Revelation Timeline

[DP]

Again, I agree but who was Paul? How did Paul handle scripture? Was he not one of the best with Hebrew and the law? Then he converted and God used his brilliant knowledge of Hebrew, history, law and the gospel. Paul was an apologist by definition. He used his brain for Gods glory by presenting the gospel. Proving that Christ was supreme time and time again. He knew philosophy, the science of his day other religious (cults) beliefs. He stood toe to toe with the greatest minds of his time.

Now on to me. I never said I did that only. Not sure why this is being assumed. Are you saying that because I used/ use other means in my study I cannot come to truth? Truth is absolute, God bless you guys who can read just the bible and discern scripture. I on the other hand being a true convert mid 2015 am not there yet. Some passages yes others not so much. I have to put effort and work into my studies. I want to live 1 Peter 3:15. In order for me to do this properly I need to study and re-study. I start with the bible then go to my library when needed. No one ever claimed the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with any of it. If it wasn't for the holy spirt convicting me through the gospel, I wouldn't even be having this conversation.

we as Christians need to insure we are all doing everything possible in Christ to present the gospel. If I am wrong I will repent, it will come to light, I just want to know as much about God in the short time I have here and be able to present the gospel whenever I can.

Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with disciplined Bible study. Chapter by chapter, line upon line, is how it's done, but always saying a prayer for understanding when we begin, because Jesus can open it up or close it off to our understanding, no matter how much scholarly work we put into it.

And yes, Apostle Paul was a learned scholar, having been brought up by the best Hebrew scholar of his day, Gamaliel. Yet Paul was deceived in the "Jew's religion" until Christ struck him down on the road to Damascus. Jesus opened up to Paul an understanding in God's Word that he never knew before, a clear Heavenly view minus the traditions of men.

Just so you know, we cannot really apply everything we learned from man's schools to it either. There are many matters in God's Word that must come from a spiritual revelation from Him, and in time I assure you, you'll begin to understand the difference in that, if you ask Him for understanding in His Word first. I don't know how old you are, but for the sincere believer and Bible student, He will put together experiences you have had in relation to parts of His Word that He has given you to understand. Other parts in His Word are going to remain a mystery until it's His timing to reveal them to you. Then it will be like a difficult study with lots of toiling and consternation that will suddenly... be removed, like the proverbial light bulb going off.

There's also Holy Spirit markings in God's Holy Writ, certain alternations that occur which do not appear in other known literature by man. Get a copy of E.W. Bullinger's The Companion Bible if you're interested in that (it's a 1611 KJV study Bible with his scholarly notes in the side margin, and I mean real scholarly level notes). Just the 198 Appendixes of the work he did in the back is worth having a copy.

 

[SIRGEORGIAN]

Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with disciplined Bible study. Chapter by chapter, line upon line, is how it's done, but always saying a prayer for understanding when we begin, because Jesus can open it up or close it off to our understanding, no matter how much scholarly work we put into it.

And yes, Apostle Paul was a learned scholar, having been brought up by the best Hebrew scholar of his day, Gamaliel. Yet Paul was deceived in the "Jew's religion" until Christ struck him down on the road to Damascus. Jesus opened up to Paul an understanding in God's Word that he never knew before, a clear Heavenly view minus the traditions of men.

Just so you know, we cannot really apply everything we learned from man's schools to it either. There are many matters in God's Word that must come from a spiritual revelation from Him, and in time I assure you, you'll begin to understand the difference in that, if you ask Him for understanding in His Word first. I don't know how old you are, but for the sincere believer and Bible student, He will put together experiences you have had in relation to parts of His Word that He has given you to understand. Other parts in His Word are going to remain a mystery until it's His timing to reveal them to you. Then it will be like a difficult study with lots of toiling and consternation that will suddenly... be removed, like the proverbial light bulb going off.

There's also Holy Spirit markings in God's Holy Writ, certain alternations that occur which do not appear in other known literature by man. Get a copy of E.W. Bullinger's The Companion Bible if you're interested in that (it's a 1611 KJV study Bible with his scholarly notes in the side margin, and I mean real scholarly level notes). Just the 198 Appendixes of the work he did in the back is worth having a copy.

Ok thanks for the the book material. I think we are both arguing for the same thing lol. Everything you said I would agree with.

 

[KJV1611]

If i say "Jesus shall confirm the names in the Book of Life" Does that mean this has already taken place? Surely you know prophesies most of the time can have duel meaning. The statement "He shall confirm" can apply to any time in the future, because of the word "Shall" So at the time of that particular writing when that statement was written "He shall confirm" is to mean something AFTER the time of that particular writing, you agree with that yes? i mean at the moment in time that Daniel wrote that prophesy, it was not yet fulfilled correct? So then that prophecy can be fulfilled at any time in the future AFTER Daniel spoke it, correct? So then the question is when? KJV1611 believes it was fulfilled at the time of Jesus, Others believe it is still yet to be fulfilled. my point is this, the prophesy that Daniel gave, could be fulfilled ANY time AFTER it was given. It could have been 2000 years ago, or it could still yet happen. And KJV1611 just because you believe it was already fulfilled in the past, DOES NOT MEAN it can't possibly be fulfilled again in the future. Duel prophecies.

^i^

We don't have to guess when the covenant was confirmed, we are told in Galatians that the covenant was confirmed in Christ. All the promises made to Abraham were to Abraham and his seed Christ. The promises were confirmed when the promised seed Christ came. Do you see what I'm talking about? The promises made to Abraham are moot if Jesus doesn't come but he did come and that confirmed that yes the promises made to Abraham will come to fruition... it's a done deal and can't be undone.

Galatians 3:17 KJV
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

 

[KJV1611]

oohh i know this one.

The covenant that will be agreed upon will be between the Muslims and Jerusalem, it will be a 7 year peace agreement brought about by the antichrist, which the whole world will look up to during a time of great distress among all the nations of the world. The Antichrist will be the Jews Messiah, and he will also be the Muslim awaited Messiah "The Mahdi" He will be the one that seems to bring temporary Peace to the known world. This peace agreement, this covenant will be broken after 3 1/2 years when both the Muslims and the Jews realize he is not their messiah.

^i^

Where does all of that come from? It's not in the bible, nothing even remotely close.

 

[DP]

We don't have to guess when the covenant was confirmed, we are told in Galatians that the covenant was confirmed in Christ. All the promises made to Abraham were to Abraham and his seed Christ. The promises were confirmed when the promised seed Christ came. Do you see what I'm talking about? The promises made to Abraham are moot if Jesus doesn't come but he did come and that confirmed that yes the promises made to Abraham will come to fruition... it's a done deal and can't be undone.

Galatians 3:17 KJV
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

But you're actually misinterpreting that Gal.3:17 verse if that's what you're using to back up your statements above.

In that verse Paul is declaring that the covenant involving the law, which came 430 years later, cannot... disannul the Promise by Faith which God first gave to Abraham at the beginning. Paul also shows in that chapter how the Promise had nothing to do with covenant making, because covenant making is about the law. What God gave Abraham first by Promise did not involve the law nor covenants.

 

[KJV1611]

But you're actually misinterpreting that Gal.3:17 verse if that's what you're using to back up your statements above.

In that verse Paul is declaring that the covenant involving the law, which came 430 years later, cannot... disannul the Promise by Faith which God first gave to Abraham at the beginning. Paul also shows in that chapter how the Promise had nothing to do with covenant making, because covenant making is about the law. What God gave Abraham first by Promise did not involve the law nor covenants.

No I'm not misinterpreting it DP, you are. Read it from the NASB it's easier to understand the covenant part but noticed they convenietly left out the part about Christ confirming this covenant.

Galatians 3:17New American Standard Bible (NASB)

17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Notice it says "the law which came four hundred years and thirty years later does not invalidate a COVENANT..." Which covenant is it talking about? It's not talking about the law, it's talking about the covenant made God made with Abraham which is the covenant of "believe God and it's counted as righteousnes". In other words the covenant of grace. The law does not nullify the covenant of grace.... this is the covenant that was confirmed before in Christ.

Galatians 3:17King James Version (KJV)

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

 

[DP]

No I'm not misinterpreting it DP, you are. Read it from the NASB it's easier to understand the covenant part but noticed they convenietly left out the part about Christ confirming this covenant.

Galatians 3:17New American Standard Bible (NASB)

17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Notice it says "the law which came four hundred years and thirty years later does not invalidate a COVENANT..." Which covenant is it talking about? It's not talking about the law, it's talking about the covenant made God made with Abraham which is the covenant of "believe God and it's counted as righteousnes". In other words the covenant of grace. The law does not nullify the covenant of grace.... this is the covenant that was confirmed before in Christ.

Galatians 3:17King James Version (KJV)

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

You're still misinterpreting it, because the 18th verse goes with it, which explains more of what 17 is saying...

Gal 3:17-18
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.


18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
KJV

The promise God first gave to Abraham did NOT involve the law, it was by Promise. If it were of the law like that says, then it is no more by promise. The idea of what was "confirmed before of God in Christ" is about how God had ordained His Salvation by Faith through Christ even before... the giving of the law.

 

[KJV1611]

You're still misinterpreting it, because the 18th verse goes with it, which explains more of what 17 is saying...

Gal 3:17-18
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.


18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
KJV

The promise God first gave to Abraham did NOT involve the law, it was by Promise. If it were of the law like that says, then it is no more by promise. The idea of what was "confirmed before of God in Christ" is about how God had ordained His Salvation by Faith through Christ even before... the giving of the law.

Yes, that promise God first gave to Abraham was the covenant that was confirmed before God in Christ just like Galatians 3:17 says.

Galatians 3:17 KJV
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

 

[DP]

Yes, that promise God first gave to Abraham was the covenant that was confirmed before God in Christ just like Galatians 3:17 says.

Galatians 3:17 KJV
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

But the below verse shows God did not make a covenant WITH Abraham when He gave the Promise to him, and that's the difference.

Gal.3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
KJV


The Living Bible actually makes this more clear:

Gal 3:17-18
17 Here's what I am trying to say: God's promise to save through faith-and God wrote this promise down and signed it-could not be canceled or changed four hundred and thirty years later when God gave the Ten Commandments.

18 If obeying those laws could save us, then it is obvious that this would be a different way of gaining God's favor than Abraham's way, for he simply accepted God's promise.
TLB

 

[laymen]

Hope this helps

 

[KJV1611]

But the below verse shows God did not make a covenant WITH Abraham when He gave the Promise to him, and that's the difference.

Gal.3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
KJV

The Living Bible actually makes this more clear:

Gal 3:17-18
17 Here's what I am trying to say: God's promise to save through faith-and God wrote this promise down and signed it-could not be canceled or changed four hundred and thirty years later when God gave the Ten Commandments.

18 If obeying those laws could save us, then it is obvious that this would be a different way of gaining God's favor than Abraham's way, for he simply accepted God's promise.
TLB

Let's go step by step DP. In the KJV verse below, which covenant is Paul talking about?

Galatians 3:17 KJV
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

 

[DP]

Let's go step by step DP. In the KJV verse below, which covenant is Paul talking about?

Galatians 3:17 KJV
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

It's of course about the New Covenant, which is not based on a law contract, but as a Promise from God accepted by man via Faith, i.e., believing what God promised He will do. That's the difference. Just because you see the word "covenant" there does not mean it is a law contract like the old covenant was, being based on the law.

Don't you understand that if someone promises to give you something, and you accept it, you are given that thing by promise, not by a law contract both parties have to sign. Abraham believed God, he didn't go into a contract relationship like was done 430 years later through Moses with the law.

Another way to look at it is the giver is applying an oath upon their self that he promises to give something to someone. The burden of going through with the promise is upon the giver, not the receiver. The one receiving is not under any contractual requirement.

 

[PlainWord]

just a comment, the Jews to this day desire to build a Temple, are you saying that will never happen, that somehow the Jews will no longer desire to have their sins forgiven? Know you not that a True Jew today can't have his sins forgiven because they can't sacrifice animals because they have no Temple, they desire more than anything to have a Temple. But what is stopping them? The Dome of the Rock, the Muslims are stopping them from making a Temple, the Jews would have to destroy the Dome of the Rock in order to build their Temple, if they did so they would be utterly destroyed by the Muslims. So it is only when their is a Peace agreement between the Muslims and the Jews, that they are allowed to rebuild their Temple which they will do, despite those who say there will not be a third Temple.

^i^

Dave,

No doubt, the Jews very much want to rebuild their temple. I was just there in Sept '15 and saw the passion and emotion at the Wailing Wall. I have absolutely no doubt that if given the chance, a 3rd temple would be built. However, as you point out, the Muslims would never let that happen. The Temple could actually be built next to the Dome of the Rock as there is room there without touching one stone of the Dome.

I didn't say that a third man-made Jewish Temple would not be built. I merely argued that we have no direct prophesy of one being built. The idea that Jesus would return and enter a man-made Jewish temple is not taught either although many think that He does. I seriously question whether or not Jesus would accept another Temple which represents the Law which He did away with at the Cross. Jesus is not coming back to re-institute the Mosaic Law, so keep that in mind.

Further, there is no specific and direct prophesy of a Peace Treaty with Israel. Dan 9 does not tell us this.

 

[DP]

Further, there is no specific and direct prophesy of a Peace Treaty with Israel. Dan 9 does not tell us this.

But Daniel 11 does tell us there a pact made in Jerusalem:

Dan 11:21-23
21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.


22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.


23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
KJV

 

[PlainWord]

But Daniel 11 does tell us there a pact made in Jerusalem:

Dan 11:21-23
21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.


22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.


23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
KJV

This is in the past. A "Vile Person" was Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175 BC -164 BC) who seized the throne through treachery.
"They shall be swept away" refers to the Egyptians. The Prince of the Covenant was Onias III, the high priest in Jerusalem who bore that title.
In Verse 23, the "He" again refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He took from the rich and gave to the poor.

 

[DP]

This is in the past. A "Vile Person" was Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175 BC -164 BC) who seized the throne through treachery.
"They shall be swept away" refers to the Egyptians. The Prince of the Covenant was Onias III, the high priest in Jerusalem who bore that title.
In Verse 23, the "He" again refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He took from the rich and gave to the poor.

Antiochus IV (165 B.C.) was only a type for the final Antichrist at the end. The placing of the "abomination of desolation" in Dan.11 was foretold of by our Lord Jesus in Matt.24 approximately 200 years AFTER... Antiochus had already been dead! So the Antiochus thingy doesn't work.

 

[GaryA]

Antiochus IV (165 B.C.) was only a type for the final Antichrist at the end. The placing of the "abomination of desolation" in Dan.11 was foretold of by our Lord Jesus in Matt.24 approximately 200 years AFTER... Antiochus had already been dead! So the Antiochus thingy doesn't work.

So -- let me see if I have this correct...

Daniel 11:1-28 briefly describes a 400+ year history -- and then, abruptly jumps 2000+ years?


Certainly the word 'he' in verse 29 is describing the same person / entity as the word 'he' in verse 28.


What about 'him' / 'he' in verse 30?

What about 'his' in verse 31?

What about 'he' in verse 32?

Do you think that verse 33 is aligned with Luke 21:24?

Is verse 35 a "continuation", of sorts, of verse 33?

How long is the time span of 'even to the time of the end' in verse 35?

Grammatically speaking -- who do you think 'the king' in verse 36 refers back to in the passage? Is it the same 'he' in the previous verses?

Same 'he' in verses 37-39?

Now - look at 'him' in verse 40 -- after 'And at the time of the end...' -- same 'he'?

Is the second 'him' in verse 40 the king of the south - such that the first 'him' is the king of the north? -- or, are both 'him'-s in verse 40 a third king who is neither the king of the north nor the king of the south? Does this mean that 'the king' in verse 36 the king of the north? Or, is it the aforementioned third king? If so, where else in the passage is this third king mentioned?

Keep reading -- several more 'he' / 'him'...

Same 'he' all the way to verse 45?

Which of all of these 'he'-s and 'him'-s are the same person / entity?

How many different persons / entities are being discussed here with all of these 'he'-s, 'him'-s, etc.

One thing I will say --- there certainly does seem to be a 'jump' in time between verse 39 and verse 40...

If it is a very large jump in time ( say, 2000+ years ) -- what does that say about the identity of the 'king' in verse 36?

I currently believe that:

~ Daniel 11:1-33 is past.

~ Daniel 11:34-39 is a mixture of past, present, and future.

~ Daniel 11:40-45 is future.

~ Daniel 12:1-3 is future.

~ Daniel 12:4-13 is general explanation.

"However, I am still studying..."

Daniel 11:

[SUP]31[/SUP] And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. [SUP]32[/SUP] And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. [SUP]33[/SUP] And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. [SUP]34[/SUP] Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. [SUP]35[/SUP] And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.


The phrases in red indicate "some time" between "now" and "the end"; if "now" is the time of what is happening in verse 31, what does this say about the flow of history with regard to what is happening in verse 31?

 

[DP]

Daniel 11:

[SUP]31[/SUP] And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. [SUP]32[/SUP] And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. [SUP]33[/SUP] And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. [SUP]34[/SUP] Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. [SUP]35[/SUP] And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.


The phrases in red indicate "some time" between "now" and "the end"; if "now" is the time of what is happening in verse 31, what does this say about the flow of history with regard to what is happening in verse 31?

Yes, pretty much.

Because that "abomination of desolation" event our Lord Jesus foretold of in Matt.24 and Mark 13 was after Antiochus IV had long been dead, that moved the time for that event later. And per the Daniel Scripture, we know it involves a "sanctuary" (i.e., temple). And because the 2nd temple burned in 70 A.D. before the Romans could get control of it, no abomination of desolation event happened in 70 A.D., which again moves the prophecy to the end of this world like the Daniel 11 Scripture part you have in red shows. And yet one more, because Jesus was giving the 7 signs of the end also written in the Seals of Rev.6, that also moves that "abomination of desolation" event to the end of this world, just prior to Christ's 2nd coming.

 

[GaryA]

Yes, pretty much.

Because that "abomination of desolation" event our Lord Jesus foretold of in Matt.24 and Mark 13 was after Antiochus IV had long been dead, that moved the time for that event later. And per the Daniel Scripture, we know it involves a "sanctuary" (i.e., temple). And because the 2nd temple burned in 70 A.D. before the Romans could get control of it, no abomination of desolation event happened in 70 A.D., which again moves the prophecy to the end of this world like the Daniel 11 Scripture part you have in red shows. And yet one more, because Jesus was giving the 7 signs of the end also written in the Seals of Rev.6, that also moves that "abomination of desolation" event to the end of this world, just prior to Christ's 2nd coming.

I believe you have missed my point --- what I was saying in post #257 was that it is indicated in these verses that there is "some time" ( a good bit of it ) between the "abomination of desolation" and "the end"...

 

[DP]

I believe you have missed my point --- what I was saying in post #257 was that it is indicated in these verses that there is "some time" ( a good bit of it ) between the "abomination of desolation" and "the end"...

But I don't interpret "because it is yet for a appointed time" meaning that. Instead, I interpret it to mean the prophecy Daniel was given for "the time of the end." Compare to Rev.9:15.