Daniels 70-Weeks Timeline

[covenantee]

Exactly. And when was the decree given to rebuild Jerusalem? Yeah, that's what I thought.

That's what you thought.

Isaiah 44
28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Isaiah 45
1 Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts.

 

[The Light]

That's what you thought.

Isaiah 44
28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Isaiah 45
1 Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts.

Wow. So, 483 years from the time of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah. So the decree of Cyrus, was given in 539 BC. That means that Messiah arrived in 56 BC according to your timeline. So who do you claim is the Messiah? Sheesh.

 

[David Boyer]

They are destroyed.

Revelation 2:27
And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Revelation 19:15
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

You do realise that your first reference is that the Thyatira Church will rule the nations and not Jesus... right?
And the second reference is regarding a particular war with the kings of the earth. Not actually referring to entire nations, but rather the armies of the nations that go to war with the Rider of the White Horse.

So not entire nations. Context.

 

[covenantee]

You do realise that your first reference is that the Thyatira Church will rule the nations and not Jesus... right?

Agreed. And those nations are broken to shivers, i.e. destroyed.

And the second reference is regarding a particular war with the kings of the earth. Not actually referring to entire nations, but rather the armies of the nations that go to war with the Rider of the White Horse.

Specifically declares "smite the nations". Not "smite the armies of the nations".

Entire nations. Specific declaration.

Consistent with Revelation 2:26-27.

 

[covenantee]

Wow. So, 483 years from the time of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah. So the decree of Cyrus, was given in 539 BC. That means that Messiah arrived in 56 BC according to your timeline. So who do you claim is the Messiah? Sheesh.

Ezra 6:14

Decreed by Cyrus and Darius; and finally by Artaxerxes in 457 BC.

 

[The Light]

Ezra 6:14

Decreed by Cyrus and Darius; and finally by Artaxerxes in 457 BC.

LOL, and yet none of those were a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. You are grasping at nonexistent straws. The decree was in 444 BC, March 5th to be exact. How is it that you do not understand these things?

 

[covenantee]

LOL, and yet none of those were a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. You are grasping at nonexistent straws. The decree was in 444 BC, March 5th to be exact. How is it that you do not understand these things?

Thanks for the guffaw.

How do you think that the houses in Jerusalem in Darius' time got there if not by decree?

You're a dispen dupe of dispen dupe Anderson.

 

[The Light]

Thanks for the guffaw.

How do you think that the houses in Jerusalem in Darius' time got there if not by decree?

You're a dispen dupe of dispen dupe Anderson.

How do I think the houses got built? Someone built them. I don't know their names, but someone obviously built them. Since it was not by decree it's just more useless chatter as we are looking for the decree to build Jerusalem. Sorry, that the truth does not line up with your doctrine. Well, I'm not really sorry as it's just more of the same. Facts and scripture do not agree with your doctrine.

 

[covenantee]

How do I think the houses got built? Someone built them. I don't know their names, but someone obviously built them. Since it was not by decree it's just more useless chatter as we are looking for the decree to build Jerusalem. Sorry, that the truth does not line up with your doctrine. Well, I'm not really sorry as it's just more of the same. Facts and scripture do not agree with your doctrine.

Why are you avoiding the question?

The question is not who built them.

The question is, could they have been built without an authorizing decree being in full force and effect?

The answer is unequivocally, no.

There is, furthermore, the initial stipulation of Daniel 9:25 which was fulfilled only by the 457 BC decree:
"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem..."

The 457 BC decree restored Jerusalem by "returning the ownership of Jerusalem back to the Jews, giving them autonomous (within the Persian empire) civil control of the city so that they could govern it by their own laws and with their own judicial system."

Another nail in the dispen coffin.

 

[David Boyer]

Agreed. And those nations are broken to shivers, i.e. destroyed.



Specifically declares "smite the nations". Not "smite the armies of the nations".

Entire nations. Specific declaration.

Consistent with Revelation 2:26-27.

Context.
So your second point is incorrect.
Context.

 

[The Light]

Why are you avoiding the question?

The question is not who built them.

The question is, could they have been built without an authorizing decree being in full force and effect?

The answer is unequivocally, no.

Get some common sense. Cyrus decreed the rebuilding of the Temple, nothing more. Do you expect those people that went to Jerusalem to live on the streets?

There is, furthermore, the initial stipulation of Daniel 9:25 which was fulfilled only by the 457 BC decree:
"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem..."

The 457 BC decree restored Jerusalem by "returning the ownership of Jerusalem back to the Jews, giving them autonomous (within the Persian empire) civil control of the city so that they could govern it by their own laws and with their own judicial system."

Another nail in the dispen coffin.

I fully understand your position. After I pointed out that the decree of Cyrus that you clung to so vehemently to as your proof, meant you had to name a new Messiah, you have gone back to 457 BC as your proof even though you had earlier abandoned it because it is not a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. So as usual, your position does not stand the test of the scripture.

Always the same with you.....no answers supported by scripture.

 

[covenantee]

Context.
So your second point is incorrect.
Context.

Copy/paste the verse which specifically says "smite the armies of the nations".

There is no greater context than that of specific explicit text.

And the text specifically and explicitly says "smite the nations".

 

[covenantee]

Cyrus decreed the rebuilding of the Temple, nothing more.

More dispen delusion and denial.

Explain why you believe that Isaiah 44:28, which explicitly distinguishes between and includes both Jerusalem and the temple, is wrong.

I fully understand your position. After I pointed out that the decree of Cyrus that you clung to so vehemently to as your proof, meant you had to name a new Messiah, you have gone back to 457 BC as your proof even though you had earlier abandoned it because it is not a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. So as usual, your position does not stand the test of the scripture.

Even more dispen delusion and denial.

Copy/paste the verbatim quote of what you claim I abandoned.

With a link to the post.

 

[David Boyer]

Copy/paste the verse which specifically says "smite the armies of the nations".

There is no greater context than that of specific explicit text.

And the text specifically and explicitly says "smite the nations".

Maybe read Rev: 19:15-21 entirely.
Context works with the entire text not just a copy/paste verse, out of context.
And you missed the word should in Verse 15.

Also for the Rev 2 reference. The Church does the smiting, not Jesus. And "broken to shivers" is not the same as "destroyed entirely".
Remember not to take the idea in scripture too far. If scripture stops short of saying something, then you should to.
Context.

 

[covenantee]

Maybe read Rev: 19:15-21 entirely.
Context works with the entire text not just a copy/paste verse, out of context.
And you missed the word should in Verse 15.

Also for the Rev 2 reference. The Church does the smiting, not Jesus. And "broken to shivers" is not the same as "destroyed entirely".
Remember not to take the idea in scripture too far. If scripture stops short of saying something, then you should to.
Context.

Explicit specific text is objective.
Context is subjective.

That which is objective defines, clarifies, qualifies and quantifies that which is subjective, not the reverse as you claim.

"He should smite" in the Greek:

3960 [e]
pataxē
πατάξῃ
He may strike down
V-ASA-3S

The verb is ASA - aorist subjunctive active.
"It is an action without history or continuation. A "pure form". A definite outcome that will happen as a result of another stated action."

Explain what is left unshivered after the nations are broken to shivers.

Remember not to impose what is subjective upon what is objective.

 

[The Light]

More dispen delusion and denial.

Explain why you believe that Isaiah 44:28, which explicitly distinguishes between and includes both Jerusalem and the temple, is wrong.

Still haven't learned? If Cyrus decreed the rebuilding of Jerusalem as you claim, then who is your Messiah? Jesus was not born 483 years after Cyrus. That means you are in error yet again.

Even more dispen delusion and denial.

Copy/paste the verbatim quote of what you claim I abandoned.

With a link to the post.

Dispensationalism seems to eat at most of the foolish virgins that are not watching as instructed.

If you claim that the decree of Cyrus was to rebuild Jerusalem that means you don't think the decree is in 457 BC.

 

[David Boyer]

Explicit specific text is objective.
Context is subjective.

That which is objective defines, clarifies, qualifies and quantifies that which is subjective, not the reverse as you claim.

"He should smite" in the Greek:

3960 [e]
pataxē
πατάξῃ
He may strike down
V-ASA-3S

The verb is ASA - aorist subjunctive active.
"It is an action without history or continuation. A "pure form". A definite outcome that will happen as a result of another stated action."

Explain what is left unshivered after the nations are broken to shivers.

Remember not to impose what is subjective upon what is objective.

So even your Greek leaves you open to the subjective interpertation. "May" is not "will" and so the nations may or may not be struck down. Simple language skills.
Specific texts like...
Matt 27:5 So Judas threw the silver into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
Judg 7:17 And he said to them, Look on me, and do likewise: and, behold, when I come to the outside of the camp, it shall be that, as I do, so shall you do.
So objectively, because Judas went out and hanged himself, you should do likewise.
Specific and objective in your definition.

Nothing is objective just because it is specific.
Context is less subjective... but you say the specifics around the verse in question muddy the verse in question.
That appears to be the exact opposite of clear logical thinking.

Again, the Rev 2:27 reference you(or the past poster) attributed to Jesus. But the previous verse is the start of the sentence and it refers to the Church ruling the nations, not Jesus.
Rev 2:26 And he that overcomes, and keeps my works to the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

Paraphrased: To him who overcomes i will give power over the nations and he will rule them with a rod of iron.
So context shows that the Church is being talked about, NOT Jesus as the ruler.
Context is better than cherry picking.

 

[covenantee]

Still haven't learned? If Cyrus decreed the rebuilding of Jerusalem as you claim, then who is your Messiah? Jesus was not born 483 years after Cyrus. That means you are in error yet again.

Dispensationalism seems to eat at most of the foolish virgins that are not watching as instructed.

If you claim that the decree of Cyrus was to rebuild Jerusalem that means you don't think the decree is in 457 BC.

Since you can't understand what Scripture clearly declares, leave it for those who can.

 

[covenantee]

So even your Greek leaves you open to the subjective interpertation. "May" is not "will" and so the nations may or may not be struck down. Simple language skills.
Specific texts like...
Matt 27:5 So Judas threw the silver into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
Judg 7:17 And he said to them, Look on me, and do likewise: and, behold, when I come to the outside of the camp, it shall be that, as I do, so shall you do.
So objectively, because Judas went out and hanged himself, you should do likewise.
Specific and objective in your definition.

Nothing is objective just because it is specific.
Context is less subjective... but you say the specifics around the verse in question muddy the verse in question.
That appears to be the exact opposite of clear logical thinking.

Again, the Rev 2:27 reference you(or the past poster) attributed to Jesus. But the previous verse is the start of the sentence and it refers to the Church ruling the nations, not Jesus.
Rev 2:26 And he that overcomes, and keeps my works to the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

Paraphrased: To him who overcomes i will give power over the nations and he will rule them with a rod of iron.
So context shows that the Church is being talked about, NOT Jesus as the ruler.
Context is better than cherry picking.

Feel free to regale us with your definition of the Greek aorist subjunctive.

Since you can't understand what Scripture clearly declares, leave it for those who can.

 

[David Boyer]

Feel free to regale us with your definition of the Greek aorist subjunctive.

Since you can't understand what Scripture clearly declares, leave it for those who can.

It still doesn't change the fact that you throw out any idea of context if if might contradict your narrative.
Or at least that is how I see your writings here.

Answer why you attributed Rev 2:27 to Jesus instead of how it was actually written. Because that would be an outright lie you told if you knowingly mis-attributed the meaning of "he" from a Church to Jesus.

So it looks like you can pull all the Greek you want but simple contextual reading will contradict you every time.
Are you lying, misguided, or simply ignorant of how to read.