How close is the Seven Year Tribulation?

[ronmorgen]

You said, "Nor is Christ's future "thousand years" reign just a symbolic idea..."

Maybe symbolism is the wrong word. I'll try to find the right word.

It is the use of types to represent a very real thing such as the use of wine at communion to represent Christ's blood. Let's go to Revelation 20 to demonstrate this.

I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.

There are five of these in these two verses:

key - represents access, it was probably not a physical key.

bottomless pit represents the place of the damned, it isn't an actual hole in the Earth, otherwise it wouldn't be bottomless.

great chain represents the use of spiritual authority of Christ to bind evil. If you think it was literal, then of what type of material do you think it was made.

dragon represents the Devil, and Satan as he said.

serpent represents the Devil, and Satan as he said.
What I think is that the thousand years is a type also for the present Christian age. The Greek word here means a multiple of 1000's, not necessarily one thousand. Do a study on that and it will be enlightening.


This link explains amillennial view very well, and resulted in changing my position only six months ago.
[url="http://http://www.catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp"] [/url]http://www.catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp

 

[veteran]

4. The 9:25 "seven and sixty-two" are NOT one number. If the AUTHOR had intended it to be one number, HE would have said ~sixty-nine~.

You're right, they are 2 numbers, one to mark the command to restore the temple and its finish (seven weeks), and the other from that period to the time of Christ being crucified in 29 A.D. (threescore and two weeks). When joined together, they takeup 69 weeks.

5. There is one anointed one after the seven, and a second anointed one after the sixty-two.

No, it's only two different references to the same Messiah (mashiyach).

Dan 9:25
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.
(KJV)


Dan 9:26
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)

6. The anointed one who is cut off "after" the sixty-two, is not cut off "upon" the sixty-two, but rather simply "after" the sixty-two.

Right after means at the completion of just the same. How about 1 sec. right after the 62 weeks ended? Is that enough to mark the time? Yes. Does that mean that 1 sec. it took to mark the completion of 62 weeks means a whole other week, or more? Of course not. It's easy to see what you're trying to do. You're trying to change what those 'week' periods are given to point to, just so you can try and justify your denial of the final "one week" of 7 years tribulation. You false Jews will never stop trying to dump that final one week.

7. The seventieth is NOT the tribulation duration. That duration is provided in Revelation 13 as 42 months.

Another error, showing you don't know what you're talking about. Daniel 9:27 gives 2 periods of 1260 days, which is what 7 years divided by 2 equals. To mark the first 1260 days, sacrifices will start up in Jerusalem again. The othrodox Jews in Jerusalem today have the implements ready to do just that. All they need is the OK to build their planned 3rd temple, which they already have the materials ready for. The Rev.13 42 months is about the latter half of Daniel's final "one week".

8. The ~destroyer~ does not come at the beginning, the middle, or at the end of the seventieth. He simply comes "after" the seventieth.

The destroyer, the one that sets up the "abomination that maketh desolate", will come most likely at the start of the final "one week". We know he will be here to end sacrifices by the middle of the "one week."

In fact, this chapter is so difficult to resolve, that Montgomery call it the "dismal swamp" of the Old Testament . And yet so many are willing to base their scriptural doctrines on the presumption that they absolutely understand Daniel 9.

But because Scripture confirms Scripture, and we are indeed living in the time of the end, we CAN know the interpretation.

BibleScribe

It's quite obvious you don't really know, but only want us to think you know.

 

[ronmorgen]

It's quite obvious you don't really know, but only want us to think you know.

Isn't that a judgment of motives which only God can know, you are making judgments of members instead of sticking to a presentation of of the scriptures. So I will need to leave the discussion.

I found the word we should use instead of symbolism, it is "figurative"

Revelation and much prophecy uses "Figurative" language.

1. not literal: using or containing a non literal sense of a word or words
2. representational: relating to or representing form in art by means of human or animal figures
3. representing by allegorical figures:

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

 

[veteran]

[/size]

Isn't that a judgment of motives which only God can know, you are making judgments of members instead of sticking to a presentation of of the scriptures. So I will need to leave the discussion.

Try reading Biblescribe's last statements in that post. It almost sounds like a Jimmy Durante routine like 'go' or 'stay'.

The 70 weeks prophecy given in Dan.9 is not that difficult. Certainly not as uninterpretable as Biblescribe has tried to make it.

I found the word we should use instead of symbolism, it is "figurative"

Revelation and much prophecy uses "Figurative" language.

1. not literal: using or containing a non literal sense of a word or words
2. representational: relating to or representing form in art by means of human or animal figures
3. representing by allegorical figures:

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Using "figurative" instead of 'spiritual' or 'symbolic' still won't matter, because to wrongly treat Christ's second coming as 'figurative' would create the possibility that His FIRST coming was only figurative too, and boy that would be an even larger show of ignorance by amillennialists.

 

[ronmorgen]

Using "figurative" instead of 'spiritual' or 'symbolic' still won't matter, because to wrongly treat Christ's second coming as 'figurative' would create the possibility that His FIRST coming was only figurative.

What do you mean, "Only figurative? You need to study what figurative language means. It doesn't mean it's not real. It is the use in language of a figure to represent something very real. We do this in language all the time and it doesn't mean the thing the figure represents is not real.

 

[veteran]

What do you mean, "Only figurative? You need to study what figurative language means. It doesn't mean it's not real. It is the use in language of a figure to represent something very real. We do this in language all the time and it doesn't mean the thing the figure represents is not real.

Yet many amillennialists treat Christ's second coming as 'not real', not literal, and that regardless of whether they use the word 'spiritual', 'symbolic', or... 'figurative''; they still don't believe in a bodily return of Christ Jesus back to this earth as written in God's Word (Zechariah 14 and Acts 1).

 

[ronmorgen]

Yet many amillennialists treat Christ's second coming as 'not real', not literal, and that regardless of whether they use the word 'spiritual', 'symbolic', or... 'figurative''; they still don't believe in a bodily return of Christ Jesus back to this earth as written in God's Word (Zechariah 14 and Acts 1).

Well then, don't count me in with them. I get the interpretation directly from the Lord. So I can't be lumped in with any denomination, or group.

 

[veteran]

Well then, don't count me in with them. I get the interpretation directly from the Lord. So I can't be lumped in with any denomination, or group.

Now that's using common sense, for a lot of military Chaplains and political Churches that support "one world government" are on that view. It's best to stay in God's Word with our Lord's help, and let the chips fall where they may, especially in today's times.

 

[aspen]

I am also an amillennialist who believes that Jesus's return is literal

 

[veteran]

Then let's look at what Amillenialism defines as its doctrine...

This per the Amillennialist Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D:
It should be noted that the term Amillennialism is a reactionary title in that it denies the presence of a future literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth that premillennialists affirm. However, Amillennialists do in fact believe in a millennium; what they reject, though, is the idea of a future literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth after the second coming of Christ.

According to Amillennialism, the millennium of Revelation 20:1–6 is being fulfilled spiritually in the present age before the return of Jesus Christ. Thus, the millennium or kingdom of Christ is in existence now. Amillennialists affirm that the millennium began with the resurrection and/or ascension of Christ and will be consummated when Jesus returns again to establish the Eternal Kingdom that is discussed in Revelation 21–22" (from TheologicalStudies.org).





1. Amillennialism "denies the presence of a future literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth"

PROBLEMS: Revelation, the New Testament witnesses, and the Old Testament witnesses, declare Christ Jesus' future reign on the earth with His elect priests and kings. (Rev.5; 20; 2 Tim.2; Matt.19:28; etc.) Christ's second coming back to this earth per Zech.14 and Acts 1 is about His literal return to this earth to take reign over all nations.

2. "Amillennialists do in fact believe in a millennium"

PROBLEMS: If not the "thousand years" of Rev.20 which that chapter reveals as a time of Christ and His elect reigning on earth as priests and kings, then what millennium do they admit? A major problem arises with that belief per their next admissions.

3. "Amillennialists affirm that the millennium began with the resurrection and/or ascension of Christ and will be consummated when Jesus returns again to establish the Eternal Kingdom that is discussed in Revelation 21–22"

PROBLEMS: We are NOW roughly in the 1982nd year AFTER Christ's Resurrection and/or Ascension in 29 A.D.. A Millennium equals only a 1,000 year period. Per the Amillennialist reasoning, a Millennium must last a lot longer than 1,000 years. The Rev.20 Scripture declares a period of a "thousand years", not 2,000 or more years.


But mainly, to accept Amillennialism means to assume that 'today', and since Christ was resurrected back in 29 A.D., that Christ and His elect kings and priests are already reigning on earth over ALL nations. And the prophecy of that reign is indeed over ALL nations and peoples per God's Word. Zechariah 14 even reveals that all nations in that time will be required to go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, and keep the feast of tabernacles, and that any nation that refuses, there will no rains upon their lands. There has not even been a king of Judah in Jerusalem since Jeremiah the prophet's day.

In other words, there are many, many Bible prophecies associated with the time of Christ's return to this earth and His earthly reign with His elect that show it is a complete reign over all nations and peoples, and not simply a spiritual reign from Heaven over just those who believe on Jesus Christ.

When we hear a doctrine, we must always look at it to see who it most benefits. Does it edify Christ, His Church, and The Word of God, or does it serve some agenda of man? That's what we must ask ourselves. Amillennialism does not edify Christ and His Church nor The Word of God. Why? Because it requires we look past... all the evil going on in today's world, and wrongly assume that somehow, we in Christ are now reigning over the wicked here on earth who still commit horrible atrocities, both upon us personally and upon all of Christ's Church on earth today. It is to bury one's head in the sand and try to block out what one doesn't not want to see, just in order to believe what they want to believe. It is the opposite of the saying, "to thine ownself be true." It is a vain attempt for one to try and justify evil on the earth today as being a natural part of Christ's Kingdom, and it's easy to know who's agenda that serves; it ain't our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[BibleScribe]

Hi Veteran,

Please allow the following response:

You're right, they are 2 numbers, one to mark the command to restore the temple and its finish (seven weeks), and the other from that period to the time of Christ being crucified in 29 A.D. (threescore and two weeks). When joined together, they takeup 69 weeks.

ESV
[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.

[sup]26[/sup]And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. ...

The second of the two anointed ones shall be ~killed~.


False interpretations can only account for ONE anointed one, so they use a butchered translation to sum the seven and the sixty-two as though they were one number, (which there is NO precedent for in either Scripture or any civilization). If GOD had intended ~sixty-nine~, HE would have simply said "sixty-nine". However, HE did NOT say "sixty-nine", HE said "seven", and "sixty-two", -- two distinct durations, with each having their own anointed one.

Right after means at the completion of just the same.

You argument that "at" the sixty-nine an anointed one is ~killed~ is incorrect. This did not occur either "at", or "upon", but simply "after".

Another error, showing you don't know what you're talking about. Daniel 9:27 gives 2 periods of 1260 days, which is what 7 years divided by 2 equals. To mark the first 1260 days, sacrifices will start up in Jerusalem again. The othrodox Jews in Jerusalem today have the implements ready to do just that. All they need is the OK to build their planned 3rd temple, which they already have the materials ready for. The Rev.13 42 months is about the latter half of Daniel's final "one week".

The 1,260 days has nothing to do with the seventy shibiym/shabuwa (plural, singular). If I might suggest, Scripture DOES confirm Scripture, and ALL evidence (both Scriptural and Historical) points to the Prophetic Psalms as the confirmation to the TRUE interpretation.

The destroyer, the one that sets up the "abomination that maketh desolate", will come most likely at the start of the final "one week". We know he will be here to end sacrifices by the middle of the "one week."

I believe both Scripture and History would substantiate that the destroyer "shall come" after the seventy shibiym/shabuwa.

[sup]27[/sup] ... And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."

It's quite obvious you don't really know, but only want us to think you know.

The question is not what I either do or do not know, but rather what you are willing to judge:

[sup]1 Cor 14
29[/sup]Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

... and thus far, you decline the information in order to make a correct judgment:


1. The 9:2 "understood"/"perceived" is not the simple shama, i.e., reading words, but the Solomon wisdom biyn, a much more complex discernment of the "books".

2. The "going forth of the word" is not a commandment from a man, but rather a Commandment directly from GOD.


... and of course, all other aspects of your interpretation defy both Scripture and History, as already provided.




BibleScribe

 

[BibleScribe]

The 70 weeks prophecy given in Dan.9 is not that difficult. Certainly not as uninterpretable as Biblescribe has tried to make it.

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": "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

 

[ronmorgen]

I am also an

amillennialist who believes that Jesus's return is literal

Good, it is the correct interpretation. We are in the millennium, but we are at the end of it, and Christ's final coming is eminent. The first world continues to arm the Muslim nations surrounding Israel and are about ready for Armageddon.

I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in the day of battle.
Zechariah 14:2-4

 

[BibleScribe]

... We are in the millennium, but we are at the end of it, ...

Hi Ron,

It is my understanding that mankind has had approximately 6,000 years of occupancy, (~4,000 B.C. to 2,000 A.D, which would be analogous to the six days of work). As such, one should anticipate a final 1,000 years under the reign of Jesus, during which satan is thrown into the pit, (arriving to ~3,000 A.D). However, it seems you are asserting that we are at the end of the millennium, -- which suggests that the day of rest (the final thousand years) is not accounted for.

Is this your intended doctrinal position?


BibleScribe

 

[ronmorgen]

Hi Ron,

It is my understanding that mankind has had approximately 6,000 years of occupancy, (~4,000 B.C. to 2,000 A.D, which would be analogous to the six days of work). As such, one should anticipate a final 1,000 years under the reign of Jesus, during which satan is thrown into the pit, (arriving to ~3,000 A.D). However, it seems you are asserting that we are at the end of the millennium, -- which suggests that the day of rest (the final thousand years) is not accounted for.

Is this your intended doctrinal position?

BibleScribe

Using that 7000 year thingy is not sound bible interpretation. However if you want to go there, I would say the day of rest would be eternity because that's exactly what it will be for the saints. I don't think having Satan set loose at the end of this period would qualify for rest. We are in end of the millennium, and as you've probably noticed, Satan has been set free, wickedness abounds, Islam is on the march, and the end is very near.

 

[ronmorgen]

Rev 20:2 "I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended."

Abyss means the lower parts of the Earth (Sheol). There was a war in heaven when Christ ascended, and Satan was cast down to the lower parts of the Earth. ( Rev 12:7-9 ). After that was the church age when Satan's power was broken by the blood of Christ (for those who believe)... until the thousand years were ended. (Now is that time when Satan is released and will gather the nations to fight against God by attacking Israel. This can be read about in the newspaper.)

Compare with: 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12. They are on the same subject.

The secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back (that angel) will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way (released). And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

Compare with:

Revelation 13:11-12
Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. (he came up out of Sheol after being locked in there for the better part of the millennium - means a multiple of thousands in the Greek.).

 

[[email protected]]

Much of the argument here is like a tennis or badmitten game where scripture quotations are batted back and forth instead of a ball or birdy.

The texts mentioned paint a kind of word picture which few seem to agree upon. Many believe that they'll be beamed out before things get really hot, therefore the whole topic is academic to them. They consider that they'll be safely out of the way and able to observe the game from beyond or above as the case may be.

The word pictures that scripture paints are not pretty ones and no one in their right mind would want to be around when they came to pass. Certainly a personal participation in the events of those days would require a bit of fortitude that most of us would rather not have to experience.

The big problem with all this tossing about of scripture is that its like a child's dice game. If the dice don't come up the way we want, we just throw them again until they do.
One day soon (and few doubt that day is far away), an evil man will come along seize the dice and declare that the game now belongs to him.

And then there will be trouble my friends, right here in River City.

Will there be a mark on the calendar to say "this is it, this is the beginning of trouble"?
I don't think so, and I don't think anybody else here really thinks so either.

I think we've all got a pretty good idea that we're really really close to it, if not already into it already.

All of this discussion is like the pre-game coverage of journalists before the titanic struggle begins.
Did anybody bring the nachos and soda?

 

[revturmoil]

Much of the argument here is like a tennis or badmitten game where scripture quotations are batted back and forth instead of a ball or birdy.

The texts mentioned paint a kind of word picture which few seem to agree upon. Many believe that they'll be beamed out before things get really hot, therefore the whole topic is academic to them. They consider that they'll be safely out of the way and able to observe the game from beyond or above as the case may be.

The word pictures that scripture paints are not pretty ones and no one in their right mind would want to be around when they came to pass. Certainly a personal participation in the events of those days would require a bit of fortitude that most of us would rather not have to experience.

The big problem with all this tossing about of scripture is that its like a child's dice game. If the dice don't come up the way we want, we just throw them again until they do.
One day soon (and few doubt that day is far away), an evil man will come along seize the dice and declare that the game now belongs to him.

And then there will be trouble my friends, right here in River City.

Will there be a mark on the calendar to say "this is it, this is the beginning of trouble"?
I don't think so, and I don't think anybody else here really thinks so either.

I think we've all got a pretty good idea that we're really really close to it, if not already into it already.

All of this discussion is like the pre-game coverage of journalists before the titanic struggle begins.
Did anybody bring the nachos and soda?

It's a waste of time trying to convince a pre-tribulationist of the truth. Jesus tells us the truth in Mathew 24.

Being that I don't have much time to waste. One more comment for Envolve.



The context of any passage of scripture in the bible doesn't change or determine the meaning of any words. The opposite is true.



The definition of the words in the passage helps us determine the context of the passage!

 

[ronmorgen]

It's a waste of time trying to convince a pre-tribulationist of the truth. Jesus tells us the truth in Mathew 24.

Some will respond to God's word, I did. Others will go deeper into deception as they continue to deny God's word in an effort to maintain their heresy.

 

[BibleScribe]

Using that 7000 year thingy is not sound bible interpretation. However if you want to go there, I would say the day of rest would be eternity because that's exactly what it will be for the saints. I don't think having Satan set loose at the end of this period would qualify for rest. We are in end of the millennium, and as you've probably noticed, Satan has been set free, wickedness abounds, Islam is on the march, and the end is very near.

Hi Ron,

I would respectfully disagree with your millennium doctrine for a multitude of reasons, the primary being Revelation 20:4-5.

Also in regards to the end being near, I would propose that 70 years after the recognition of the nation of Israel should be a reasonable expectation.


BibleScribe