Gabriel’s message to Daniel is extremely relevant

[Randy Kluth]

You ARE as my favorite Aunt used to tease when she said: My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts.


So go your own way, and pay whatever penalty you'll receive for your disobedience.
Bobby Jo

You just aren't hearing me. Proving masculine or feminine forms of a word *proves nothing!* The fact only 3 out of many thousands of Christian scholars believe something *proves nothing!* I would be a fool to just accept your insulting coercion as "proof" of anything!

 

[Bobby Jo]

... Shame ...

Sometimes we have to IGNORE people who profess Christianity, but are only RELIGIOUS.

Bobby Jo

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sometimes we have to IGNORE people who profess Christianity, but are only RELIGIOUS.

Bobby Jo

Sometimes we have to ignore people whose Christianity falls short of the mark, and do not repent of it.

 

[Stranger]

I'm not playing word games. It is a cohesive unit, a single period. When that period is spread out all over the place, by random stops and gaps, it ceases to be a "period." A "sequence" by any other name....

It is single in that 70 weeks are determined. Just because there is a gap between the 69th and 70th week doesn't mean it is not cohesive. It is a sequence because it occurs in sequence.

No, it doesn't cease to be a 'period'. It ceases to be a period by your interpretation.

Stranger

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is single in that 70 weeks are determined. Just because there is a gap between the 69th and 70th week doesn't mean it is not cohesive. It is a sequence because it occurs in sequence.

No, it doesn't cease to be a 'period'. It ceases to be a period by your interpretation.

Stranger

So, let me illustrate my point. I tell you I'm coming over in 7 weeks. You get your house prepared, buy groceries, clean up, and prepare for the stay--we're friends.

7 weeks come and go, and you feel "stood up." You call and ask, "What happened? Why did you let me down?"

And I say, "I didn't let you down. I said I would come over in 7 weeks, and only the 1st week has gone by. There is a gap between the 1st week after I told you I was coming, and the 2nd week. The 2nd week will take place in 5 months! But if you add up all of the weeks, spread out over months and possible years, it will be true that I came after a 7 week period!"

And you say, "I should think you were referring to a single period of 7 weeks, as in 7 consecutive weeks in sequence?" But I say, "that's your interpretation of 7 weeks--not mine."

 

[Stranger]

So, let me illustrate my point. I tell you I'm coming over in 7 weeks. You get your house prepared, buy groceries, clean up, and prepare for the stay--we're friends.

7 weeks come and go, and you feel "stood up." You call and ask, "What happened? Why did you let me down?"

And I say, "I didn't let you down. I said I would come over in 7 weeks, and only the 1st week has gone by. There is a gap between the 1st week after I told you I was coming, and the 2nd week. The 2nd week will take place in 5 months! But if you add up all of the weeks, spread out over months and possible years, it will be true that I came after a 7 week period!"

And you say, "I should think you were referring to a single period of 7 weeks, as in 7 consecutive weeks in sequence?" But I say, "that's your interpretation of 7 weeks--not mine."

The problem is that we are not talking about an understanding between me and you. We are talking about revelation given by God. And it is common for God to reveal in a single sentence things which may be years apart.

(Isaiah 61:1-2) "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me;....To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God...."

(Luke 4:17-19) "And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias...he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me...To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

Reading (Is. 61) you would think both preaching was done at the same time. But in (Lu. 4), Jesus stopped and divided those times. And we have yet reached the time when the day of vengeance is proclaimed. Still future.

We understand the gap because of further revelation.

Stranger

 

[Malihah]

The Man of Sin is not Satan. He is a man!! Satan is never designated as a man in the Bible. You are the first person I have ever heard saying it is Satan.

Satan is called a man in Isaiah and Ezekiel.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; (Is 14:12-16)

Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas. Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee...Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. (Eze 28:6-9,14,15)

 

[Stan B]

Satan is called a man in Isaiah and Ezekiel.

They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; (Is 14:12-16)

Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee...Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. (Eze 28:6-9,14,15)

These passages only state how some might view him, as a mere man, but as confirmed, Thou art the anointed cherub.

Anyway, the anti-Christ [the beast] is merely a man, who is given power by Satan [Great Dragon].

 

[Timtofly]

These passages only state how some might view him, as a mere man, but as confirmed, Thou art the anointed cherub.

Anyway, the anti-Christ [the beast] is merely a man, who is given power by Satan [Great Dragon].

That would be the false prophet. The only other being besides Satan is the image.

 

[Malihah]

There are many 'types' in Daniel that help us to understand Revelation from the physical kingdom of Babylon to the physical image that is set up by Nebuchadnezzar. One that is often overlooked is Nebuchadnezzar's transformation into a beast for seven years in Daniel 4. Satan is called the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14 so this very much depicts his transformation into the Man of Sin in the last days. Satan will appear as a man and not just any man but the man Christ Jesus or the false messiah to rule the world for seven years. Also the lion that represents Nebuchadnezzar or the king of Babylon has his wings plucked off and is given the heart of a man showing more of this transformation of Satan into the Man of Sin.

The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it. (Da 7:4)

 

[Randy Kluth]

The problem is that we are not talking about an understanding between me and you. We are talking about revelation given by God. And it is common for God to reveal in a single sentence things which may be years apart.

(Isaiah 61:1-2) "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me;....To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God...."

(Luke 4:17-19) "And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias...he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me...To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

Reading (Is. 61) you would think both preaching was done at the same time. But in (Lu. 4), Jesus stopped and divided those times. And we have yet reached the time when the day of vengeance is proclaimed. Still future.

We understand the gap because of further revelation.

Stranger

Totally false! There was no "gap" in what Jesus said about the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance. The Messiah was foretold to bring both elements, without divulging any particular timing order.

What Jesus was saying is that he had indeed come as Messiah, and that indeed the element of bringing the acceptable day of the Lord was about to begin. The "vengeance" upon Israel part would happen some 40 years into the future, but it was how Israel treated him at that time that would bring this about.

This would be a gap if Jesus had said both elements were predicted to take place *on the same day.* But he didn't say that. If the implication is there, then this would refer to a "day" that really represents an "era," because acceptable day of the Lord and day of vengeance do not take place at the same time, on the same literal day!

So no time frame was given. And if no time frame is given, then there can't be a "gap!"

There can only be a gap if it was said that Jesus would do both things within, say, a week. And then Jesus accepts people on the 1st day of the week, and then lets 2000 years pass, and then claims to fulfill the "vengeance" part on the last day of a 7 days period.

But that would be absurd. You wouldn't put a gap in the middle of a 7 day period and still call it a week!

 

[Philip James]

Now we need to carefully note "and shall take away the daily sacrifice". Where else except in the temple of Jerusalem can there be a daily sacrifice

For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

Peace!

 

[Stranger]

Totally false! There was no "gap" in what Jesus said about the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance. The Messiah was foretold to bring both elements, without divulging any particular timing order.

What Jesus was saying is that he had indeed come as Messiah, and that indeed the element of bringing the acceptable day of the Lord was about to begin. The "vengeance" upon Israel part would happen some 40 years into the future, but it was how Israel treated him at that time that would bring this about.

This would be a gap if Jesus had said both elements were predicted to take place *on the same day.* But he didn't say that. If the implication is there, then this would refer to a "day" that really represents an "era," because acceptable day of the Lord and day of vengeance do not take place at the same time, on the same literal day!

So no time frame was given. And if no time frame is given, then there can't be a "gap!"

There can only be a gap if it was said that Jesus would do both things within, say, a week. And then Jesus accepts people on the 1st day of the week, and then lets 2000 years pass, and then claims to fulfill the "vengeance" part on the last day of a 7 days period.

But that would be absurd. You wouldn't put a gap in the middle of a 7 day period and still call it a week!

Oh please. You have so much bs in your mouth your breath stinks.

The point was that there was no gap in what Isaiah declared in (Is. 61:2). But in reality, in time, there was a gap. And Jesus proved it in (Luke 4:16-21).

Therefore there is a gap of time which is understood due to further revelation. Just like with Daniel's 70th week. You, however ignore the further revelation.

Stranger

 

[Randy Kluth]

Oh please. You have so much bs in your mouth your breath stinks.

The point was that there was no gap in what Isaiah declared in (Is. 61:2). But in reality, in time, there was a gap. And Jesus proved it in (Luke 4:16-21).

Therefore there is a gap of time which is understood due to further revelation. Just like with Daniel's 70th week. You, however ignore the further revelation.

Stranger

I gave you a reasonable offer, and you answer by making insults. Obviously, you are going to have your way, and not consider anything but what you wish to believe. That isn't respectable.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The point was that there was no gap in what Isaiah declared in (Is. 61:2). But in reality, in time, there was a gap. And Jesus proved it in (Luke 4:16-21).

Therefore there is a gap of time which is understood due to further revelation. Just like with Daniel's 70th week. You, however ignore the further revelation.

Isa 61.1 The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,
2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
3 and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of joy
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair.
They will be called oaks of righteousness,
a planting of the Lord
for the display of his splendor.

This passage is focused on describing the Jewish Hope, and does not provide a timeline. In excluding a timeline, the events are not given a particular chronological arrangement. We are only told there is a "year" of the Lord's favor, and a "day" of vengeance.

Since this "Jewish Hope," as I call it, is depicted everywhere in the Prophets, to some degree, we know the general outline. God lets Israel suffer punishment through the persecutions of the pagan nations until the time for her recovery. Then those nations will be utterly defeated, as well as destroyed, leaving a remnant of Israel to rebuild the nation into a full, godly nation once again.

To say there is a "gap" between the restoration of Israel and the vengeance of God against the nations who abused them is ludicrous. It is way too obvious that the only sequence given is based upon the logical sense that the judgment must precede the restoration. Therefore, the judgment is in a "day," whereas the restoration is the final goal, taking place over a year of time.

Luke 4.16 He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Here Jesus emphasizes the year of the Lord's favor, referring to the Hope of Israel, the "Jewish Hope." It is ubiquitous in the Prophets, if only inferred. The goal of Israel has always been to restore the nation to godliness and to establish that for all time.

Nothing here establishes a chronology between the judgment leading to this restoration and the restoration itself. Jesus simply chooses to emphasize the restoration of Israel, and ignore the judgment part of this.

To call this a "gap" assumes that there is an established chronology to begin with. And as I showed you, Isa 61 did *not* establish a fixed chronology at all. There is only the assumption that in order to have the final restoration of Israel, the judgment of Israel's enemies must take place first.

What then did Jesus indicate was being fulfilled in his own day, if the final restoration of Israel remained far off into the future?

Jesus declared not that the restoration of Israel had begun, but that there was a part he had to play as Messiah that connects to the future Hope of Israel. His proclamation of the Gospel to those who would receive it clearly establishes the constituent members of those who will be blessed to be in that future restoration. Therefore, his Messianic calling to *proclaim the Gospel of salvation* was an essential part of the fulfillment of this prophecy, not as the restoration of Israel itself, but rather, as a means of acquiring a membership in that future Kingdom.

Luke 4. 20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

22 All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked.

23 Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’”

24 “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”

 

[Bobby Jo]

Sometimes we have to ignore people whose Christianity falls short of the mark, and do not repent of it.

Fall short? You're the one who has NO CLUE as to Bible Prophecy. And some assert that 1/3rd of Scripture is Prophetic, -- which would seem to suggest an important aspect of a GODLY life.

Now you have asserted knowledge of the Book of Revelation in multiple instances, so let's put the Pudding to the Proof:

• Rev. 12 says SEVEN DIADEMS; but Rev. 13 says TEN DIADEMS.

What happened? Why the difference? What's going on?​

Yeah, I really don't expect an answer, just more accusations:

Rev. 12:10 ... the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.​

Accusers & slanderers, -- certainly not Christians,
Bobby Jo

 

[Bobby Jo]

...the anti-Christ [the beast] is merely a man, who is given power by Satan [Great Dragon].

The "Beast" is the One-World-Government entity. The "False Prophet" is the a/c.

Lots of postulations; few accuracies,
Bobby Jo

 

[Randy Kluth]

Fall short? You're the one who has NO CLUE as to Bible Prophecy. And some assert that 1/3rd of Scripture is Prophetic, -- which would seem to suggest an important aspect of a GODLY life.

Now you have asserted knowledge of the Book of Revelation in multiple instances, so let's put the Pudding to the Proof:

• Rev. 12 says SEVEN DIADEMS; but Rev. 13 says TEN DIADEMS.

What happened? Why the difference? What's going on?​

Yeah, I really don't expect an answer, just more accusations:

Rev. 12:10 ... the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.​

Accusers & slanderers, -- certainly not Christians,
Bobby Jo

Bobby Jo, I don't know you and I really don't know your history. But I do know you have some issues going on, because you treat those you disagree with in a very disrespectful, arrogant way. This really doesn't befit a godly Christian, although I do know that Christians, when they go through some difficult times, can act very unChristian and still be good Christians inside.

I'm not interested in knowing all of your personal baggage--I have enough of my own. But please try to temper your remarks so that the animosity goes away, leaving a more enjoyable debate, without all of the colorful rhetoric that only serves to rile people up. I know you can do it! ;)

I've been reading or studying biblical prophecy for almost 50 years now. And I at one time, back in the early 70s, memorized more than half the book of Revelation. So your insults are irrelevant to me, except that it makes you look bad. I do have a pretty good grip on biblical prophecy and on the book of Revelation. I don't claim to know it all.

My view of the 10 and 7 is that it is based on Dan 7, where there are 10 kings who comprise Antichrist's empire. Antichrist defeats 3 of the kings, leaving 7 kings and 10 states, or nations. They are 7 heads and 10 horns.

Rev 12.3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads...

9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him...

13.1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

I have for years pointed out the difference between the different number of crowns in Rev 12 and Rev 13. I did have a theory about it, but am not sure.

Both the Dragon and the Beast have 7 heads and 10 horns. But in the Dragon's case, the regal nature of the 7 heads is emphasized. And in the Beast's case, the regal nature of the 10 horns is emphasized. Why is that?

I don't really know, so for me this is all about speculation. So please indulge me, and then maybe you can give me your thoughts?

The Dragon is Satan, and his position is coming down from heaven to the land. He is not yet in power on earth, until he is thrown down. And he is being portrayed as having 7 kings only after the process of being thrown down to earth, and seeing 3 of the 10 kings removed.

The Beast is the Antichristian Empire. He is seen as coming out of the sea, and onto the land. So Antichrist may not yet have defeated 3 of the 10 kings, so that 10 crowns exist at the beginning, until they are reduced to only 7.

The crowns reflect Satanic authority because we read that: "The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority." So Satan and the Antichrist both begin with 10 kings, but in the end assume power only after 3 of them have been defeated, reducing the crowns to 7.

Antichrist is portrayed at the beginning of his coup with 10 kings. Satan is portrayed as being thrown to earth when only 7 kings remain.

Dan 7.24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings.

It may have to do with the timing between when there are 10 kings and when the 10 are whittled down to 7. It may be that Satan is presented in full power, after he has been thrown down from heaven and Antichrist has defeated 3 of the 10 kings.

And it may be that Antichrist is presented at the beginning of his power, before he overthrows 3 of the 10 kings. He would then still be allied with 10 kings.

Satan is portrayed as being in heaven, and as being destined to control the 7 kings only after he is thrown down to earth from heaven. It is when Antichrist assumes power over 7 kings that Satan is thrown down from heaven.

Antichrist is portrayed as coming out of the sea, where he begins his coup. At that time there are still 10 kings. And Satan is on the seashore, at the point where Antichrist has already come up out of the sea and established his 7 king confederation on earth.

Antichrist is still coming up out of the sea, and not yet on the land when he is portrayed as still having 10 kings. Perhaps the Antichrist establishes his empire on the land by defeating 3 of the 10 kings only when Satan is thrown down to earth from heaven, and gives his authority to the Antichrist?

 

[Bobby Jo]

... the king of Babylon has his wings plucked off and is given the heart of a man ...

Following what the liars assert, -- and personal ignorance is no excuse. Please obey the angel's instructions in 12.

Bobby Jo

 

[Bobby Jo]

Oh please. You have so much bs in your mouth your breath stinks. ...

... said the man with his mouth full.

And even worse, he's content in his own vomit.
Bobby Jo