Who are the seven heads of Revelation 17?

[Pickle]

11 minutes ago, jackson said:

Any interpretation of this prophecy that tries to put the 70th week some time into the future fits neither the time line, nor the actual events of recorded history, nor Jesus' parable. Never mind that it would also  make its starting date meaningless.  Do you agree?

Yes, I fully agree.

The one other point I would add to your discussion is that it is Jesus in Dan. 9:27 who is said to make the place desolate. So while Matt 21 has it being God the Father, the King, and Dan. 9:26 has it being the people of the prince, Dan. 9:27 has it being Jesus Himself.

This is important to note for another reason. Early on in Dan. 9, Daniel refers to the covenant between God and His people. Then Daniel notes that God brought the punishments outlined in the covenant upon Israel. Thus, in Dan. 9:27, there is no reason to invoke an antichrist figure as the one who would destroy the place. If God is the one who did it the first time around, certainly God could be the one who did it the second time around.

[Green Cochoa]

23 hours ago, Lysimachus said:

MCBGM, nowhere in Daniel 9:24-27 does it even hint that the 70 weeks end with the destruction of the temple.

It simply implies that the destruction of the temple is a subsequent external consequence of rejecting and killing the Messiah during the last of the 70 weeks.  The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple transpires 39 years after the termination of the 70th week. 

You are close, but not exactly right.  As long as we are looking at the details, let's get them right.  The prophecy that Adventists use to define all other prophecies in the book is the very prophecy they don't understand--but the very prophecy that must be understood for this present study.  That prophecy is Ezekiel 4:4-6.  

Ezekiel is told to lay on his left side 390 days for the iniquity of Israel, after which he must lay on his right side 40 days for the iniquity of Judah.  This twin prophecy is set in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem by siege (read the entire chapter to see this).  Each day was to represent a year.  We Adventists know how to use that day-year time formula, but typically do not properly understand the prophecy in which it is given!  Yet here is the prophecy that tells us when Jerusalem would be destroyed--BOTH times!  The 390 starts with the sins of Jeroboam, son of Nebat, of whom the Bible records many times that he "made all Israel to sin."  The 390 ended with the siege of Nebuchadnezzar in which Solomon's Temple was destroyed, about 18 years into the 70 years of captivity on Nebuchadnezzar's third and final attack on the city (his first attack was the one in which Daniel was taken and the captivity began).  Jeroboam was the first king of "Israel," the ten northern tribes that split off from "Judah."  After the captivity, most of these northern tribes did not return to the land of Israel, and a portion of them, having intermarried with the surrounding nations, became the Samaritans of Jesus' time.  In Jesus time, only the remnant of Judah existed from the former 12 tribes.  Judah's sin is represented in the prophecy as the "right side," the side of greater significance.  Theirs is the greater sin.  Mrs. White tells us that Judah's sin, that of murdering the Messiah, was the greatest of all sins.  Their punishment comes only 40 years, one generation, later.  

Jesus was crucified in AD 30/31.  Titus' army destroyed Jerusalem and its second temple in AD 70, exactly 40 years later.  The prophecy is fulfilled.

But, when did the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy end?  That was AD 34, the week having begun in AD 27 when Jesus' baptism began His public ministry.  From AD 34 to AD 70 are 36 years, not 39, by my calculations. 

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Pickle]

4 minutes ago, MCBGM said:

As I said before, "So there is a bit of overlap and intersection between the two time periods. Which is why they are mentioned together.

I don't think that really addresses the point I'm trying to raise.

It is clear from ch. 8 that Daniel did not understand the 2300 days, the only part of the vision Gabriel didn't explain. And it is also clear that Daniel found the 2300 days extremely distressing, to the point that he became ill. This could only be so if he understood the 2300 days to be 2300 years. Less than 7 literal years prior to the cleansing of the sanctuary would have been nothing considering that Jeremiah foretold 70 years, and there was still some of that to go.

Thus, when Gabriel told Daniel in ch. 9 to "consider the mar'eh" of the 2300 evening-morning, and then proceeded to talk about the 70 weeks, the 70 weeks should explain the 2300 days in some way. Destroying the connections between the two chapters would prevent that from happening.

[Pickle]

22 minutes ago, MCBGM said:

Judaism regards all the Writings as being mixed in this way. More human in origin than not.

So the Karaites view them in this way? You said Judaism, and Karaites are part of Judaism.

23 minutes ago, MCBGM said:

Some inSpired. Some possibly not.

Jesus made no such distinction when He said what He did about the impossibility of the Scriptures being broken, after citing Psalms.

Paul said "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Peter classified Paul's writings as part of Scripture.

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, MCBGM said:

There are more than that. You are aware of only one.

But just one is enough to show that the Genesis genealogy is incomplete. Just because not every instance of omission is specified does not mean other omissions did not occur. And we see from the parallel genealogies in other cultures --which do line up with the Jewish one-- that countless generations were omitted. In order to simplify the genealogy and make it more comprehensible, while at the same time telling us these occurred over a period of nearly 500,000 years, a detail in the original Hebrew which has been overlooked.

Did not Paul say others paid tithes to Melchizedek when they were yet in Abraham their father? Existing in their ancestors, therefore, even before they were born. So it was with the genealogies. Multiple generations thus were abbreviated into one, thus seen to have been born to a certain ancestor when in fact they were born much later. This was a common method of calculating genealogy in those days.

 

The Bible in no place indicates anything remotely near 500,000 years.  The longest prophecies in the Bible span 7000 years--and in those prophecies the entirety of earth's history is covered.  Therefore, since prophecies are exact (consider Exd. 12:40-42), there is no need to think of more than 7000 years of earth's history--which, by the way, includes the millennium in Heaven for the saints.  

[Martn]

[Martn]

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, MCBGM said:

Not a prophecy of 500,000 years. A historical period of nearly 500,000 years --spoken of in the past tense-- within the Hebrew text of Genesis, which has been overlooked. The same nearly 500,000 years spoken of also in many of the nations around them.

1) I have yet to see any proof of this claim.

2) If found true, I would likely have good reason to discard it as a scribal copy error.

Consider this: TWO prophecies exist in the Bible that indicate a total time of sin on this planet to be 7000 years, Creation to finish.  The Bible does not contradict itself.

[Pickle]

2 hours ago, MCBGM said:

There are more than that. You are aware of only one.

But just one is enough to show that the Genesis genealogy is incomplete. Just because not every instance of omission is specified does not mean other omissions did not occur. And we see from the parallel genealogies in other cultures --which do line up with the Jewish one-- that countless generations were omitted. In order to simplify the genealogy and make it more comprehensible, while at the same time telling us these occurred over a period of nearly 500,000 years, a detail in the original Hebrew which has been overlooked.

Did not Paul say others paid tithes to Melchizedek when they were yet in Abraham their father? Existing in their ancestors, therefore, even before they were born. So it was with the genealogies. Multiple generations thus were abbreviated into one, thus seen to have been born to a certain ancestor when in fact they were born much later. This was a common method of calculating genealogy in those days.

It doesn't seem to me that you really addressed the points raised.

In Gen. 5 and 11, there is only one generational difference between the Masoretic text and the LXX. If you really thought there was more than one, why not just mention which chapter the LXX adds another generation in, and what the name of the additional person is?

No, just one is not enough to show that the Genesis genealogy is incomplete. It could be possible that the Masoretic text is the correct one, and the LXX is simply wrong.

You have yet to name any specific genealogical record that goes back 500,000 years.

The genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11 state how old the father was when he had his son. That does not leave much wiggle room. Your final paragraph does not address this point.

[Pickle]

2 hours ago, MCBGM said:

The Jewish people themselves are even called IAUA in several places. Not because they themselves are God of course, but because God's Spirit is in them. It's a reference to the One who is in them and not to the ones who carry God's names.

So when the angel of God told Jacob, "I am the God of Bethel," he was just referring to the Spirit in him? So you could make a similar claim, if you have the Spirit in you, going around and telling people, "I am God"? I don't think so.

[Pickle]

2 hours ago, MCBGM said:

Peter spoke of "writings" and did not call them inSpired. They are called scriptures only in translation, and even then are not called inSpired.

Jesus did not say Scriptures, plural, but scripture, singular --the one text which he was citing.

The Writings are non-authoritative in all branches of Judaism --Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, etc.

Karaites, like Christians, reject only the oral portion of Torah (now recorded in the Talmud), given to Moses at the same time as the written portion

Again, I don't think you're adequately addressing the points made. Paul said all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and Peter included Paul's writings as Scripture. Suggesting that Peter meant that the unlearned wrest any old writing out there, rather than the Scriptures, that just doesn't sound plausible.

Romans 11:2  God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

Paul is therefore citing a passage in the writings section of the Hebrew Bible, and calling it Scripture. And he said that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Paul isn't even referring to the Psalms in that verse.

I really doubt that the Karaites would not look at the Writings as being authoritative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketuvims states, "The Ketuvim are believed to have been written under divine inspiration, but with one level less authority than that of prophecy." Even taking this at face value, it still says the Writings are inspired and have authority.

[Pickle]

3 hours ago, MCBGM said:

You yourself admit, here, that the 70 weeks explain the 2300 days in SOME way. Not in every way. They are only a partial explanation of what will happen when the 2300 days are fulfilled, when the temple --the Jewish people, actually-- are finally restored to their original condition, at the conclusion of the final 3 1/2 years.

So how do the 70 weeks explain the 2300 days, in your view, if your view destroys the connections between Dan. 8 and 9?

You're reading more into my word "some" than I intended.

[Lysimachus]

7 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

But, when did the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy end?  That was AD 34, the week having begun in AD 27 when Jesus' baptism began His public ministry.  From AD 34 to AD 70 are 36 years, not 39, by my calculations. 

I actually knew this, but I typed out what I said in a great hurry.  I meant 39 years counting from the midst of the 70th week, not the end of the 70th week.  I'm not sure how I got that wrong. I just typed it in a hurry.  But yes, I'm more than familiar with this, and thanks for pointing out the mistake on my part, and the additional enlightenment. 

[Lysimachus]

3 hours ago, MCBGM said:

Destruction of the holy place, though continued decades later, actually began at the tearing of the veil, in the midst of the 70th week, and will be completed, after conclusion of the final 3 1/2 years, with the desolation of the false temple currently erected in its place.

There is no such thing as a literal "3 1/2 years".

According to Daniel 7:23 and 8:20-22; a beast in Bible prophecy symbolizes a "kingdom" or a "nation". Therefore, the hermeneutic is set for Revelation 13.  In Revelation 13, there are 2 beasts.  The Sea Beast rises up first, and then reigns over the saints for 42 months.  After the 42 months, another second kingdoms rises up.  The Two-Horned Beast. This beast rises up into power while the first beast is in a wounded state, yet lives. This beast as well must be a kingdom. 

The final tribulation is then mentioned in Revelation 13:11b-18. Another period 3.5 years is not mentioned.  The 42 months already transpired prior to the rising up of the Two Horned Beast. 

Also, Daniel 9:24-27 does mention whether Jerusalem or the Temple would be rebuilt.  It only states that Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed. Therefore, 70 A.D. is indeed the fulfillment of Daniel 9:26,27. 

Jerusalem has been rebuilt. However, we know that this Jerusalem is not really a product of the Jews.  But of the New World Order, the Illuminati, the Jesuits, and the Papacy.  They are ones responsible for the creation of the straw-man state of Israel. Therefore, the so called "Jerusalem" that we see in the Middle East, is simply a "counterfeit" to the Heaven Jerusalem, and any Temple that might get rebuilt, will also be a counterfeit to heaven's Temple or Sanctuary in heaven.  

[Lysimachus]

Hi guys. For some reason I am not finding the option to edit any of my posts above.  I made some grammatical errors.  How do you edit a post after you have submitted it?

Anyway, above I said:

" Also, Daniel 9:24-27 does mention whether Jerusalem or the Temple would be rebuilt."

I meant:

"Also, Daniel 9:24-27 does not mention whether Jerusalem or the Temple would be rebuilt."

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

37 minutes ago, Lysimachus said:

Hi guys. For some reason I am not finding the option to edit any of my posts above.  I made some grammatical errors.  How do you edit a post after you have submitted it?
 

Lysimachus, I'm not sure, but there might still be a time limit for editing/deleting posts in certain forums. I know some have said they tried to edit immediately after posting, and they weren't able to do it.

 

[Pickle]

9 hours ago, Pickle said:

Romans 11:2  God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

Paul is therefore citing a passage in the writings section of the Hebrew Bible, and calling it Scripture. And he said that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Paul isn't even referring to the Psalms in that verse.

My mistake. The books of Samuel and Kings are in the Prophets section, not the Writings section.

[Martn]

[Martn]