What are we really dealing with here?

[Naomi25]

hmm, you don't think the US is perceived as head of the current world empire?

Yes. Although I think events are hovering at present that could challenge that if they were to tip one way or the other. But my remark on speculation was that...unless the Bible outright names your Country, then it all must be speculation. It has to be. It could be speculation based on strong conclusions, but it's still just best guess. So making absolute claims over who is, or isn't something, becomes a bit dodgy, in my mind, especially when you're in a conversation with others. You have to allow a little give and take over idea's...yours and there's.

well that would depend i guess on whether they seek to assimilate or remain a separate nation? But we have many recognized nations in the country USA, many even have treaties signed with the Gov etc. Black ppl are a separate nation for the most part, even if they want to assimilate, imo. But we could ignore the apartheid there and just consider "legit" nations too if you like

Naomi, i don't mind going on at length when prompted, ok, but at a certain point i would just offend by lecturing or something prolly? The diff in nations and countries is as obvious to me as the diff in earth and world, or tares and weeds, but everyone else is different i guess.

so, you say if "i" start pulling them apart, but see that men invented borders that create countries, and countries are not what the Bible talks about @ "nations." Lemme see if the "official" definitions might help; nope, they are conflated there too. So, all i can tell you is that they have been conflated to ppl for a reason, and i separate them because it is nations that are invoked in Scripture--bc countries are passing away, like they have in the recent past even, when those "countries" passed away, or changed their names or whatever, did the nations inside them all leave?

nations imply people, while countries imply leaders, kings, i guess. 1Sam8 is why we have countries now, instead of nations, most likely. so, there was a point here, let me go see what it was...next post

This way of seeing things, just doesn't make sense in today's world, I'm sorry. Look...in Biblical times 'nations' indicated people groups. So, yeah, tribes, tongues, etc. But back then nations/countries were basically the same because those of similar languages and cultures stuck together, for many reasons. Reasons of security, persecution, travel difficulties, job security that was family based. Heaps of reasons. But as the years have passed and culture has changed, so too have the "nations". Now we have people of various cultures traveling to live in other Countries, interspersing themselves all throughout the world. And we do not see these people groups acting separately towards certain things (for example Israel)...they follow their Countries lead. Well...except perhaps for Muslims, they're a world unto their own! But for the most part, the black people, as you say, or the hispanic, or Greek, whatever, that find themselves living in America...that have made America their home....they do not act according to Africa, or Central/South America or Greece and what those Countries are doing - policy wise. They act according to what America does. Mostly because of the leaders they themselves have elected. That is how today's "nations" work....we have countries, full of nationalities, that vote in leaders, who then make decisions and act on the world stage. It's not so very different to how it was back in the bible, only the mixture of ethnic peoples within a country, and the democracy governing it, rather than a King.
But by trying to hold onto the notion of thinking that nations has to mean ethnic groups, you are doing away with how everything works today. And we know that in these last days, the idea the bible shares is that "whole nations"...people groups...as a whole...will band together and move against Israel, or the Church. Otherwise it will not work! We cannot have small minorities within Countries rising up to act out independently, or else they will be squashed by the government.

 

[Naomi25]

so i ask for an absolute truth and you give me philosophy? do we need to go over the definition of Absolute Truth again?
Absolute Truth would get no argument from a Jew, iow

so let's get clear on a definition of AT before we go any further there k
"Absolute truth is something that is true at all times and in all places. It is something that is always true no matter what the circumstances. It is a fact that cannot be changed. For example, there are no round squares."

so while you might like to think that your beliefs count, they do not

Oh, come on! How on earth do you think that passage would change, or not be true at all times and places?

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible."

Are you saying that Jesus is, or at some point will NOT be the image of the invisible God? That he did not create all things, or at some point, that will not be true? And what part of any of that gives you the notion is may be conditional? Or philosophical? Could it lead to philosophical musings and ideas? Sure, truth will do that. But if philosophy is all you see in this, then I can't help but feel there is something very wrong with your understanding.

yes, i get that hope is "confident expectation," it is when this concept is paired with Death More Abundantly that i start to have issues, mostly. Iow our definitions of "salvation" and "saved" are vastly different too, i guess

I'm not sure what you mean by "Death More Abundantly".
As for the meaning of salvation and saved....um? Really?
Salvation: A broad term referring to God's activity on behalf of creation and especially humans in bringing all things to God's intended goal. More specifically, salvation entails God's deliverance of humans from the power and effects of sin and the Fall through the work of Jesus Christ so that creation in general and humans in particular can enjoy the fullness of life intended for what God has made.

I would say that under that umbrella come several reference points. "Saved" "Freedom from" "saving grace" "forgiveness of sins" "deliverance from". Any one of these words or phrases come under the definition of Salvation....what God has done for us through Jesus Christ to save us from sin.

But are you, perhaps, talking about the state of 'being' saved (as in, saved, or not saved), as opposed to salvation in general? But then it would rely entirely on the passage the word 'saved' was being used in and the context, would it not?

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, 9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, - 2 Tim 1:8-9

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, - Titus 3:4-5

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” - Acts4:12

For in this hope we were saved. - Rom 8:24a

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. - Eph 2:8-9

I would say that in many (these are not all of them) passages that speak of 'saved' in the manner of salvation (as in, not in the definition of "help!"), the word "saved" appears to fit quite well within the definition of Salvation. That being, a work of God (grace) done by Jesus Christ, accepted in faith, that saves us from the consequences of sin.

no, "if" makes it a conditional statement, sorry. It cannot possibly, ever, be considered an Absolute Truth in that form, and changing the form makes it one of your beliefs, not an AT. We call them beliefs because they cannot be proven, see.

i can agree with you that this is one of my beliefs too, but that still does not make AT. Ignoring that we define each of the concepts/terms in the passage differently anyway, right.

Ug! You are ignoring the obvious and getting hung up on language...! Look. The basic laws of science are pretty concrete, right? Well...that's what they'd say. You could say that a human being needs to breath air. That's a constant truth, right? If you found yourself floating in space, you'd be in trouble, right? You are not, currently, in space, are you? So...that particular issue, it not a problem for you. IF you found yourself in space, that truth would be frighteningly true. So, that's why I said IF. It doesn't make it less true....that truth is out there. I can warn you of that truth. IF you try and breath without oxygen in space, you will die.
God is saying that IF we don't stay with Jesus, we will die. The constant truth is that people can only be saved through Jesus. Jesus is THE only way to salvation. By hanging the whole meaning on that "if", you are changing the entire meaning of the sentence. You are suddenly saying that the "if" means God's statement is changeable.
Basically, you are saying that people could, possibly, breath in space.

ha, what do you mean by "true" here? i doubt you are asking me if it qualifies as a sentence because the syntax is correct, it includes a noun and a verb iow, right? Is it true that if the guy pulls the trigger, he will go to jail? Hardly, that remains to be seen, right. excellent example, ty

Again, you pick on the tiny throw-aways of the example (as I said could be done, but should be ignored if you wanted to get my point). Are you incapable of seeing the point behind the example, as imperfect as it was, or are you just picking on the little things because you have nothing you can say?
Personally, I tend to think the latter. While I fully acknowledge my examples are not perfect, they seem to make more sense than throwing a fairly easy to understand passage of scripture on it's head just because of an "IF" that you have read entirely out of context.

might be kinda hard if his head is gone, i guess

Again, making light of it because of....? why? You don't want to answer?
It doesn't change the fact, does it? A truth doesn't change, just because there is a conversation going on in front of it.

we're going to end up close to the same place anyway, ok, i agree that AT (God) is reflected in the Bible.

but so the nature of Scripture might become a little more clear, i'm looking for something like
"bowling balls are spheres"

Are you quite serious? Have you been at home for the last several days? There is no way we are at the same place.
"bowling balls are spheres?"
In other words, you don't want to have to work for it, take anything on faith or trust, or accept that there are some things that God will keep hidden from us. So many of the "Truths" that are found in scripture, only come when you work for it...when, like all true treasure, you dig, you sweat, you mine and you pray. If what you want is God to give you nice little pearlers of wisdom that you can easily verify with your own eyes, then it's no wonder....well. It's no wonder.

 

[Naomi25]

What "leftover time"? Historicism demonstrates that prophecy parallels history from the 1st to the 2nd Coming.

Well, I'm referring to the prophecy of 70 weeks, specifically. I know that mostly it's futurist (Dispensationalists) who hold that the last week of 7 is yet to come, but I believe that there is some variance within the school of historicism when it comes to Daniel's vision of the seventy weeks. In large part due to how people interpret when that decree went out to restore Jerusalem. Off the top of my head, there are a couple of different dates that people argue for...and then there's people calling into question the length of a year.

I don't know that I actually buy into a future 7 year period, just btw, but my point was only that there are many different views out there, and most of them do not a bad job of having decent biblical exegesis to back them up. That, to me, makes it difficult to get absolute when making statements about such things. But that's just me, and the fact that I haven't felt justified in my soul to make a call on an End Time doctrine with any certainty doesn't mean you can't. People do all the time, and I don't think there's anything wrong, necessarily with being convinced about a certain view. I suppose all i'd say is don't judge others too harshly for not sharing them...not on something that is an open handed issue.

 

[brakelite]

. That being, a work of God (grace) done by Jesus Christ, accepted in faith, that saves us from the consequences of sin
.

Could I perhaps improve somewhat on that Naomi, that Jesus saves us from sin itself, and that among other things, included the consequences?

 

[Naomi25]

Could I perhaps improve somewhat on that Naomi, that Jesus saves us from sin itself, and that among other things, included the consequences?

:)

 

[mjrhealth]

:)

Now all we have to do is leave out the religion and all will be well.

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes. Although I think events are hovering at present that could challenge that if they were to tip one way or the other. But my remark on speculation was that...unless the Bible outright names your Country, then it all must be speculation. It has to be. It could be speculation based on strong conclusions, but it's still just best guess. So making absolute claims over who is, or isn't something, becomes a bit dodgy, in my mind, especially when you're in a conversation with others. You have to allow a little give and take over idea's...yours and there's.

"like"

This way of seeing things, just doesn't make sense in today's world

it wasn't meant to, Naomi

 

[bbyrd009]

we have countries, full of nationalities, that vote in leaders, who then make decisions and act on the world stage

yes, you have countries full of leaders in the world, i agree; but my kingdom is not of this world. Not to get all whatever on you.
but i'd be careful making declarations about whom you serve at least
maybe see the diff in Erets and Kosmou, ok
bc one of them is passing away

 

[bbyrd009]

But by trying to hold onto the notion of thinking that nations has to mean ethnic groups

hmm. Sorry, didn't mean "ethnic groups" exactly. Ppl who share the same culture, maybe

 

[bbyrd009]

Oh, come on! How on earth do you think that passage would change, or not be true at all times and places?

ah, that is not the point; as i say, i even agree with you. But we call these beliefs for a reason, see. AT is a diff standard

Are you saying that Jesus is, or at some point will NOT be the image of the invisible God?

no, but i am saying that that is not AT. No one disagrees with AT, bc they cannot

all bowling balls are spheres

 

[bbyrd009]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Death More Abundantly".

well, the phrase can be searched, i didn't make it up i guess, someone beat me to it apparently, but that would be "as opposed to life, more abundantly," the way i am using it. The belief that a better life is waiting for you after literal death--the same thing ancient Chinese Emperors and Pharaohs believed, and i guess pretty much the whole rest of the world too

 

[bbyrd009]

IF you try and breath without oxygen in space, you will die.

which you can easily prove, yes; see, no one would disagree with you. If they happened to be a flat earther, the maxim could still be proven with a plastic bag. etc

 

[bbyrd009]

God is saying that IF we don't stay with Jesus, we will die.

heck, Muhammad said that, yet you likely do not allow that he knows what he is talking about.
:)

 

[bbyrd009]

Again, you pick on the tiny throw-aways of the example (as I said could be done, but should be ignored if you wanted to get my point). Are you incapable of seeing the point behind the example, as imperfect as it was, or are you just picking on the little things because you have nothing you can say?

getting your head blown off does not strike me as a little thing in that context, but i was deliberately trolling (for truth) there, yes.
perhaps a better example
i'll even try to think of one

If a Policeman was standing before someone who had a gun, and that gun was pointed at another person, and the Cop said, "If you pull that trigger, you are going to jail." Is that, or is that not, a true sentence?

 

[bbyrd009]

Are you quite serious? Have you been at home for the last several days? There is no way we are at the same place.
"bowling balls are spheres?"
In other words, you don't want to have to work for it, take anything on faith or trust, or accept that there are some things that God will keep hidden from us.

Naomi, i am not disagreeing with you, i am saying that that is not the standard for Absolute Truth

So many of the "Truths" that are found in scripture, only come when you work for it...when, like all true treasure, you dig, you sweat, you mine and you pray.

amen!

 

[Phoneman777]

Well, I'm referring to the prophecy of 70 weeks, specifically. I know that mostly it's futurist (Dispensationalists) who hold that the last week of 7 is yet to come, but I believe that there is some variance within the school of historicism when it comes to Daniel's vision of the seventy weeks. In large part due to how people interpret when that decree went out to restore Jerusalem. Off the top of my head, there are a couple of different dates that people argue for...and then there's people calling into question the length of a year.

I don't know that I actually buy into a future 7 year period, just btw, but my point was only that there are many different views out there, and most of them do not a bad job of having decent biblical exegesis to back them up. That, to me, makes it difficult to get absolute when making statements about such things. But that's just me, and the fact that I haven't felt justified in my soul to make a call on an End Time doctrine with any certainty doesn't mean you can't. People do all the time, and I don't think there's anything wrong, necessarily with being convinced about a certain view. I suppose all i'd say is don't judge others too harshly for not sharing them...not on something that is an open handed issue.

OK, lets deal with the decrees. 4 that I'm aware of: Cyrus, Darius, and two by Artaxerxes. Key is Process of Elimination.

Daniel's prophecy said specifically "...from the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem..." Yet, Cyrus' and Darius' decrees found in Ezra chapters 1-6 are limited to just rebuilding the temple (yes, Artaxerxes' name is mentioned with Cyrus and Darius in 6:14 but that is a climactic verse because at the heart of Hebrew Chiastic composition structure found throughout the Bible is the "bell curve" presentation of the climax in the middle of the story instead of the end).

In chapter 7, "in the seventh year reign of Artaxerxes" his decree not only includes the directive to rebuild the temple, but also the additional mention in verses 25 - 26 the establishment of:

• magistrates and judges - the establishment of a municipal court system
• institutions charged with teaching the "law of God" (and the king) - both religious AND secular
• municipal law enforcement - to execute penalties for violations

Artaxerxes' seventh year reign has been proven with beyond-the-doubt by extra-Biblical archaeology to by 457 B.C. It is argued that 444 B.C should be the date from which to calculate, but that was a resumption of his temporarily suspended original decree in 457 B.C.

With the elimination of the 3, we sit with 457 B.C. as the date to calculate, and incidentally, the only date that doesn't create total confusion with the rest of the prophecies. We can deal with Isaiah 44:28 afterward. What say you?

 

[bbyrd009]

Hebrew Chiastic composition structure found throughout the Bible is the "bell curve" presentation of the climax in the middle of the story instead of the end)

i got a def of "Chiastic structure," just now, but can you give us another example, for comaprison? ty

 

[bbyrd009]

This is true, but the Holy Spirit speaks to us through the written word, the scriptures

that's not what Scripture says, wadr

Every writing which is written by The Spirit is profitable

ok, i take that back. close enough i guess :)

 

[Harvest 1874]

Well, I'm referring to the prophecy of 70 weeks, specifically. I know that mostly it's futurist (Dispensationalists) who hold that the last week of 7 is yet to come, but I believe that there is some variance within the school of historicism when it comes to Daniel's vision of the seventy weeks.

I believe you are attempting to connect the term dispensationalism with futurism as though they were one in the same, this of course is not correct. The term Dispensationalism as given in the New Oxford American Dictionary is: “Christian Theology, a belief in a system of historical progression (Ah! Historicism), as revealed in the Bible, consisting of a series of stages (Dispensations) in God’s self-revelation and plan of salvation.”

From this definition it is apparent that the historian view is much more in line with the dispensationalist view than is futurism. Nevertheless there are still many futurists as well as preterist who believe in dispensationalism, even as there are Trinitarians who believe in dispensationalism.

 

[Harvest 1874]

OK, lets deal with the decrees. 4 that I'm aware of: Cyrus, Darius, and two by Artaxerxes. Key is Process of Elimination.

Daniel's prophecy said specifically "...from the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem..." Yet, Cyrus' and Darius' decrees found in Ezra chapters 1-6 are limited to just rebuilding the temple (yes, Artaxerxes' name is mentioned with Cyrus and Darius in 6:14 but that is a climactic verse because at the heart of Hebrew Chiastic composition structure found throughout the Bible is the "bell curve" presentation of the climax in the middle of the story instead of the end).

In chapter 7, "in the seventh year reign of Artaxerxes" his decree not only includes the directive to rebuild the temple, but also the additional mention in verses 25 - 26 the establishment of:

• magistrates and judges - the establishment of a municipal court system
• institutions charged with teaching the "law of God" (and the king) - both religious AND secular
• municipal law enforcement - to execute penalties for violations

Artaxerxes' seventh year reign has been proven with beyond-the-doubt by extra-Biblical archaeology to by 457 B.C. It is argued that 444 B.C should be the date from which to calculate, but that was a resumption of his temporarily suspended original decree in 457 B.C.

With the elimination of the 3, we sit with 457 B.C. as the date to calculate, and incidentally, the only date that doesn't create total confusion with the rest of the prophecies. We can deal with Isaiah 44:28 afterward. What say you?

“The Seventy Weeks of Daniel, or four hundred and ninety days, represent four hundred and ninety years, each SYMBOLIC day representing a year.

Note: The authority for using a day to represent a year comes from God himself; that is, He has made the application. (See Ezek 4:6 Compare with Num 14:34)

Likewise it should be noticed that the 69 symbolic weeks (“seven weeks and sixty-two weeks”), or 483 years, reach unto Messiah the Prince, and not to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. The Hebrew word “Messiah” corresponding to the Greek word “Christ”, signifies, The Anointed, and is a title rather than a name.

Jesus was not the Anointed, the Messiah, the Christ, until after his baptism. Compare Acts 10:37, 38 and Matt 3:16. He was anointed with the Holy Spirit immediately on coming out of the water, (the symbolic representation of his surrendering or death of his personal will, for that of the Fathers). This was when he had attained manhood’s estate, which was at 30 years according to the Law, under which he was born, and to which he and every Jew was subject until he ended its dominion by fulfilling its conditions, i.e. “nailing it to his cross.”

Therefore the 69 weeks of this prophecy reach to the time of his baptism and anointing, from which time, and not before, he was the Messiah, the Christ, The Anointed. Hence the 69 weeks, or 483 years, ended in the autumn of A.D. 29. And there that portion of the prophecy was fulfilled which says:

“From the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem (Dan 9:25), unto Messiah [the Anointed] the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two [69] weeks.” Beginning there we find the seventieth week fulfilled like the rest, a year for a day.

Most writers on this subject have commenced to count this period from the seventh year of Artaxerxes, when a commission was given to Ezra (Ezra 7: 7-14), supposed to be the enforcement of the decree of Cyrus. (Ezra 1:3; 5:13; 6:1-12) It should be noted, however, that Cyrus’ order was to build the house of the Lord, the Temple and its court wall. But there was another decree granted to Nehemiah in the 20th year of Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, which at that time were still un-repaired. (Neh 2:3-8; 6:15; 7:1) And it is from this decree “to restore and build Jerusalem” that this prophecy of Daniel should be dated.

The entire account harmonizes with this, there being but one seeming objection, in a prophecy concerning it by Isaiah, which had said of Cyrus, not only, “He shall let go my captives,” but also, “He shall build my city.” (Isa 45:13) to this apparent objection we answer thus: The word here translated “city” is “ir”, and signifies a walled place. We understand the court walls of the Temple to be referred to here; and with this the facts above referred to agree. This same word “ir” is rendered “court” in 2 Kings 20:4.

The date of Nehemiah’s commission is ordinarily stated to be B.C. 445. But Dr. Hale’s work on chronology (pages 449 and 531) and Dr. Priestlie’s treatise on the “Harmony of the Evangelists” (pages 24-38) show this common view to be 9 years short, which would give B.C. 454 as the true date of Nehemiah’s commission; and with this date Daniel’s prediction (Chapter 9 verse 25), concerning the decree to restore and build Jerusalem, agrees.

Since 69 weeks (“seven weeks and sixty-two weeks”), or 483 years, reach unto Messiah (the Anointed) the Prince, therefore from this period of 69 symbolic weeks, or 483 years, we deduct 454 years B.C. as the true date of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem; and the remainder 29 A.D. should be the year in which the Anointed (Messiah) would be manifested. This is in exact accord with the scriptures which testify that Jesus was baptized by John and received the anointing of the Spirit A.D. 29, about October 3rd, at which time he was 30 years of age, according to the true date of his birth.