Search results

I happen to have one of those old reliable calculators that doesn't allow for insertion of "gap theory" values LOL

So, what does that mean?

Gabriel said the commandment would involve actions "to restore and to build Jerusalem". And here's why the decrees of Cyrus and Darius cannot be that which Gabriel spoke of in Daniel's passage: Both Cyrus and Darius made decrees that were limited to just the Jewish temple which is just one...

I fully believe "finish, make, make, bring in, seal up, and anoint" are fulfilled in Christ, and will be an outward reality upon His return. We weren't talking about that. We were talking about the AoD, which is an event that happens after Jesus' day...which means Antiochus has nothing to do...

OK, you seem to have forgotten what you said, or maybe I misread, so please correct me if I'm wrong: 1. You originally said in a reply post to another member that you like the application of the AoD to Antiochus, who lived way before Christ. 2. I said since the AoD was still future in...

Baseless platitudes are a poor substitute for exegesis. The "Remnant church" spoken of in Revelation 12:17 is clearly identified as those which "keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" which is "the Spirit of Prophecy" according to Revelation 19:10, right? Does...

No need to grope in darkness when the light is on. Here's some light: The issue is whether the "THEM" in "out of one of THEM came forth a Little Horn" refers to the "winds" or the "horns". The evidence overwhelmingly points to "them" referring to the "winds" based on syntax, grammar...

If you don't mind my asking, why did you leave the Remnant church? I myself trust only in God to get me through each day, and I'm thankful for His revelations by the Spirit of Prophecy which warn of the many pitfalls Satan has placed in our paths.

My point is that there's no way Antiochus could be the subject of Daniel's words because Jesus plainly says the fulfillment of Daniel's words - in either type or antitype - was still future. However, Rome was the type in 70 A.D. and the papacy will be the antitype in the near future with the...

You had me there for a sec, but I remembered that Gabriel doesn't say "from the time the decree is acted upon"...he says, "from the going forth of the commandment" which went forth in 457 B.C. :p

You're prolly at the mattress ball, so I'll leave this for you tomorrow. Written by a Jewish convert scholar with a degree in Ancient Northwest Semitic languages, so he should know what he's talking about - Clifford Goldstein, MBA: "Much ado is made regarding the origin of the little horn. The...

"Out of one of them" uses the pronoun "them", the gender of which can only refer to "winds", not "horns" - "winds" being the antecedent. The Little Horn comes out of one of the four directions of the compass, which was West - Rome, both pagan and then papal. Prophecy continuously moves East to...

Question: When Jesus referred to "the AoD spoken of by Daniel the prophet", did He put that event in the past or the future? Answer: "When you see (in the near future) the AoD spoken of by Daniel the prophet..." The AoD was still future when Jesus was here and was committed by the Roman armies...

sweet dreams, my dear sister in Christ!

444 is merely a "re-enstatement" of his original decree, once he was satisfied the Israelites were on the level. The decree went out in 457 B.C. :)

The little horn doesn't come out of the four horns, but the four winds. Check noun/pronoun gender agreement and you'll see. Besides, Antiochus cannot even stand in the same room with the likes of Artaxerxes, Cyrus, Darius, or Alexander the Gr8, yet somehow he's "exceeding great" beyond those...

The start of the 490 was in 457 B.C. when Artaxerxes gave command to "restore and build Jerusalem". Since they're amputated from the 2,300, they start in 457 B.C. as well.

Really? Gabriel comes to explain the 2,300 by immediately launching into the revelation about the 70, yet they have "nothing to do with each other"? And what are the 70 amputated from? Thin air?

The implication that I'm brainwashed doesn't bother me, but what does is that you've not provided any argument as to why any of that Q & A is wrong.

The problem with this...other than the fact that is does not eliminate the possibility the heptads are "days" to which the "day/year" principle would apply...is that how do you amputate 490 years from 6.5 years? Impossible.