How close is the Seven Year Tribulation?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

How close are we to the seven year tribulation?


  • Total voters
    76

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Exploring The Dismal Swamp: The Identity of the Anointed One in Daniel 9:24-27
JournalJournal of Biblical Literature PublisherSociety of Biblical Literature ISSN0021-9231 (Print)
1934-3876 (Online) IssueVolume 120, Number 3 / 2001 Pages429-449 Online DateMonday, October 09, 2006



Please be aware that it was Montgomery* who accurately reflected the impossibility of an ancient fulfillment for this end-time prophecy. I merely understand that failure, versus what Scripture intended.

* Ref. Walvoord, "Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation".




And of course, a student of Scripture might also be interested in the following additional aspects:


In his book, John Walvoord writes regarding the interpretation of the seventy “weeks":


1. Per Walvoord: "...Montgomery, for all of his scholarship and knowledge of the history of interpretation, ends up with no reasonable interpretation at all., P.218

2. Per Walvoord: "...as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’", P.217

3. Per Walvoord: "...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keit and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds., P.218

4. Per Montgomery: "... efforts to obtain an exact chronology fitting into the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology.", P. 217

5. Per Walvoord: "Some amillenarians, however, use a literal year time unit for the first sixty-nine weeks but an indefinite period for the last seven years, as in the case of Philip Mauro...", P. 218

6. Per Montgomery: "... the great Catholic chronographers ... as well as those of all subsequent chronographers (including the great Scalinger and Sir Isaac Newton) have failed.. And Edward Young too, finds no satisfactory conclusion for the seventy sevens ... and leaves it without a satisfactory explanation.", P. 217

7. Per Young, regarding "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem": [/size]
"This phrase has reference to the issuance of the word, not from a Persian ruler but from God." , P. 224 -

John Wolvoord, "Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation", Moody Press, Chicago, 1971


8. Per Newton:
"We avoid also the doing violence to the language of Daniel, by taking the seven weeks and sixty two weeks for one number. Had that been Daniel’s meaning, he would have said sixty and nine weeks, and not seven weeks and sixty two weeks, a way of numbring used by no nation."

Isaac Newton, "Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (1733)", http://www.isaacnewton.ca/daniel_apocalypse/pt1ch10.html




Veteran, it seems not all is as simple as your commentators present.

BibleScribe


John Wolvoord was a Pre-tribulationalist and a Dispensationalist. I'm not either one, so you've assumed wrong.

As others have also noted on this forum, Pre-tribulationalists consistently create backward and blasphemous heresies against God's Holy Writ just in order to keep their Pre-trib lie.

Are you trying to associate anyone that recognizes there's still "one week" (7 years) to be fulfilled in the prophecy given Daniel means one has to be a Pre-tribulationalist or Dispensationalist? Associations like that are what happens when someone goes around in circles within theological centers instead using simple common sense.

 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Hi Veteran,

Please allow the following response:

ESV
[/font][sup]25[/sup] Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. ...

The "seven" depicts the first of two anointed ones.


No it doesn't, for both are the same Hebrew word for 'Messiah'. The 62 weeks (434 years) from the time the 2nd temple and Jerusalem was finished to the time of Christ's crucifixion in 29 A.D. was fact. The Scripture is not that difficult...

Dan 9:25-26
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
(KJV)

from the command to restore and build Jerusalem, and to the time of Christ was to be a total of seven weeks (7) + threescore and two weeks (62). 62 plus 7 = 69. 1 second after Christ's crucifixion was to complete the 69th week. It did. It's child's level math.

BOTH references to that 'Anointed' is to The Lord Jesus Christ, and none other.

I guess you think people here are so stupid as to believe your lie about TWO separate Messiahs in those Daniel verses!

So no, I won't allow your response, for it is obviously false. I'll not waste my time with the rest of your crazy post either.
[sup][/sup]
 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA

No it doesn't, for both are the same Hebrew word for 'Messiah'.


Daniel 9:25 the Chosen Leader: Or " a chosen leader." In Hebrew the word " chosen" means " to pour oil (on someone's head)." In Old Testament times it was the custom to pour oil on a person's head when that person was chosen to be a priest or a king.

It is an error to presume the citation used 39 times has 37 non-Jesus applications, and 2 (found ONLY is Daniel 9) Jesus interpretations:

Lev 4:3
If the priest [sup]3548[/sup] that is anointed[sup]4899[/sup] do sin [sup]2398[/sup] according to the sin [sup]819[/sup] of the people [sup]5971[/sup]; then let him bring [sup]7126[/sup] for his sin [sup]2403[/sup], which he hath sinned [sup]2398[/sup]


According to your argument apparently Jesus could have sinned, per the H4899 usage.


The 62 weeks (434 years) from the time the 2nd temple and Jerusalem was finished to the time of Christ's crucifixion in 29 A.D. was fact. The Scripture is not that difficult...


It is an error to presume the concise Feminine definition for the inconcise Masculine text, (per Young, Keil, & Kliefoth, as noted by Walvoord).


Dan 9:25-26
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
(KJV)

from the command to restore and build Jerusalem, and to the time of Christ was to be a total of seven weeks (7) + threescore and two weeks (62). 62 plus 7 = 69. 1 second after Christ's crucifixion was to complete the 69th week. It did. It's child's level math.


It is an error (i.e., violence) to sum numbers in such fashion. If the AUTHOR wanted to cite ~sixty-nine~ HE would have simply said "sixty-nine". And it's an adult level of comprehension which Young, Keil, Kliefoth, Montgomery, Mauro, Newton, and others offer that is needed.


BOTH references to that 'Anointed' is to The Lord Jesus Christ, and none other.


It is an error to presume that your commentators can defy Scripture, History, and Scholars.

I guess you think people here are so stupid as to believe your lie about TWO separate Messiahs in those Daniel verses!


Scripture, History, and Scholarship clearly DEMANDS and DEFENDS the TWO separate anointed ones (small "a"). And information is not stupid, -- but intentional ignorance is.

So no, I won't allow your response, for it is obviously false. I'll not waste my time with the rest of your crazy post either.


I never proposed that you "waste" your time with TRUTH. I only suggested that you consider it in place of the misrepresentations which you believe is true.





To All,

Please allow that the words of the prophecies were written ~530 B.C., and the lying commentators attempt to open the words which are "
shut up and sealed until the time of the end" in ~483 B.C. This is a pause of only ~50 years, which hardly takes us to the "time of the end". However, ~1948 should match the angelic instructions.

Thus one would be advised to perform NOT to the lies of men, but rather to the TRUTH of Scripture as confirmed by Scripture and the Historical record.



BibleScribe




John Wolvoord was a Pre-tribulationalist and a Dispensationalist. ...

Hi Veteran,

I don't believe I espoused ANY of Walvoords views, but simply the observations of his Scholars, -- who noted the discrepancies between the text, and any assigned historical fulfillment.

Thus you should either correct Scripture or your doctrines, for they are NOT mutually compatible. However, not everyone's beliefs are consistent.


BibleScribe
 

ronmorgen

New Member
Apr 5, 2011
75
3
0
"Hi Ron, I would respectfully disagree with your millennium doctrine."

Not a problem brother. We are told that the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Acts 17:11-12
"the primary reason being Revelation 20:4-5."

Revelation 20:4-5 says that the saints will rule with Christ. But Revelation 7:9-17 says from WHERE they will reign ( from heaven). Why do you assume they reign on Earth? They reign over the Earth as Christ does. Don't you know that the Resurrection is not into a physical body? #1 -resurrection not physical body .

Revelation 20:4-5 After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying: "Amen! Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen!" Then one of the elders asked me, "These in white robes-who are they, and where did they come from?" I answered, "Sir, you know." And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them. Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst. The sun will not beat upon them, nor any scorching heat. For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; he will lead them to springs of living water. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."

These are the saints that have gone before us.
 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
"the primary reason being Revelation 20:4-5."

Revelation 20:4-5 says that the saints will rule with Christ. But Revelation 7:9-17 says from WHERE they will reign ( from heaven). Why do you assume they reign on Earth? They reign over the Earth as Christ does. Don't you know that the Resurrection is not into a physical body? #1 -resurrection not physical body .

Revelation 20:4-5 After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying: "Amen! Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen!" Then one of the elders asked me, "These in white robes-who are they, and where did they come from?" I answered, "Sir, you know." And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them. Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst. The sun will not beat upon them, nor any scorching heat. For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; he will lead them to springs of living water. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."

These are the saints that have gone before us.


Hi Ron,

I believe there are two Tribulation populations. The first group are those who are martyred, and return with Jesus to rule for a thousand years:

Rev. 20
[sup]4[/sup] And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. [sup]5[/sup] But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.



The second population are those which you cited, having gone through the Tribulation, subsequently die, and enter eternity.


And of course Chapter 20:7 describes the final earthly battle at the end of the Millennium Kingdom, -- which arrives to the 6,000 years plus the 1,000 years for a 7,000 year total.


BibleScribe
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA


Daniel 9:25 the Chosen Leader: Or " a chosen leader." In Hebrew the word " chosen" means " to pour oil (on someone's head)." In Old Testament times it was the custom to pour oil on a person's head when that person was chosen to be a priest or a king.

It is an error to presume the citation used 39 times has 37 non-Jesus applications, and 2 (found ONLY is Daniel 9) Jesus interpretations


Context of the Scripture is what determines whether that word for 'anointed' means one of God's elect like a prophet, priest, or king, or to king Cyrus in Isaiah 45, or applies to Christ Himself. In the majority OT usage of the word, it points to king David. So a true Bible scribe would easily choose the idea of a 'king' with its usage the majority of the time. Well, Christ Jesus is The KING. And the idea of 'nagid' as 'chief leader', which is equivalent to a king, given along with 'anointed' in Dan.9:25 doesn't point away from Christ either.
And the fact that in Daniel's days during Judah's 70 years captivity to Babylon, which Daniel was then in that captivity, God had ended David's throne in Jerusalem by that time, which makes those words 'anointed' and 'king' in Dan.9:25 point all the more to Christ Jesus.

One MUST ON PURPOSE choose to point those words AWAY from Christ Jesus, which is exactly what you're doing. And that without yet even considering the facts of history about the command to build the temple and restore Jerusalem to the time of Christ's first coming and crucifixion.
Thus the error is yours, and it's a gross error in Scripture interpretation.


It is an error (i.e., violence) to sum numbers in such fashion. If the AUTHOR wanted to cite ~sixty-nine~ HE would have simply said "sixty-nine". And it's an adult level of comprehension which Young, Keil, Kliefoth, Montgomery, Mauro, Newton, and others offer that is needed.

You're trying to misrepresent a greater list of Bible scholars which refuse to go the path of Eichhorn of treating the 'weeks' going backward to the king of Babylon as that 'anointed' and then forward. That idea skews the weeks start count away from Astyges' command to restore and build Jerusalem, which is where the start of the first 7 weeks period begins.


It is an error to presume that your commentators can defy Scripture, History, and Scholars.

It's error to pick and choose from a small number of scholars to try and back up one's doctrine. But history, that's where your doctrine fails miserably, because history has already shown the 70 weeks beginning point with the command to restore and build Jerusalem in 454 B.C. And the majority of Bible scholars recognize that start point for the 70 weeks countdown, just as they also recognize the whole... 70 weeks period is given generally in Dan.9:24, but specifically defined with three separate periods in Dan.9:25-27.


Scripture, History, and Scholarship clearly DEMANDS and DEFENDS the TWO separate anointed ones (small "a"). And information is not stupid, -- but intentional ignorance is.

The majority of orthodox Jewish scholars would of course reject a Christian Bible scholar's interpretation of that 70 weeks history, but misaligning it to start with Nebuchadnezzar and end with Antiochus Epiphanes is only intentional because of orthodox Jew's refusal of Jesus of Nazareth as That Messiah. So naturally those orthodox Jews wouldn't want the Dan.9 Scripture to point to Jesus of Nazareth at all, but AWAY from Him, just like you're trying to do. And by you're doing that, you've revealed to Christian brethren here on this forum just who you're really following, ideas of orthodox unbelieving Jews.

 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
Hi Veteran,

Please permit this discussion to focus on only one point at a time. Certainly one foundational aspect is 12:4 & 9, but forgoing that debate, the next most obvious candidate would be the 9:2 "years" versus the 9:25 "weeks". As such I would again depend upon Walvoord to cite Young, Keil, and Kliefoth as observing the unusual inconcise Masculine text, which they cannot assign a duration for, and can only acknowledge that it is NOT "seven":


2. Per Walvoord: "...as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’", P.217

3. Per Walvoord: "...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keit and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.” , P.218


John Wolvoord, "Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation", Moody Press, Chicago, 1971


So the question is, -- Out of the 20 instances of this word, why did Daniel use the concise Feminine diction in ALL citations (including 2 in Chapter 10), and ONLY use the Masculine diction in Chapter 9?


BibleScribe
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Hi Veteran,

Please permit this discussion to focus on only one point at a time. Certainly one foundational aspect is 12:4 & 9, but forgoing that debate, the next most obvious candidate would be the 9:2 "years" versus the 9:25 "weeks". As such I would again depend upon Walvoord to cite Young, Keil, and Kliefoth as observing the unusual inconcise Masculine text, which they cannot assign a duration for, and can only acknowledge that it is NOT "seven":
2. Per Walvoord: "...as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’", P.217

3. Per Walvoord: "...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keit and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.” , P.218


John Wolvoord, "Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation", Moody Press, Chicago, 1971


So the question is, -- Out of the 20 instances of this word, why did Daniel use the concise Feminine diction in ALL citations (including 2 in Chapter 10), and ONLY use the Masculine diction in Chapter 9?


BibleScribe



And that "unusual sense" he speaks of is the 70 weeks prophecy employing sets of seven day periods, instead of a day for a year given in Ezekiel 4.

 

ronmorgen

New Member
Apr 5, 2011
75
3
0
Hi BIbleScibe, what were your thoughts on the resurrection into a glorious "Spiritual" (non physical) body.
1 Cor 15:35-54
35 Someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies... 42 The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA

And that "unusual sense" he speaks of is the 70 weeks prophecy employing sets of seven day periods, instead of a day for a year given in Ezekiel 4.



Hi Veteran,

If what you suggest is accurate, then certainly each of these Scholars would have found that solution. However they leave it as undecipherable:


Per Walvoord: "...as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’", P.217

Per Walvoord: "...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keit and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.” , P.218


John Wolvoord, "Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation", Moody Press, Chicago, 1971



And lacking any correct solution, the commentators give an unsolvable problem their best answer, as you demonstrate. Unfortunately, according to these Scholars, that answer is incorrect. Wouldn't it be nice to find the correct solution to this ~riddle~?



BibleScribe
 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
Hi BIbleScribe, what were your thoughts on the resurrection into a glorious "Spiritual" (non physical) body.
1 Cor 15:35-54
35 Someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies... 42 The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."



Hi Ron,

I'm not sure what you are asking, but the verse you cite sums up what I understand. -- I guess that wasn't much help, but it's the best I can offer right now!

BibleScribe
 

ronmorgen

New Member
Apr 5, 2011
75
3
0
You have complicated a very simple doctrine with multiple "second comings", and resurrections of the saints because of your need ( or rather that of your teachers) to insert a thousand years between these "comings" of Christ..

There is only one second coming when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire.
2 Thessalonians 1:7


It is synonymous with the "Day of the Lord"
Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; it will come like destruction from the Almighty. Because of this, all hands will go limp, every man's heart will melt. Terror will seize them, pain and anguish will grip them; they will writhe like a woman in labor. They will look aghast at each other, their faces aflame. Isaiah 13:6-8

The Lord Jesus will return for two very different purposes on the same day, the last day. One- to judge the world by fire, and two- to save those who belong to him. All scripture points to this being at the same time.

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:1:2

Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire," says the LORD Almighty. Not a root or a branch will be left to them. But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall.

Malachi 4:1-2

This is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:39


There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.
John 12:48
 

popeye

New Member
Jul 12, 2011
160
3
0
A tactic of "knowledgeable scholars" to skew the words of the Bible, and therefore, to alter the original intent of the words of The Bible to their POV or interpretation or theory, is to translate any word they wish according to whatever definition they need to make their point, through Hebrew-to-Greek-to-English translations over the years.

Another tactic is to use particular biblical translations, such as the KJV bible, or the New American Standard version, or the International version, etc., to make their point. One could be using the KJV Bible to make a point, and the "scholar" would return in rebuttal and say that that is incorrect because such and such a version says this, or that.

I would hope that simple interpretations of the words of the Bible would suffice for any of us laymen of The Word. When someone starts resorting to word derivations, or translation types, to make a point or prove a view, I personally immediately tune-out from the discussion.

God does not generally use scholars to dispense his knowledge ( Paul being the exception ). Scholars do more to confuse people than they do to bring light to the scriptures. Most of the time scholars offer interpretations to advance their careers or to rebut their scholarly peers. Many times they could care less about whether-or-not the common man has understanding of what they discuss.

In closing, I'm personally not impressed when someone uses word derivations to form an opinion, or prove a point.
 

ronmorgen

New Member
Apr 5, 2011
75
3
0
Greetings Popeye.

"Scholars" do more to confuse people than they do to bring light to the scriptures."


I'm sure Peter would have been baffled.
 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
Hi All,

I actually find TREMENDOUS benefit in Scholarship. Scripture says GOD is NOT the AUTHOR of confusion, thus if HE provides a given Text, -- it is inherently CORRECT. And where some Scholars find those tangibles, others overlook them -- to their ignorance and/or shame.

As such, I would observe the Daniel 9 unusual Masculine gender text; the span of the seven; the span of the sixty-two; the anointed one (small "a"); the coming of an anointed one after the seven; a second anointed one after the sixty-two; an ancient ~fulfillment~ which is false; and a modern fulfillment which satisfies each of the Scriptural dictates.

The only circumstance which offers confusion which I'm aware of, is when the Scholars venture into commentary and conclusions which are NOT true, but are their ~best~ answer to a puzzle which is "shut up and sealed", and force a fulfillment before the "time of the end". But let me stress the point that honest Scholars offer insight into the true substance of GOD's Word, and where they see no resolution, they STOP. Such is the example of Montgomery and Newton.

However, now that Israel is gathered from the nations of the earth, I would argue that the insights of the Scholars can be addressed by GOD's TRUE fulfillment in this "time of the end".


BibleScribe
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A tactic of "knowledgeable scholars" to skew the words of the Bible, and therefore, to alter the original intent of the words of The Bible to their POV or interpretation or theory, is to translate any word they wish according to whatever definition they need to make their point, through Hebrew-to-Greek-to-English translations over the years.

Another tactic is to use particular biblical translations, such as the KJV bible, or the New American Standard version, or the International version, etc., to make their point. One could be using the KJV Bible to make a point, and the "scholar" would return in rebuttal and say that that is incorrect because such and such a version says this, or that.

I would hope that simple interpretations of the words of the Bible would suffice for any of us laymen of The Word. When someone starts resorting to word derivations, or translation types, to make a point or prove a view, I personally immediately tune-out from the discussion.

God does not generally use scholars to dispense his knowledge ( Paul being the exception ). Scholars do more to confuse people than they do to bring light to the scriptures. Most of the time scholars offer interpretations to advance their careers or to rebut their scholarly peers. Many times they could care less about whether-or-not the common man has understanding of what they discuss.

In closing, I'm personally not impressed when someone uses word derivations to form an opinion, or prove a point.

Well, I think scholars can get off track - especially when they reject the big picture of the Bible and interpret a word or passage in isolation. An example is Elaine Pegels,a Princeton professor who believes that the gospels were written by competing political parties - she makes a convincing argument for people who reject the Bible as inspired, but for Christians, her theory makes little sense at all. Conversely, anti-intellectual Christians who only take the Bible literally can also get off track by losing track of the big picture in their attempt to interpret a passage or word literally in isolation. For example, the word 'fear' in reference to our proper response to God found in several places in the scriptures means 'awe', not cowardly submission. The fact is, if you are not reading the word or passage through the lens of God's love for us, you are going to make mistakes.
 

ronmorgen

New Member
Apr 5, 2011
75
3
0

I prefer the way of the prophets, all of whom received what they had directly from God.

Amos answered Amaziah, I was neither a prophet nor a prophet's son, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees. But the LORD took me from tending the flock and said to me, 'Go, prophesy to my people Israel.' Now then, hear the word of the LORD.
Amos 7:14-16

Neither Peter, nor Matthew were taught by theologians They were taught directly by God. If you are not taught by God Himself, you will never understand.

John said, The anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.
1 John 2:27

Jesus said, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things. John 14:26




 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA

I prefer the way of the prophets, all of whom received what they had directly from God.

...


Hi Ron,

Certainly direct revelation is advantageous (Ref. 2 Cor. 12:7), but it must be confirmed by Scripture and History, (as appropriate). But where GOD can provide that which you suggest, so too HE also sends Teachers (1 Cor. 12:28). So is the church to reject one over the other, or are both acceptable? And if both are confirmed, then is not GOD the provider?


BibleScribe


Well, I think scholars can get off track - especially when they reject the big picture of the Bible and interpret a word or passage in isolation. An example is Elaine Pegels,a Princeton professor ...


I would propose that anyone can abuse any aspect of life, but does that invalidate life? As such I would challenge you to interpret the significance of Scripture, as observed by Young, Keil, and Kliefoth:


3. Per Walvoord: "...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keit and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.” , P.218


... and if these are "off track", then you might possibly provide the Truth?


BibleScribe
 

ronmorgen

New Member
Apr 5, 2011
75
3
0

Certainly direct revelation is advantageous (Ref. 2 Cor. 12:7), but it must be confirmed by Scripture and History.


Revelation is imperative, even if you are learning from a teacher as so many teachers disagree. Otherwise how would you know which teaching is correct.


So is the church to reject one over the other?


No. They work together. However I would like to say that the way you teach is unintelligible, even if you have the truth. Quoting commentaries and Hebrew and Greek word origins does not help 99% of the people.
 

BibleScribe

Member
Jun 17, 2011
983
5
18
S.W. USA
...how would you know which teaching is correct.


[sup]1 Cor 14:26[/sup] How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. [sup]27[/sup] If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. [sup]28[/sup] But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. [sup]29[/sup] Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.
... the way you teach is unintelligible, even if you have the truth. Quoting commentaries and Hebrew and Greek word origins does not help 99% of the people.


I would propose that Scripture is simple. If you open the refrigerator and state the food is "cool", then you use one context of that word (i.e., the concise Feminine text). However, if you say a car is "cool" you use a different context of that word, (i.e., the inconcise Masculine text). And where Scripture CLEARLY uses the inconcise text, who is it that interprets it as though it were the concise? Is this person either ignorant of language conventions or is there an agenda which defies what the AUTHOR intended?!?

But of course, if GOD's use of the Masculine text is too difficult a concept to grasp then maybe GOD is so far above us that we can never comprehend HIS Word, and HE is simply playing games with HIS creation.



BibleScribe