How close is the Seven Year Tribulation?

[popeye]

[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.



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

With the exception of prophecy, and it's inherrant symbolism, anything written in any Bible - In my humble opinion - was so translated and so provided by God as to provide a simple understanding to anyone - be they "schooled or not schooled" - who sincerely wishes to understand it. It does not take scholars to decipher it for us. It does not take Strong's word definitions to decipher it for us, and it takes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING extra-biblical for us to gain the gist of what is being relayed to us. THAT is a FACT! Proven throughout christian history.

As to prophetic understanding....Ron Morgan may be right. Prophetic understanding may be revealed by direct teaching from the Holy Spirit only. For if it did not come in that manner, then maybe we wouldn't have 200 million different interpretations of prophecy by the multitude of well-intentioned individuals who try to interpret it. Who is the authority on earth who will finally set-straight the interpretation of prophecy? And will we listen to him when he comes?

 

[ronmorgen]

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 1 Cor 14:29-30 That is correct. However, please speak plain, simple language so us non-theologians can comprehend and weigh what you are trying to say.. Also relying so heavily on commentators does no good. None of the new testament writers did that. They always relied on and quoted scripture to support what they were saying.

 

[popeye]

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 1 Cor 14:29-30 That is correct. However, please speak plain, simple language so us non-theologians can comprehend and weigh what you are trying to say.. Also relying so heavily on commentators does no good. None of the new testament writers did that. They always relied on and quoted scripture to support what they were saying.

AMEN TO THAT!

 

[BibleScribe]

To All,

It's interesting that so many are so confused, -- but none have expended the effort the explain why the seventy shibiym/shabuwa (singular/plural) are in the "unusual" Masculine text. Do you ALL interpret the inconcise as though it were the concise? Do you simply follow what liars say? Are you as Scripture accuses, -- sheep --, which are the dumbest of animals? Is there none among you who can eat meat?

I have given insightful information multiple times which has fallen on rock.





So for those that cannot resolve the Masculine text, let's try something more obvious:


There is no precedent either in Scripture or in any society where non-decremented number are summed to obtain a total. For example, a hammer does not cost $4 plus $17 (plus tax). It costs $21 (plus tax). So if one considers Daniel 9:25, the FAULTY version (i.e., the one which is deliberately distorted to achieve a ~fulfillment~ which is NOT intended by the AUTHOR) is per the following:

Daniel 9:25 (KJV)
[sup]25[/sup]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.


However, the TRUE version is per the following:

Daniel 9:25 (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. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.


Now who among you can find a precedent for the interpretation ~seven and sixty-two~, and if not, then who will agree that the CORRECT interpretation is an "anointed one" after the seven, and a second "anointed one" after the sixty-two?



BibleScribe


PS History does not support the FALSE version, but fully substantiates the TRUE translation.

 

[popeye]

There is no precedent either in Scripture or in any society where non-decremented number are summed to obtain a total. For example, a hammer does not cost $4 plus $17 (plus tax). It costs $21 (plus tax). So if one considers Daniel 9:25, the FAULTY version (i.e., the one which is deliberately distorted to achieve a ~fulfillment~ which is NOT intended by the AUTHOR) is per the following:

Daniel 9:25 (KJV)
[sup]25[/sup]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.

However, the TRUE version is per the following:

Daniel 9:25 (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. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.


Now who among you can find a precedent for the interpretation ~seven and sixty-two~, and if not, then who will agree that the CORRECT interpretation is an "anointed one" after the seven, and a second "anointed one" after the sixty-two?

To correctly establish a time frame for Daniel's 70-weeks prophecy, all verse must be considered ( 24-27 ). And there shall be continued disagreement over what dates are actually being relayed there....if it even matters. However, the 69 weeks of years time span is somewhat irrelevant to this end times generation. Verses 26 & 27 are what we must be concerned with in this generation. And in those verses it is clearly alluding to the AC ( the prince that shall come ) and his "covenant with many for ONE WEEK". And "one week" of years is easily identifiable as 7 years...even to a child.

I also might note that within verse 26 a clue is left us as to the national identity of the AC. Anyone care to take a stab at what that hint / clue may be?

 

[wanelad]

Hi all I am new here and thought this was as good a place to post as any

I believe we are in exciting times whether or not we can put time frames up is another matter but there are certainly end time prophecies in the making right now.

Personally I cannot understand why some almost are offended when others speak of Christ's coming, isn't it something we should all be getting excited about? I certainly find it exciting.

Anyone seen the movie the Daniel Project? not exactly cheap but great movie

 

[BibleScribe]

To correctly establish a time frame for Daniel's 70-weeks prophecy, all verse must be considered ( 24-27 ). And there shall be continued disagreement over what dates are actually being relayed there....if it even matters. However, the 69 weeks of years time span is somewhat irrelevant to this end times generation. Verses 26 & 27 are what we must be concerned with in this generation. And in those verses it is clearly alluding to the AC ( the prince that shall come ) and his "covenant with many for ONE WEEK". And "one week" of years is easily identifiable as 7 years...even to a child.

I also might note that within verse 26 a clue is left us as to the national identity of the AC. Anyone care to take a stab at what that hint / clue may be?

Hi Popeye,

I would most strongly advise against treating Scripture as though it were a cafeteria. If you ignore 9:2, and verse 25 then you have absolutely NO basis for interpreting verses 26 & 27. Drafting calls the foundation the "datum", which you've ignored. Thus all aspects are without reference, except by imagination. And because you refuse the literal text, and presume the inconcise as though it were the concise (whether 7 "shibiym"; 62 shibiym; or the 70th shabuwa) you risk grave error.

So before you consider who or what verse 26 offers, you might reconsider a "datum".





To All,

The challenge still stands:


Now who among you can find a precedent for the interpretation ~seven and sixty-two~, and if not, then who will agree that the CORRECT interpretation is an "anointed one" after the seven, and a second "anointed one" after the sixty-two?


BibleScribe

 

[BibleScribe]

To All,

It is certainly naive to think that Hebrew or Greek translates directly to English: "one week" of years is easily identifiable as 7 years...even to a child.

Take for example the following exchange:


John 21

[sup]15[/sup] When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

[sup]16[/sup] Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

[sup]17[/sup] The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.



Does anyone know the TRUE discourse? Did Jesus really ask Peter the same question three times? Or did Peter give a different answer than what Jesus asked in the first two instances; and Jesus asked a DIFFERENT question in the third, -- in which Peter replied consistently for all three queries?



The lesson here is to cease drinking milk and start eating meat, -- specifically in Daniel 9.

BibleScribe

 

[aspen]

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

I wasn't trying to invalidate scripture, I was trying to say that liberal theologians are not the only people who can get off track when interpreting the Bible. The interpretation you provided is reasonable.

 

[ronmorgen]

Hi all I am new here and thought this was as good a place to post as any

I believe we are in exciting times whether or not we can put time frames up is another matter but there are certainly end time prophecies in the making right now.

Personally I cannot understand why some almost are offended when others speak of Christ's coming, isn't it something we should all be getting excited about? I certainly find it exciting.

Anyone seen the movie the Daniel Project? not exactly cheap but great movie

Welcome wanelad , I hope you are blessed with your time here. I too am longing for Christ's coming. Come quickly Lord Jesus.

 

[BibleScribe]

... The interpretation you provided is reasonable.

For anything to be "reasonable" then it must be defensible. So where Scripture DEMANDS that there be an "anointed one" after the seven shibiym and a second "anointed one" after the sixty-two, then did Jesus have a brother? Did GOD have TWO Sons? Or exactly who are these anointed ones? :blink:



BibleScribe

 

[popeye]

The lesson here is to cease drinking milk and start eating meat, -- specifically in Daniel 9.

BibleScribe

No, the lesson here is that what is past is...well....past. This generation needs to know their future, and quite frankly, you are laboring over a section of Daniel that has been fulfilled. There is ample corroborating prophetic scripture that shows two sets of 3.5 year periods ( or 42 months, 1260 days ) that confirms a final 7 - year period yet to be fulfilled, as per verse 27. Other evidence within the pages of Daniel outside of Chapter 9, and within other prophetic books, also confirm a 7 - year period of unfulfilled prophecy. However, I'll leave you laboring over what was, while I focus on what is to come.

On a personal note, BibleScribe, your debate style and sentence structure seems awfully familiar to me. Have you ever debated scripture on a forum formerly called "thendtimes.com"?

 

[BibleScribe]

No, the lesson here is that what is past is...well....past. This generation needs to know their future, and quite frankly, you are laboring over a section of Daniel that has been fulfilled. ...

Patton was convinced that he lived former lives from ancient to modern (i.e., Civil War). And you are convinced of an ancient fulfillment which is also non-existent. For if these were indeed ancient then you could present and defend them, but all you offer is your personal assurance. On the other hand I present and defend what Scripture REALLY SAYS, and what History REALLY FULFILLS.

Thus one house is built on sand, and the other on the rock of GOD's Word.



BibleScribe

 

[BibleScribe]

To All,

It's such a simple evaluation, one which 1 Cor 14:29 says the church should judge:

[sup]29[/sup] Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.



Unfortunately it appears the only responses to this tangible aspect of Scripture is divergence from the issue at hand. On one side the translators have twisted Scripture to achieve an agenda driven ~fulfillment~; on the other side Scripture is presented as it should be. And this audience cannot judge which of the two is correct:

Daniel 9:25 (KJV)
[sup]25[/sup]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.

Daniel 9:25 (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. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.





So once again I ask:

Now who among you can find a precedent for the interpretation ~seven and sixty-two~; and if not, then who will agree that the CORRECT interpretation is an "anointed one" after the seven, and a second "anointed one" after the sixty-two?


BibleScribe

 

[popeye]

Now who among you can find a precedent for the interpretation ~seven and sixty-two~; and if not, then who will agree that the CORRECT interpretation is an "anointed one" after the seven, and a second "anointed one" after the sixty-two?


BibleScribe

Then from your interpretation, tell us directly...the date the first anointed one came ( basing that date on 454BC as the date of the commandment ), and the date the second anointed one came, and who the anointed ones are. And then tell us if the final week is history or future.

 

[dismas]

To All,

It's interesting that so many are so confused, -- but none have expended the effort the explain why the seventy shibiym/shabuwa (singular/plural) are in the "unusual" Masculine text. Do you ALL interpret the inconcise as though it were the concise? Do you simply follow what liars say? Are you as Scripture accuses, -- sheep --, which are the dumbest of animals? Is there none among you who can eat meat?

I have given insightful information multiple times which has fallen on rock.





So for those that cannot resolve the Masculine text, let's try something more obvious:


There is no precedent either in Scripture or in any society where non-decremented number are summed to obtain a total. For example, a hammer does not cost $4 plus $17 (plus tax). It costs $21 (plus tax). So if one considers Daniel 9:25, the FAULTY version (i.e., the one which is deliberately distorted to achieve a ~fulfillment~ which is NOT intended by the AUTHOR) is per the following:

Daniel 9:25 (KJV)
[sup]25[/sup]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.


However, the TRUE version is per the following:

Daniel 9:25 (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. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.


Now who among you can find a precedent for the interpretation ~seven and sixty-two~, and if not, then who will agree that the CORRECT interpretation is an "anointed one" after the seven, and a second "anointed one" after the sixty-two?



BibleScribe


PS History does not support the FALSE version, but fully substantiates the TRUE translation.

I agree with you that your correction makes more sense to me. But I don't understand your saying that there is "another anointed one" after the 62. It doesn't say that. Or maybe I'm missing something.

But let's just go with what you've stated, which I agree with. The anointed one comes after 7 weeks/ 49 years from the going out of the word to restore Jerusalem. Israel took over all of Jerusalem from 6-5-67 through 6-10-67 in the Six Day War. 1967 + 49 years = 2016. Restoring Jerusalem, ritually, would be on June 5, 1967 or just after having taken it back, June 11, 1967.

So, either 6-5-16 or 6-11-16. Subtract 7 years to get the beginning of the Tribulation. Is there an agreement deal in that timeframe?

Yes. There is a security agreement between the EU and Israel on 6-11-09. See it for yourself (the dates are in day/ month/ year format), the one with the asterix (meaning the treaty was made but has not entered force yet, presumably it is waiting for the antichrist's signature). http://ec.europa.eu/...ntryName=Israel

http://ec.europa.eu/...e&treatyId=7804

 

[BibleScribe]

Then from your interpretation, tell us directly...the date the first anointed one came ( basing that date on 454BC as the date of the commandment ), and the date the second anointed one came, and who the anointed ones are. And then tell us if the final week is history or future.

Hi Popeye,

You miss the merit of Scripture in your question. Young observed that issuance of the "word" is NOT by man, but by GOD. So where you presume and edict from the Medo/Persian Empire, Scripture itself provides that instruction And to be a clear as I can at this moment, that issuance IS NOT ANCIENT, IT'S MODERN, -- in compliance with Daniel 12:4 & 9.


So your question should really be: ~Where does Scripture provide the dictate to raise the ANCIENT GATES and ANCIENT DOORS?!?~


BibleScribe

 

[BibleScribe]

Hi Dismas (formerly Aspen),

I agree with you that your correction makes more sense to me. But I don't understand your saying that there is "another anointed one" after the 62. It doesn't say that. Or maybe I'm missing something.

I thought it obvious to most associated with this discussion were familiar with the verse as cited and the subsequent verse, now provided:

Daniel 9:25 (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. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. [sup]
[/sup]Daniel 9:26 (ESV)
[sup]26[/sup]And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. ...

Thus the first anointed one after the seven, and a second anointed one after the sixty-two, -- which sums to TWO anointed ones.

But let's just go with what you've stated, which I agree with. The anointed one comes after 7 weeks/ 49 years from the going out of the word to restore Jerusalem. Israel took over all of Jerusalem from 6-5-67 through 6-10-67 in the Six Day War. 1967 + 49 years = 2016. Restoring Jerusalem, ritually, would be on June 5, 1967 or just after having taken it back, June 11, 1967.

As I also explained to "Popeye", I think you missed the issuance of the WORD from GOD to establish and rebuild Jerusalem. -- It's kinda like starting a fire where you need fuel, air, and ignition, but I would observe that you do not possess those three, or even two, or even one. You may need to consult with a professional.

So, either 6-5-16 or 6-11-16. Subtract 7 years to get the beginning of the Tribulation. Is there an agreement deal in that timeframe?

Yes. There is a security agreement between the EU and Israel on 6-11-09. See it for yourself (the dates are in day/ month/ year format), the one with the asterix (meaning the treaty was made but has not entered force yet, presumably it is waiting for the antichrist's signature). http://ec.europa.eu/...ntryName=Israel

http://ec.europa.eu/...e&treatyId=7804

I certainly do not fault someone for having an hypothesis, but GOS's Word must be foundational to any premise and solution.


Dismas, GOD is aware of what we need to understand HIS World. Just as we need three resources to make fire, so too GOD provides each of those Prophetic resources to make an interpretation. The only difference is where GOD says to wait until the end time to attempt such an effort (i.e., swim to dry land), most attempt this from where they are (i.e., still in the water). So now that we have traversed world history (i.e., are on dry land, -- as of ~1948) all that's necessary re the Prophetic resources, and a simple understanding of world history.



It's really quite simple once you know GOD's resources.

BibleScribe

 

[BibleScribe]

To All,

Please be aware of the following Scriptural resources for this Daniel 9 seventy shibiym/shabuwa (plural/singular):

1. Daniel 9:2 specifies "years". -- This is a clue.

2. Daniel 9:2 does not use the simple shama to perceive the prophecy of Jeremiah as though reading that book, but rather the Soloman biyn to perceive the prophecy in the BOOKS.-- This is another clue.

3. Daniel 9:25 "going forth of the word" does NOT have the inference of any edict from man, but rather and edict directly from GOD. -- This is another clue.

4. The Daniel 9:25 seven is one duration with an anointed one "coming" after that duration. -- And another clue.

5. The Daniel 9:25 - 26 sixty-two weeks is a second duration with a second anointed one who is cut off after that duration. -- Still another clue.

6. The "weeks"/"week" are the inconcise Masculine gender text, which are specifically NOT 490 years. -- And yet another clues.

7. The second anointed one who is cut off is not killed upon the sixty-two, but simply AFTER. -- The clues keep on coming.

8. The destroyer does not come at the beginning, middle, or upon the end of the seventieth shabuwa, but "shall come" after the seventieth shabuwa. -- You can't handle these clues.

9. The seven, the sixty-two, the seventieth, and after the seventieth are chronologically connected, with NO ~2,000 year gaps. -- And still more clues.

10. This prophecy is shut up and sealed until the time of the end, which is approximate to 1948. -- The final clue which I've identified.




The question to anyone who asserts an interpretation, is can your doctrine meet each of the above criteria? And if not, then is there an interpretation which complies with each and every specific cited above?


BibleScribe

 

[Duckybill]

The 'Tribulation' has not started yet. When it does, God's people won't have to be discussing IF it has started. They will know when the Devil gets here.

Rev 12:12 ESV

Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”

You won't have to wonder.