What divides the Book of Daniel into 2

[Therapon]

who are the physical children of Israel today, ellis? please explain.

Well, I didn't write the rules so I'll just quote the word for that . . .

Rom 2:29 "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

So if someone believes he is of the physical seed of Israel, guess what, in the eyes of God, he is.

 

[zone]

Thirdly, is there an attempt to interpret Daniel from said chiasm to a gap-theory or other eschatological proposal?

yup DA.
exactly.
it may not have been fully revealed/spelled out here yet, but that's the proposal. it's been offered up in links to certain writings here.
i looked into all this last year. took a long time.

the 70th week is, like all other dispie theories, magically different from the others, and stretches from the end of 69th amazingly all the way to the construction of the Dome of The Rock.
because the D.O.T.R must, absolutely be the A.O.D. according to certain bible twisters. makes sense, right? Jews are still God's chosen people whether they hate Jesus or not, and God is giving them Palestine through slaughter...including the slaughter of christians in the region.

unbelieving Talmudic rabbis are good guys, still in covenant with G-d....Muslims bad guys who desolated the Temple Mount.

too bad nobody knows what Abomination is UNDER The Temple Mount.

 

[zone]

Well, I didn't write the rules so I'll just quote the word for that . . .

Rom 2:29 "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

So if someone believes he is of the physical seed of Israel, guess what, in the eyes of God, he is.

nice.
but that's not what your other writings say. and it's not what you've said previously.
but hey...means nothing to me. you can be part of the Synagogue of Satan of you want to.

 

[kenisyes]

liberal scholars do not look at the Bible with the possibility that it might be right, instead, they make every attempt to prove it wrong. You are doing the same.

In Revelation 4:1 we read, "come up here." In Revelation 11:13 we read "come up here." So either there are two raptures, or more logically, those are two narrations of the same event.

In Revelation 12:12 we read that Satan was cast to the Earth "for a short time." in Revelation 20:3 we read that Satan was, "loosed for a little season." so Satan is either loosed twice, or more logically, those are two narrations of the same event.

Revelation 2-3 is about the churches. The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 are the two churches of the Christian era. Both the seals and the trumpets began to be fulfilled at the beginning of this era.Revelation is bursting at the seams with other dual narrations that are obviously about the same events.

Are the above statements true? Of course they are true, but I am not going to debate them because spiritual truths are spiritually discerned and it is impossible to prove truths to someone who doesn’t want to believe them.

I believe the Bible is right. I believe your explanation is wrong. Do you want to hurl insults across the internet, or do you want to study the Word of God? ("Devil" comes from the Greek "diabolos", to "hurl across"). I accepted you as old enough to be my father, and approached you as an author and a theologian, but you have acted like a child twice in two responses to me.

4:1 is spoken to John, 11:13 is to the witnesses. Neither is the rapture. That would be a call to all believers.

Until you can say how many "little seasons" are in a "short time", you can't compare this. The short time could be how Satan feels about it, and the little season about how it will feel to us. Jesus has been coming back "soon" for quite a while now.

You can't put a church in a grave (11:9)

The statements in the Scripture are true. Your explanations are inconsistent with the text.

 

[zone]

GENESIS
Genesis, the book of beginning
earth created
sun, moon and stars for the earth
sun to govern the day
darkness called night
waters called seas
river for earth's blessing
man in God's image
satan's first rebellion - eden
entrance of sin
curse pronounced
death entered

JESUS..........JESUS..........JESUS

REVELATION
Revelation, the book of last things, the end
satan's final rebellion
man headed by one in satan's image
increase with ultimate end of sin
sun, moon, and stars, connected with earth's judgement
earth passed away
no need of the sun
no night there
no more sea
river for the new earth
no more curse
no more death

 

[Therapon]

yup DA. exactly.
it may not have been fully revealed/spelled out here yet, but that's the proposal. it's been offered up in links to certain writings here. i looked into all this last year. took a long time.

the 70th week is, like all other dispie theories, magically different from the others, and stretches from the end of 69th amazingly all the way to the construction of the Dome of The Rock.
because the D.O.T.R must, absolutely be the A.O.D. according to certain bible twisters. makes sense, right? Jews are still God's chosen people whether they hate Jesus or not, and God is giving them Palestine through slaughter...including the slaughter of christians in the region. Unbelieving Talmudic rabbis are good guys, still in covenant with G-d....Muslims bad guys who desolated the Temple Mount.
too bad nobody knows what Abomination is UNDER The Temple Mount.

I can't tell if you are being positive or sarcastic, but here is what Scripture says about the Jews during the Christian era . . .

Rom 11:28 "As concerning the gospel, they (the Jewish people) are enemies (of the Gentile church) for your sakes: but as touching the election (Godls sovereign choise), they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable."

So if the Jewish people were ever chosen of God, they still are. Once again, I don't make the rules.

Concerning the 70th week: the 69 weeks (shavuim) are indeed years, but the 70th week is not a shavuim, it is a different word (shavua) so it should be different in kind. Since the 69 shavuim are years, then the single shavua should be a diferent duration of time. But I'm not going to argue the point, hang in there with what you're comfortable with <smile>.

 

[Therapon]

but hey...means nothing to me. you can be part of the Synagogue of Satan of you want to.

Whew, that is some accusation, little lady. I forgive you of course, but you need to be careful what you write just in case I am a true servant of God.

 

[Therapon]

I believe the Bible is right. I believe your explanation is wrong. Do you want to hurl insults across the internet, or do you want to study the Word of God?

4:1 is spoken to John, 11:13 is to the witnesses. Neither is the rapture. That would be a call to all believers.
Until you can say how many "little seasons" are in a "short time", you can't compare this. The short time could be how Satan feels about it, and the little season about how it will feel to us. Jesus has been coming back "soon" for quite a while now.

You can't put a church in a grave (11:9)

The statements in the Scripture are true. Your explanations are inconsistent with the text.

You say my posts are incorrect because they disagree with your tradition, not because they disagree with history or Scripture. But of course you can't believe that because you guys cannot accept the truth that Bible prophecy was sealed until after the events of 1948-1967, Daniel 12:4 and 12:9, at which time the Lord actually opened Revelation for the first time during the Christian era, putting to death the very traditions you are trying toi defend. All you guys do is try to disprove the smattering of those new revelations that I've been fooliosh enough to post here. Always disputring them because they disagrees with an eschatology that can now be proven as dead as the dodo bird.

 

[kenisyes]

You say my posts are incorrect because they disagree with your tradition, not because they disagree with history or Scripture. But of course you can't believe that because you guys cannot accept the truth that Bible prophecy was sealed until after the events of 1948-1967, Daniel 12:4 and 12:9, at which time the Lord actually opened Revelation for the first time during the Christian era, putting to death the very traditions you are trying toi defend. All you guys do is try to disprove the smattering of those new revelations that I've been fooliosh enough to post here. Always disputring them because they disagrees with an eschatology that can now be proven as dead as the dodo bird.

I said: "Your explanations are inconsistent with the text".
You say I said: "You say my posts are incorrect because they disagree with your tradition"

Please check again. What you say I said, does not match what I said. If you are wrong about what I said, maybe you are also wrong about why I said it.

It is not foolish to post Scripture in a Bible study and exchange opinions. It is foolish to prejudge what theological "tradition" someone espouses.

 

[zone]

I can't tell if you are being positive or sarcastic, but here is what Scripture says about the Jews during the Christian era . . .

Rom 11:28 "As concerning the gospel, they (the Jewish people) are enemies (of the Gentile church) for your sakes: but as touching the election (Godls sovereign choise), they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable."

So if the Jewish people were ever chosen of God, they still are. Once again, I don't make the rules.

Concerning the 70th week: the 69 weeks (shavuim) are indeed years, but the 70th week is not a shavuim, it is a different word (shavua) so it should be different in kind. Since the 69 shavuim are years, then the single shavua should be a diferent duration of time. But I'm not going to argue the point, hang in there with what you're comfortable with <smile>.

oh ellis, ellis, ellis.....tsk.
an entirely false theological system built on an infantile misunderstanding of good ol' Romans 11.
it's worked amaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazingly well

just LOOK at all the killing, oppression, and such Christian Zionists have done for the State of Israel.
oh Jesus just LOVES that no doubt.

AIPAC isn't in the Bible ellis (not the way you think)

i'm sure we'll get to your GAP theory in time.
"Christian Era" - OH! that's PLAN B....(not)

do you read and write fluently in Hebrew ellis? (forgive me if you've already answered).

Israel and the Neocons did 9-11. but that's okay - G-d's chosen ppl, right?
Synagogue of Satan.
did God say "I will bless those who bless the terrorist State of Israel"? or did He say He would bless those who blessed Abram?

<shows teeth>

 

[zone]

Whew, that is some accusation, little lady. I forgive you of course, but you need to be careful what you write just in case I am a true servant of God.

John 16:2
They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.

 

[zone]

sorry for derailment Bookends.
oops
zone

 

[eternally-gratefull]

anyone find it interesting that one part (aramaic) seems to be written in 3rd person (to them) and the other (hebrew) is spoken in first person (daniel personally)

 

[Therapon]

I said: "Your explanations are inconsistent with the text".

You say I said: "You say my posts are incorrect because they disagree with your tradition"

Please check again. What you say I said, does not match what I said. If you are wrong about what I said, maybe you are also wrong about why I said it.

It is not foolish to post Scripture in a Bible study and exchange opinions. It is foolish to prejudge what theological "tradition" someone espouses.

OK, I accept the criticism, now lets go on . . .

When in an earlier post I excoriated researching man's traditions, when I wrote that spiritual truths are spiritually discerned, it wasn&#8217;t intended as an insult, it was pointing out what I believe to be an important scriptural truth. Research leads us into a better understanding of the doctrines of men, but it is the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth, John 16:13. For example, what does the word "revelation" mean . . .

Dictionary definition: Revealing knowledge that was previously unknown. The uncovering of obscure or hidden truth. The disclosure or conveying of divine purpose.

Revelation by its very name should be a revelation!!! In other words, it should reveal truths to us that we don&#8217;t already know! But do we go to Revelation that way? NO! We go to Revelation with our traditions firmly in place.


To learn anything from Revelation, we must enter the book with a doctrinally blank slate and allow the Lord to replace our debatable traditions with truth. The Lord can teach us nothing from Revelation if our end-time doctrines are already set in concrete!


Revelation is the final crown of God&#8217;s Word, it's a twenty-two chapter synopsis of God&#8217;s plan for creation, but getting that across to you guys is like trying to pull an elephant&#8217;s teeth through his rump. (That&#8217;s called a metaphor and it&#8217;s not intended as an insult either) <grin>

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I can't tell if you are being positive or sarcastic, but here is what Scripture says about the Jews during the Christian era . . .

Rom 11:28 "As concerning the gospel, they (the Jewish people) are enemies (of the Gentile church) for your sakes: but as touching the election (Godls sovereign choise), they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable."

So if the Jewish people were ever chosen of God, they still are. Once again, I don't make the rules.

Concerning the 70th week: the 69 weeks (shavuim) are indeed years, but the 70th week is not a shavuim, it is a different word (shavua) so it should be different in kind. Since the 69 shavuim are years, then the single shavua should be a diferent duration of time. But I'm not going to argue the point, hang in there with what you're comfortable with <smile>.

where do you get this? where is the 70th week spoken of that is different than the first 69?

 

[Therapon]

anyone find it interesting that one part (aramaic) seems to be written in 3rd person (to them) and the other (hebrew) is spoken in first person (daniel personally)

That seems rather obvious. The first half of the bifid, in Chaldee, is not to Daniel or his people, but to and about the Gentile rulers of the Holy Land during "the time of the Gentiles."

Tthe 2nd half of the bifid, Daniel 8-12, is in Hebrew because it is to and about Daniel and his people during that same "time of the Gentiles," which incidentally, from Daniel 12:7, ended on June 6th, 1967.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That seems rather obvious. The first half of the bifid, in Chaldee, is not to Daniel or his people, but to and about the Gentile rulers of the Holy Land during "the time of the Gentiles."

Tthe 2nd half of the bifid, Daniel 8-12, is in Hebrew because it is to and about Daniel and his people during that same "time of the Gentiles," which incidentally, from Daniel 12:7, ended on June 6th, 1967.

Oh so Christ returned in june 6: 1967 and defeated the little horn and set up his kingdom?

Wow. I have heard everything now

 

[Therapon]

where do you get this? where is the 70th week spoken of that is different than the first 69?

From the different Hebrew words used for both, the 69 weeks are 69 shavuim, the male plural form of shavua (incidentally shavuim is used only four times in Scripture, all in Daniel). However, the 70th week is a shavua so it is possible that the 70th week is something other than a year.

If a year was intended for the 70th week, then ther same Hebrew word should have been used to describe it. When viewed through Daniel's eyes, a Jew steeped in the Levitical code, the distinction would have become obvious.

 

[kenisyes]

OK, I accept the criticism, now lets go on . . .

When in an earlier post I excoriated researching man's traditions, when I wrote that spiritual truths are spiritually discerned, it wasn’t intended as an insult, it was pointing out what I believe to be an important scriptural truth. Research leads us into a better understanding of the doctrines of men, but it is the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth, John 16:13. For example, what does the word "revelation" mean . . .

Dictionary definition: Revealing knowledge that was previously unknown. The uncovering of obscure or hidden truth. The disclosure or conveying of divine purpose.

Revelation by its very name should be a revelation!!! In other words, it should reveal truths to us that we don’t already know! But do we go to Revelation that way? NO! We go to Revelation with our traditions firmly in place.


To learn anything from Revelation, we must enter the book with a doctrinally blank slate and allow the Lord to replace our debatable traditions with truth. The Lord can teach us nothing from Revelation if our end-time doctrines are already set in concrete!


Revelation is the final crown of God’s Word, it's a twenty-two chapter synopsis of God’s plan for creation, but getting that across to you guys is like trying to pull an elephant’s teeth through his rump. (That’s called a metaphor and it’s not intended as an insult either) <grin>

I agree, let's go on.

I am not contradicting or even evaluating your conclusions. I was only pointing out that I do not believe you have correctly identified chiasms. The reasons I gave are literary in nature, and have nothing to do with the thoughts being expressed by the text. The problem is, that certain groups of people accept certain types of proof. When they feel you make a mistake in the facts of the argument, these people do not accept the conclusion. I accept many kinds of proof. Thus, I agree with many parts of your conclusions. When I point out the error in the proposed chiasmic structure, it is only to help you refine what you believe to be true, so more people can accept it.

I went back to your first post, and found that one conclusion seemed to be most offensive to people. That conclusion is that the two witnesses represent the Jewish and Gentile church. That conclusion, I believe is contained in Revelation in another way.

Let me ask a couple of questions about matters from 101 courses (prerequisites to Hernameutics 402): What do you believe about the four or five "senses of Scripture"? Different theologians have different lists, but usually included are some selection of "historical sense", "prophetic sense", "doctrinal sense", "mystical sense". Do you believe in such a hermeneutical principle? How should we invoke the principle to obtain the multiple senses of the prophecies of Revelation?

Second, what is the proper relation of the Greek aorist tenses to the translation into English? Most of the verbs in Revelation are in the aorist tense. English lacking one, makes the verbs be translated into past or present, pretty much at the translator's whim. What steps will be necessary to get the proper sense of the original back?

If we agree, more or less, on how these two questions are answered, I think we will have no trouble reaching agreement on the nature of the two witnesses, and on the incorporation of Jews into the book of Revelation, with or without identifying the proper chiasms.

By the way, do you suppose that the 22 chapters of Revelation can be identified in some way with the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet?

 

[Therapon]

Oh so Christ returned in june 6: 1967 and defeated the little horn and set up his kingdom?

Wow. I have heard everything now

My, my. Your doctrinal assumptions are truly unbelievable. Daniel 12:7 and June 6th have absolutely nothing to do with the return of the Lord, except that both are about the end of the "time of the Gentiles" and the beginning of the time of the end.