...

He used this structure to undermine the idea that the first prince is Jesus and the second prince is the antichrist. But why say that the Messiah is cut off after 62 weeks? Let's consider a few passages that mention being cut off:

• God covenant promise not to cut off everything with a flood again after Noah offered the sacrifices suggests that we escape sin's penalty of being cut off through a sacrifice. (Gen. 8:20-21; 9:9-11)
• Yet this escaping from being cut off is conditional, since an uncircumcised male child has broken the covenant and will be cut off anyway. (Gen. 17:14)
• When making a covenant, animals were cut in two. (Gen. 15:10; Jer. 34:18)

Thus the Messiah is cut off not for Himself in Dan. 9 for two reasons:

• He is the antitypical sacrifice which is "cut" in order to establish the new covenant.
• Since He never sinned, He isn't being cut off for His own failures to obey.

So why would it say that He was cut off after the 62 weeks? Here's the new thought. Dan. 9:27 says that He would confirm the covenant with many for one week. How can He confirm a covenant if that covenant hasn't been established yet because the sacrifice hasn't been offered yet? Thus, I wonder if Dan. 9:26 is looking at His entire ministry as the time of His being cut off, not just the cross. Writing of the temptation in the wilderness:

"The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam. With the sins of the world laid upon Him, He would go over the ground where Adam stumbled" (Con 17-18).

If Christ was bearing our sins in the wilderness of temptation, an event that occurred immediately after the 69 weeks had ended, then I think we can view His entire ministry as a walk toward Calvary, and that would justify saying that Christ was cut off after the 69th week, even though it was really 69 1/2 weeks.

[Green Cochoa]

The Bible speaks of two princes: Satan and Christ.  A prince is the son of a king.  Christ is God's son.  Satan wishes to displace Christ as the rightful heir to the throne--but he will fail, for he is already a defeated foe.  Nevertheless, he is regarded as the prince of this world, the prince of darkness, the prince of the power of the air, etc. in the Bible.  Satan is the prince that withstood Michael for three weeks while Daniel fasted and prayed.  

Regarding the 70 weeks, the Messiah is "cut off," meaning killed, in the midst of the last week.  This comes out to AD 30/31.  He continued extending probationary grace to the nation of Israel until AD 34, at which point the 490-year (70-week) prophecy had completed, fully representing His teaching to forgive until 70 times 7.  

[Pickle]

34 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

The Bible speaks of two princes: Satan and Christ.  A prince is the son of a king.  Christ is God's son.  Satan wishes to displace Christ as the rightful heir to the throne--but he will fail, for he is already a defeated foe.  Nevertheless, he is regarded as the prince of this world, the prince of darkness, the prince of the power of the air, etc. in the Bible.  Satan is the prince that withstood Michael for three weeks while Daniel fasted and prayed.  

Regarding the 70 weeks, the Messiah is "cut off," meaning killed, in the midst of the last week.  This comes out to AD 30/31.  He continued extending probationary grace to the nation of Israel until AD 34, at which point the 490-year (70-week) prophecy had completed, fully representing His teaching to forgive until 70 times 7.  

I hope my post didn't sound off base. It is true that Christ was cut off or killed in the midst of the 70th week when He was crucified, and yet I found a Jewish writing yesterday that said that since Jesus wasn't crucified in 27 AD at the end of the 69th week after 457 BC, 457 BC, 27 AD, and 34 AD don't work.

It isn't just a Jewish writer that makes a distinction between being cut off after the 69th week, and stopping the sacrifices in the midst of the 70th week. Futurists routinely do this as well.

So why does Dan. 9:26 speak of the Messiah's death as after the 62nd week instead of in the midst of the 70th week? That's what I was probing. But there may be other possibilities.

[Green Cochoa]

Pickle,

The answer seems almost too simple.  Maybe you've already seen it and interpreted differently, I don't know.  In any case, the 70 weeks are divided into three segments, as near as I can tell.  They are, in this order, 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week.  When you say "after the 62nd week," therefore, you really mean "after the 69th week," don't you?  Now, if the Messiah is "cut off" during the 70th week, isn't that after the 69th?

[Pickle]

1 hour ago, Green Cochoa said:

Pickle,

The answer seems almost too simple.  Maybe you've already seen it and interpreted differently, I don't know.  In any case, the 70 weeks are divided into three segments, as near as I can tell.  They are, in this order, 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week.  When you say "after the 62nd week," therefore, you really mean "after the 69th week," don't you?  Now, if the Messiah is "cut off" during the 70th week, isn't that after the 69th?

Sure, and that's how I've explained it many times. Still, why does Daniel 9:26 express it in that particular way, such that many have misunderstood the meaning? That's what I was exploring. Why not simply say, "In the midst of the week he shall be cut off, and shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease"? Why split up the two thoughts and separate them with a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem?

Previously I have thought that Daniel first mentions the 70 weeks as a single unit, and then dwells on the 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week separately, one at a time, referring to events that are somehow connected to each. I've used this to explain why vss. 26 and 27 each refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, since futurists try to make the two references into two separate destructions.

Do you see any significance in the fact that "cut off" in Dan. 9:26 is the same Hebrew word that is used to refer to "make" or "cut" a covenant, and that vs. 27 refers to a covenant? Or do you think that word choice is just coincidental?

[Martn]

[Green Cochoa]

3 minutes ago, Pickle said:

Sure, and that's how I've explained it many times. Still, why does Daniel 9:26 express it in that particular way, such that many have misunderstood the meaning? That's what I was exploring. Why not simply say, "In the midst of the week he shall be cut off, and shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease"? Why split up the two thoughts and separate them with a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem?

Previously I have thought that Daniel first mentions the 70 weeks as a single unit, and then dwells on the 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week separately, one at a time, referring to events that are somehow connected to each. I've used this to explain why vss. 26 and 27 each refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, since futurists try to make the two references into two separate destructions.

Do you see any significance in the fact that "cut off" in Dan. 9:26 is the same Hebrew word that is used to refer to "make" or "cut" a covenant, and that vs. 27 refers to a covenant? Or do you think that word choice is just coincidental?

I'm not one to think of anything in the Bible as merely coincidental.  It is God's Word.  Having said that, I do not necessarily understand the word usage you refer to.

Regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, however, there is a prophecy which the Bible really, really, really tried to get the Jews to understand--but they seem to have totally missed it.  That point in Daniel was one of the clues, but the major prophecy was both written and acted out by Ezekiel (chapter 4). When the Messiah was "cut off" (crucified), that started the prophecy.  Jesus gave the prophetic warning again Himself in Matthew 24:2, 15-20, & 34; paralleled in Mark 13 and Luke 21. 

[Martn]

[Pickle]

23 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

I'm not one to think of anything in the Bible as merely coincidental.  It is God's Word.  Having said that, I do not necessarily understand the word usage you refer to.

What follows are the first usages of the Hebrew word in question, and Dan. 9:26. 03772 is the Strong's number for the word.

Genesis 9:11  And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off <03772> any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Genesis 15:18  In the same day the LORD made <03772> a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

Genesis 17:14  And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off <03772> from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Genesis 21:27  And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and both of them made <03772> a covenant.

Genesis 21:32  Thus they made <03772> a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.

Genesis 26:28  And they said, We saw certainly that the LORD was with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make <03772> a covenant with thee;

Genesis 31:44  Now therefore come thou, let us make <03772> a covenant, I and thou; and let it be for a witness between me and thee.

Genesis 41:36  And that food shall be for store to the land against the seven years of famine, which shall be in the land of Egypt; that the land perish <03772> not through the famine.

Exodus 4:25  Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off <03772> the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

Exodus 8:9  And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Glory over me: when shall I intreat for thee, and for thy servants, and for thy people, to destroy <03772> the frogs from thee and thy houses, that they may remain in the river only?

Exodus 12:15  Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut <03772> off from Israel.

Exodus 12:19  Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off <03772> from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.

Exodus 23:32  Thou shalt make <03772> no covenant with them, nor with their gods.

Exodus 24:8  And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made <03772> with you concerning all these words.

Exodus 30:33  Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, shall even be cut <03772> off from his people.

Exodus 30:38  Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereto, shall even be cut off <03772> from his people.

Exodus 31:14  Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off <03772> from among his people.

....

Daniel 9:26  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off <03772>, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

[Pickle]

36 minutes ago, MCBGM said:

All the people throughout time who had been martyred, she says, came to life and went to heaven with Jesus.

I'm unaware of any place where she says that that group included all the martyrs. Revelation 5 would suggest that they correspond to the 24 elders.

 

37 minutes ago, MCBGM said:

Again, if that resurrection wasn't first, what was it?

Sister White, as have others, tied that group to the offering of the wave sheaf on Nisan 16. The wave sheaf is an offering of first fruits. Jesus is called the first fruits of them that slept.

So they were the beginning of the harvest of the earth. But even as Moses was a type of those raised in the first resurrection rather than his resurrection being the first resurrection itself, I don't see that group raised when Christ was raised being those of the first resurrection either.

[Pickle]

10 minutes ago, MCBGM said:

It looks like you do not understand the intricacies and complexities of masculine and feminine plurals in these languages.

Did you read Hasel's article? It doesn't appear that you have, or else you would be talking about his understanding, not mine.

Hasel is dealing with a major issue in Dan. 9. Futurists cite the fact that "weeks" is a masculine plural in Dan. 9 as a reason why it has to mean "sevens" rather than "weeks." He is showing that "weeks" can appear in the masculine and still mean "weeks," but that the difference in gender means something else.

If you think Hasel is wrong, please state why, after reading his article.

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Pickle]

1 hour ago, MCBGM said:

Paul was not a Jew. He had been a Jew, but when he joined the Christians in rejecting Torah, that act separated him from his Jewish life.

Some Jewish authorities say an atheist can be a Jew,  but I don't agree.

Judaism teaches that a true Jew is a Jew who is Jewish inwardly --that is, religiously (not just figuratively as Christians teach). Only Jews who adhere to the Torah --in its entirety (insofar as it is presently applicable)-- are truly Jewish.

Jews who convert to other religions have separated themselves from the requirements of Torah, and as long as they remain in that state, they remain separated from their Jewish life. They can still be very righteous people and can still be saved, therefore, but not as Jews.

Can you state anything in the Torah that Christian Jews of the first century, including Paul, did not adhere to or rejected? Please include Christian Jews before the word "Christian" was coined. If you disagree with my terminology, just reply regarding the people you know I am referring to.

I certainly can't find anything in Acts 15 that represents a rejection of the Torah.

I guess by your definition, that squid-eating Israeli official was not a Jew, and atheist Israelis aren't Jews either. Thanks for clarifying that.

[Pickle]

1 hour ago, MCBGM said:

There are more than just two texts in scripture which tell us --in no uncertain terms-- that Jeconiah was Salathiel's father. One is in Matthew. The others are in Hebrew scripture.

Now, it would be very easy for me to point them out to you, but why should I waste my time doing that? You are perfectly capable of finding them for yourself. The fact that you don't, tells me you are really not interested in the answer you would uncover if you did that.

You are determined to reject this truth no matter what. Your mind is already made up. This is plainly evident in the way you present yourself here, over and over and over and over again.

It shouldn't matter if there are only two texts or only three texts or whatever the number. The rule --in scripture-- is that "two or three" witnesses are all that is needed in any given matter. Not only does the Torah say so, Jesus also said so.

And Jesus also said, there are some whose minds are so set that even if one rose from the dead to tell them otherwise, still they would not be convinced.

I searched for Salathiel, and all I got was three texts. That's what I based my statement on.

The rule is that all Scripture is inspired, and is profitable for doctrine. It matters not if two texts say one thing and one text says another.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

[Pickle]

1 hour ago, MCBGM said:

Of course I did.

But I don't agree with his conclusions.

I have a very thorough understanding in multiple languages, and I know what he is talking about, and he is misrepresenting the principle.

Besides, even if the 70 weeks are consecutive, that still doesn't prevent the last 3 and 1/2 years from being fulfilled at a later time, at the end of time, which is my position. I don't think the entire 70th week is future, just the last half of it is, and that is why Daniel himself addresses the 70th week apart from the previous 69, saying it would be "after" 69 weeks.

Doing that to the last half of the 70th week, that destroys the connections between the 2300 evening-morning and the 70 weeks.

Could you be specific as to how Hasel is interpreting the principle he is referring to?

[Martn]

[Pickle]

51 minutes ago, MCBGM said:

They were the first ones to be resurrected --as a mass group-- and yet, you say, theirs was not the first resurrection. This makes no sense.

Sure it makes sense. Rev. 20 refers to the first resurrection, and it is that resurrection that that resurrected group are not a part of. Those in the first resurrection have obtained the victory over the beast, his image, and his mark, and that group was resurrected before John ever wrote those prophecies down.

[Pickle]

34 minutes ago, MCBGM said:

You're not going to like my answer, but I'm going to give it since you asked, and I'm not (at least not right now) going to try and explain the how's and why's of it since I don't want to start another long string of tit for tat.

The age of Creation --that is, the time when human beings, as we know them, came into being-- was around 500,000 years ago. This was not only the teaching in ancient Israel, but in all the other nations around them. I'm dead serious.

The modern date (5776, which no Jew believes is the actual date of creation) was adopted in early Christian times, and was based on Christian calculations, as a Jewish alternative to the Christian calendar.

There is no evidence in the Bible that ancient Israel believed any such thing. And the Bible's chronological records do not allow such a date. But tell me, when exactly in early Christian times was the current date for Creation arrived at, with all the complexities of the chronology involved, such as what is described in Edgar Frank's Talmudic and Rabbinic Chronology?

[Pickle]

6 minutes ago, MCBGM said:

But it is in Hebrew.

http://www.becomingjewish.org/learning_biblical_hebrew/pdf/qal_imperfect-hebrew.pdf says:

"The Hebrew imperfect does not have tense apart from context and syntax–just like the Hebrew perfect. The Hebrew imperfect denotes incomplete action, whether in the past, present, or future."

Is this accurate? So it's more the type of action than the time of action?

[Martn]