I found this that may offer food for though:
Of all the controversial topics found in the Bible, none other has been so abused or misunderstood than the prophecy known as Daniel’s 70 Weeks.
Posted on 06/15/2011 10:48:43 AM PDT by TaraP
I found this that may offer food for though:
Of all the controversial topics found in the Bible, none other has been so abused or misunderstood than the prophecy known as Daniel’s 70 Weeks.
“The 70 years is in reference to a generation. As in, this generation shall not pass.”
Originally TaraP cited the 70 years as a reference to Daniel’s 70 weeks, not to that “generation” scripture.
I saw that too. Daniel’s 70 weeks is well described and is not the time between the establishment of the state of Israel. Daniel’s 70th week is the seven years that is left of the 498 years covenant between God and Israel.
George Washington also observed this event.
As for Mr. Davenport’s words on that day, - I think he sets a fine example for the rest of us to follow. i.e. We are still here, therefore we still have work to do.
You may be interested in this.
Watch for "someone" to establish a peace treaty with Israel.
How on earth do you possibly render "He shall confirm a/the covenant" (Darby/Scofield versions) into "establish a peace treaty"? When dignitaries make these so-called treaties in Scripture, the Bible calls it an "offer of Peace" (example: Deut 20:11). When God make the promise, it is called a "Covenant of Peace" with man's side always called "offering of Peace". If you say that just "Covenant" means "Peace Treaty" understand that it is totally without foundation while also contradictory to the patterns already established in Scripture.
Furthermore, in Exodus 23:32-33 we read:
You shall make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against Me.
Here is a command from God to Israel to not enter into any peace treaty that has the enemy sharing the land since it will result in them sinning against God. Yet here you say that this fictional "Peace Treaty" will enable them to rebuild a temple and blaspheme Jesus Christ's ultimate sacrifice, rejecting God's Son yet somehow God is supposed to be cool with this.
It seems to me that secular 1948 Israel has already made numerous peace treaties through the years and has indeed embraced the enemy living and voting within their camp - yet still there stands the Dome of the Rock. They still reject Jesus Christ - the Greatest Sin.
It truly is a shame that the Futurists care more about the so-called "anti christ" such that prophecies concerning Jesus Christ are rewritten to foretell and highlight the Man of Sin and speculate further about Israel blaspheming God as if both are good things. The beauty of the prophecy of Jesus Christ confirming the New Covenant in His death and Resurrection three and one half years into His earthly ministry, with the tearing of the Temple Veil in two so that the Old Covenant of works and sacrifice has been done away for once and for all in the perfect atoning work of Christ is totally trashed by the Futurists who would rather take this prophecy of Hope and Glory and pervert it into Profanity and Despair.
Sorry, I don’t recall.
It’s over, now.
Thanks for the ping!
So what was the Abomination of Desolation then in your view?
So what was the Abomination of Desolation then in your view?
The "Abomination of Desolation" (Mark 13:14) phrase is rendered in Luke 21:20-21 as "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies" so many commentators say that the AoD is the Roman Army of 70AD. Since the passage refers to the "where it ought not to be" and Matthew says "in the Holy Place", I prefer the view that it was a general of the Roman army that defiled the Holy Place of the then standing Temple.
There are many good reasons to see this as a "near" prediction by our LORD since "Jerusalem", "the Holy Place", "hills of Judea" are literal references not allegory or symbol. In view of Daniel, Classicists want to make it Antiochus Epiphanes, and to some degree I can see that, but the seventieth week, in the opinion of many, and one I share, is the period of time our LORD ministered to the people of Judah, thus Daniel probably was seeing some Roman general other than Antiochus.
To answer what I believe is a question asked rhetorically, there surely is no future physical temple, and I don't see Israel surviving as a physical nation in the Middle East (though there is really no reason for national Israel to remain or dissolve). God dispersed the Jews and like the Dispersal of Babel, is not to be reformed in its fullness. I do hold out hope that at the Last Day, that many of the original branches will indeed be grafted back in to complete the tree of Abraham made up of the OT saints and the last two millennia of Gentiles and ethnic Jews who believe in Jesus Christ.
By the chart at the website, your 70 weeks ended in 34 AD ... how could the AofD happen then in 70 AD?
By the chart at the website, your 70 weeks ended in 34 AD ... how could the AofD happen then in 70 AD?
LOL
Who is it that gratuitously adds thousands of years gap between the weeks? Of all people who should criticize the timeline - it sure as heck can't be the Futurists!
Seriously though, it really befuddles me why Futurists insist so much on rejecting the Revelation of Jesus Christ and pretend that prophecy is all about revealing the "Anti-Christ". That pattern is manifest in framing your question.
The following isn't my opinion, its pretty much the consensus of millennia of theological understanding and teaching concerning the last week in Daniel's seventy weeks. Starting the clock at 458BC we get to AD 26 the very time many accept the Epiphany where the Trinity are together kicking off our LORD's incarnate ministry. The spring of AD30 gives us the Crucixifion three and one half years into the last seven. Here is where you mistakenly apply the Futurist template to the orthodox teaching, the three and one-half years is not about the Anti-Christ or about some Abomination of Desolation, real or symbolic, the prophecy is still about our LORD and about the Covenant that He confirms. The last three and one half years is the period of time where the testament was confirmed to Israel (Acts 2:38).
Stephen's martyrdom and Paul's conversion happened the same year Jesus was crucified. In Galatians 1:18 we see that Paul meets Peter in Jerusalem "three years later". It is at this time, 33AD when Peter was given the command that the gospel was to go to the Gentiles (Acts 10-11) this is 3.5 years after the crucifixion and the formal end of the seventy weeks for Israel.
Notice, that there are no gaps, no equivocation, no adding in dates and events from outside the Bible.
I understand that the seventy weeks is absolutely critical to the foundation of Dispensationalism, so I can see why Darby and Scofield would replace Jesus Christ in Daniel's prophecy with prophecy celebrating Satan. But there is something you should privately consider about gratuitously adding a gap.
Do you think that the seventy years of captivity, and seventy weeks of Daniel's prophecy are just a coincidence to a God who arranges all things? A curious thing we find in Daniel 9. Daniel knows from the prophets that the 70 years of captivity were in return for ignoring the Sabbath years, and during this time of Captivity God would let the land heal and enjoy the Sabbaths. As this time was near completion, Daniel petitioned the LORD to beg forgiveness and pray that God, despite the wickedness of the Israelites, would end the calamity as He promised.
Now lets pretend that God did to Israel and Daniel for the seventy years what Futurists claim that God is doing now in terms of the seventy weeks - by adding a gap. If God said "seventy years" to Israel, and around the sixty-ninth year God inserted a century or two of more captivity, would we call God a liar in that captivity, as told to the prophets was not seventy years but was nearly three hundred? God would be a liar if He added an indeterminate gap, rendering the whole idea of seventy years a joke. But this is exactly what Futurists claim God is doing now - it isn't seventy weeks, its five times that many weeks (and counting).
Thus, it is folly to say that God added a gap yet meant seventy weeks when it is now three hundred and fifty plus weeks. With the Orthodox historical view of Daniel's Weeks, we have a amazingly accurate prediction that fully "confirms the covenant" and preserves perfectly the prophecy as given to Daniel.
Do you believe there will be a 2nd coming?
lol ... A simple "I don't know" would have been sufficient
I give a clear and concise and answer and the Futurist response is an insult. Typical.
To the question: Yes, but not as the Futurist describes it.
Hi Giovanna!
Thanks for pinging me to this!
It seems like Last Days are now coming into Last Hours!
GOD Bless you friend!
TaraP
Well I did ask you a specific question on the AofD ... and you didn't even mention it. So I repeat, How ... if the 70 weeks of Daniel ended in AD 34 do you support the AofD in 70 AD?
As for the 2nd coming, I am certain you do not define it as a futurist. ... My simple point was there is a gap between His first coming and His second coming ... so far that gap is 2000 years.
Prophetic postponement has happened a few times in scripture, not sure why this is so surprising to anyone.
Great points but I'm not convinced there is a "gap". In this same vision, Daniel heard that his people were to be kicked around and their land trampled on for 2300 days.
Convert 2300 days to prophetic years, begin from the command to rebuild the temple, and you arrive at 1844. This is the year the Millerites calculated to be the time of the end and of the second coming. That's only 104 years off from the year Israel became a nation in 1948. It's also a time when efforts by the Jewish people to regain their homeland took place in ernest. Even a Rothschild was involved at the time.
If instead, you start from 70 AD (the year the temple was destroyed), the end would be 2370. Lots to consider here. IMO, there are other pointers to the season Jesus described. Mathew 24 reads like today's news!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.