Bobby Jo
Well-Known Member
... who is writing the history to agree with a person's interpretation of the said scriptures ...
Here's an account of a FALSE HISTORY and a FALSE interpretation of Scripture:
Regarding Revelation 17 --
“[The] five of whom are fallen [presumes John’s work to be written in] Vespasian’s reign. Titus is to come, but only to last for a short time. Perhaps the writer knew of the hopeless condition of Titus’ health. He is therefore either using a literary convention, and assuming an earlier date than is the fact to give his words the force of a prophecy concerning Titus, or, more likely, his is using here material written in Vespasian’s reign which partly suits his purpose and partly not; for there are very good reasons for thinking that this book was written, not in Vespasian’s reign, but in Domitian’s.”[1]
[1] Eiselen, Lewis, & Downey, p. 1392
“[The] five of whom are fallen [presumes John’s work to be written in] Vespasian’s reign. Titus is to come, but only to last for a short time. Perhaps the writer knew of the hopeless condition of Titus’ health. He is therefore either using a literary convention, and assuming an earlier date than is the fact to give his words the force of a prophecy concerning Titus, or, more likely, his is using here material written in Vespasian’s reign which partly suits his purpose and partly not; for there are very good reasons for thinking that this book was written, not in Vespasian’s reign, but in Domitian’s.”[1]
[1] Eiselen, Lewis, & Downey, p. 1392
... and here's another one:
“This prophesy of the seventy sevens is one of the most difficult in the entire OT, and although the interpretations are almost legion, we shall confine ourselves to the discussion of three which may be regarded as of particular importance.”[1]
Note: According to the dictionary[2] a legion consists of 3,000 to 6,000 foot soldiers, and 300 to 700 cavalry.
[1] Guthrie & Motyer, p. 699
[2] Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary - 2nd ed, p. 1035
... and if you want some more, all we have to do is go through the Book of Daniel commentators who DEFIED the angel's instructions in 12:4 & 9.
So here's another one:
Commentary on Daniel - Volume 1
Expositors are puzzled with this verse, because, as we shall afterwards see, the Vision occurred to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus’s reign. Some explain the word היה, haiah,by to be “broken;” but this is by no means in accordance with the history. Their opinion is right who say that Daniel continued to the first year of the reign of Cyrus in the discharge of the prophetic office, although expositors do not openly say so; but I state openly what they say obscurely. For since he afterwards set out into Media, they say this change is denoted here. But we may understand the words better in the sense of Daniel’s flourishing among the Chaldeans and Assyrians, and being acknowledged as a celebrated Prophet; because he is known to have interpreted King Belshszzar’s vision, on the very night on which he was slain. The word here is simple and complete — he was — but it depends on the succeeding ones, since he always obtained the confidence and authority of a Prophet with the kings of Babylon. This, then, is the true sense.
Expositors are puzzled with this verse, because, as we shall afterwards see, the Vision occurred to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus’s reign. Some explain the word היה, haiah,by to be “broken;” but this is by no means in accordance with the history. Their opinion is right who say that Daniel continued to the first year of the reign of Cyrus in the discharge of the prophetic office, although expositors do not openly say so; but I state openly what they say obscurely. For since he afterwards set out into Media, they say this change is denoted here. But we may understand the words better in the sense of Daniel’s flourishing among the Chaldeans and Assyrians, and being acknowledged as a celebrated Prophet; because he is known to have interpreted King Belshszzar’s vision, on the very night on which he was slain. The word here is simple and complete — he was — but it depends on the succeeding ones, since he always obtained the confidence and authority of a Prophet with the kings of Babylon. This, then, is the true sense.
There's no shortage of liars and their lies. But Scripture and History are TRUE, if you get past the liars.
And if I'm not mistaken, -- YOU have promulgated some false Scriptural and Historical assertions,
Bobby Jo
Last edited: