Is The Vatican >Mystrey Babylon?

[Jay Ross]

What or who is Jeremiah 50:39 referring unto?
What or who is Isaiah 61:4 referring unto?

And no, I do not see it as an "infinite" time span. For that would be illogical. However, to attempt to define an "age" as being around a thousand, is also illogical from my perspective. For you have nothing substantial to base that upon. It is again, conjecture.

However Richard, in your paraphrasing of Jer 50:39 you wrote: -

I am quite sure that I read it basically the same as you:

Jer 50:39 Therefore the wild beasts of the desert with the wolves shall dwell there, and the ostriches shall dwell therein: and it shall be no more inhabited for ever; neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation.

where "from generation to generation" is an infinite expression with no end in sight.

The conjecture is based on the following: -

If Isaac was born at the very beginning of the Third Age, then there are 2,048 full years between the creation of Adam and the birth of Isaac.

If King David was born at the beginning of the fourth Age then there was around 1,024 years within the bounds of story telling accuracy between Isaac's birth and David's birth.

If the little while period that Satan is let loss at the end of the Millennium Age is around 25 years plus or minus a small number of years, then the length of the Millennium Age would also be around 1,024 years.

I have accepted that an age is probably around 1,024 years long.

If the end of the 490 years that Israel was given to stop their idolatrous sinning coincided with the birth of Christ in, let us say 4 BC then we are presently approaching the, 2022 years since then and the two ages that the iniquities of the fathers will be visited upon their children and the children's children.

Given the above coincidences, it is fairly safe to state that an age in all probabilities is a number of years, let us say 20-25 years longer than 1,000 years.

Now, I do accept that the above is conjecture on my part but as the years tick over as to when Armageddon will occur, relative to 4 BC, and the end of the 2,300 years of the heathen gentiles trampling the Sanctuary is complete, the possibility of my conjecture look more and more promising.

Shalom

 

[Richard_oti]

However Richard, in your paraphrasing of Jer 50:39 you wrote: -

where "from generation to generation" is an infinite expression with no end in sight.

Actually, that was not a paraphrase. It was a direct quote from the 1901 ASV.

The conjecture is based on the following: -

If Isaac was born at the very beginning of the Third Age, then there are 2,048 full years between the creation of Adam and the birth of Isaac.

If King David was born at the beginning of the fourth Age then there was around 1,024 years within the bounds of story telling accuracy between Isaac's birth and David's birth.

If the little while period that Satan is let loss at the end of the Millennium Age is around 25 years plus or minus a small number of years, then the length of the Millennium Age would also be around 1,024 years.

If, if, if. IOW: Nothing more than supposition.

From creation to the flood could just as well be reckoned as an "age". Thus some 1,656 years. In the above, you have offered nothing to explain or justify those points as an "age".

I have accepted that an age is probably around 1,024 years long.

Based upon what? That there are 1.024 bytes in a kilobyte.

If the end of the 490 years that Israel was given to stop their idolatrous sinning coincided with the birth of Christ in, let us say 4 BC

Stop. The "anointed one" was cut off after seven and 62 weeks.

It was the prince that would destroy the city and the sanctuary that made up the 70th week. In the midst of that week, it was this prince that caused sacrifice and offering to cease.

Further, 4 BCE is still speculation, for it could have been as early as 7 BCE.

<small snip>

Given the above coincidences

Coincidences? I don't see any "coincidences". Only supposition and speculation.

<small snip>

Now, I do accept that the above is conjecture on my part

I'll give you credit in admitting that.

but as the years tick over as to when Armageddon will occur, relative to 4 BC, and the end of the 2,300 years of the heathen gentiles trampling the Sanctuary is complete, the possibility of my conjecture look more and more promising.

Except that the 2,300 evenings and mornings are history. They were completed circa 160 BCE when the sanctuary was cleansed / made right. From which came the "feast of the dedication" that we see in John 10:22.

And as for Jeremiah 50:39 and the phrase `ad_dor va-dor [even to generation and generation]: It is qualified by the preceding phrase: ve-lo'_teshev `od la-netzakh ve-lo' tishkon ; and not inhabited again to forever and not shall be dwelt in

Unlike Isaiah 61:4 in which they rebuilt the and restored the ruined cities that were devastated of generation and generation.

Thus why I asked previously:

What or who is Jeremiah 50:39 referring unto?
What or who is Isaiah 61:4 referring unto?

 

[Jay Ross]

Actually, that was not a paraphrase. It was a direct quote from the 1901 ASV.<snip>

Thus why I asked previously:

What or who is Jeremiah 50:39 referring unto?
What or who is Isaiah 61:4 referring unto?

Jeremiah 50 39 is referring to the land of the Chaldeans which was made desolate and was devastated by one of the split Grecian Empires after the death of Alexandra the Great.

Isaiah 64:4 is referring to the land of Canaan and its restoration after the redemption of Israel in our near future when the house are rebuilt once again.

 

[Jay Ross]

Actually, that was not a paraphrase. It was a direct quote from the 1901 ASV.

The understanding of Jeremiah 50:39 is very dependent on the understanding of H:5331, which is found in this verse as the Hebrew word לָנֶ֔צַח lā·ne·ṣaḥ. The Strong definition from

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance ( Strong's Hebrew: 5331. נֵ֫צַח (netsach) -- eminence, enduring, everlastingness, perpetuity )

always, constantly, end, nevermore, perpetual, strength, victory

Or netsach {nay'-tsakh}; from natsach; properly, a goal, i.e. The bright object at a distance travelled towards; hence (figuratively), splendor, or (subjectively) truthfulness, or (objectively) confidence; but usually (adverbially), continually (i.e. To the most distant point of view); --alway(-s), constantly, end, (+ n-)ever(more), perpetual, strength, victory.

If it is a figurative, then when it is linked with Dowr which is a time element in the sentence, then it is speaking of a finite time which will be travelled towards as defined by the "dō·wr wā·ḏō·wr" expression. If we agree that the Land of the Chaldeans was made desolate by one of the Grecian empire around 115 BC, then it comes back to life after WW1.

<snip>
Stop. The "anointed one" was cut off after seven and 62 weeks.

It was the prince that would destroy the city and the sanctuary that made up the 70th week. In the midst of that week, it was this prince that caused sacrifice and offering to cease.

Further, 4 BCE is still speculation, for it could have been as early as 7 BCE.

The Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy contains a number of prophecies which are not linked nor do they cover the same time period. Daniel 9:24 cover the 490 years allocate to Israel to repent of their idolatrous behaviour after which God undertook after the completion of the 490 years allocated to israel to stop sinning to introduce a new means of atonement for all people when he undertook to: -

"To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy."

Now the time span for Daniel 9:25 is totally independent of the time span for Daniel 9:24, however, when the anointed one is cut off, apparently with nothing, He achieved the above listed outcomes.

You then go on to offer up conjecture on your part concerning when the 70 week, i.e. Daniel 9:27, will occur. Your statement suggests that it has in our past, whereas I would suggest that it is still a distant future event.

Concerning the year when Christ was born, I agree with you that the actual year in which Christ was born has not been nailed down to a particular year as yet and as such until the end time events begin to unfold, we can only suggest which year is a possibility as to when they will occur.

As a side issue, the Hindu calendar tells us that we are in the year 2074 from memory, and there is no more prophecy within the Hindu holy writings after the year 2100 on their calendar. A coincidences, perhaps, but it does suggest that perhaps we should be considering whether or not there is a convergence for prophecy within the OT around the same time, i.e. around 2044 AD.

Except that the 2,300 evenings and mornings are history. They were completed circa 160 BCE when the sanctuary was cleansed / made right. From which came the "feast of the dedication" that we see in John 10:22.

Again that is conjecture on your part that it was referring to 2,300 days and not 2,300 years as I am suggesting. For me, Armageddon and the drawing to a close of the Sanctuary being trampled on by the Heathen Gentiles for 2,300 years seems to be coming together and meeting at the same point in time.

 

[Richard_oti]

The understanding of Jeremiah 50:39 is very dependent on the understanding of H:5331, which is found in this verse as the Hebrew word לָנֶ֔צַח lā·ne·ṣaḥ.

Do you see the lamed? It is the preposition lamed, the "la" in that which you quote above. In this case, it works to form an adverbial expression.

The Strong definition from

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance ( Strong's Hebrew: 5331. נֵ֫צַח (netsach) -- eminence, enduring, everlastingness, perpetuity )

always, constantly, end, nevermore, perpetual, strength, victory

Or netsach {nay'-tsakh}; from natsach; properly, a goal, i.e. The bright object at a distance travelled towards; hence (figuratively), splendor, or (subjectively) truthfulness, or (objectively) confidence; but usually (adverbially), continually (i.e. To the most distant point of view); --alway(-s), constantly, end, (+ n-)ever(more), perpetual, strength, victory.

I notice that which you highlight above. However, what does your Strong's say with regard to adverbially?

This is why, while Strong's is a good basic tool, it is so misused by those who do not have at least a basic knowledge of the language.

If it is a figurative, then when it is linked with Dowr which is a time element in the sentence, then it is speaking of a finite time which will be travelled towards as defined by the "dō·wr wā·ḏō·wr" expression. If we agree that the Land of the Chaldeans was made desolate by one of the Grecian empire around 115 BC, then it comes back to life after WW1.

However, it is not "if" as you state above, nor is it "figurative".

Jer 50:40 As when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbor cities thereof, saith YHVH, so shall no man dwell there, neither shall any son of man sojourn therein.

Do you also expect the literal and actual cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to "come back to life"?

For the city of Babylon is compared in v40 to Sodom and Gomorrah. Thus the city of Babylon continues to lay in ruin to this very day.

The Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy contains a number of prophecies which are not linked nor do they cover the same time period. Daniel 9:24 cover the 490 years allocate to Israel to repent of their idolatrous behaviour after which God undertook after the completion of the 490 years allocated to israel to stop sinning to introduce a new means of atonement for all people when he undertook to: -

"To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy."

Now the time span for Daniel 9:25 is totally independent of the time span for Daniel 9:24, however, when the anointed one is cut off, apparently with nothing, He achieved the above listed outcomes.

Daniel 9:25 ; know and discern. It is from that decree, that the 7 and 62 weeks commence. Of which, the 70 week immediately follows.

You then go on to offer up conjecture on your part concerning when the 70 week, i.e. Daniel 9:27, will occur. Your statement suggests that it has in our past, whereas I would suggest that it is still a distant future event.

Yet, under Rome, the city and sanctuary were destroyed.

<snip>

As a side issue, the Hindu calendar tells us that we are in the year 2074 from memory, and there is no more prophecy within the Hindu holy writings after the year 2100 on their calendar. A coincidences, perhaps, but it does suggest that perhaps we should be considering whether or not there is a convergence for prophecy within the OT around the same time, i.e. around 2044 AD.

Well, I guess it only makes sense to refer to the Hindu calendar now since the Mayan calendar was a bust. Since when do we interpret the things of YHVH through outside sources? May as well use Goethe's Mephisto to interpret the things of YHVH.

Again that is conjecture on your part that it was referring to 2,300 days and not 2,300 years as I am suggesting. For me, Armageddon and the drawing to a close of the Sanctuary being trampled on by the Heathen Gentiles for 2,300 years seems to be coming together and meeting at the same point in time.

"evenings and mornings". What "sanctuary" is being trampled by "heathen gentiles" today? The sanctuary was destroyed.

Under Greece, which is the one under whom the 2,300 evenings and mornings occurred, the sanctuary was brought low, not destroyed. The sanctuary and the host were trodden underfoot. At the end of the 2,300 evenings and mornings, the sanctuary was cleansed / made right.

Which, is the origin of the "Feast of Dedication" as seen in John 10:22.

Of which, what does your Strong's say with regard to the word "dedication" in John 10:22?

 

[Jay Ross]

Do you see the lamed? It is the preposition lamed, the "la" in that which you quote above. In this case, it works to form an adverbial expression.




I notice that which you highlight above. However, what does your Strong's say with regard to adverbially?

This is why, while Strong's is a good basic tool, it is so misused by those who do not have at least a basic knowledge of the language.




However, it is not "if" as you state above, nor is it "figurative".

Jer 50:40 As when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbor cities thereof, saith YHVH, so shall no man dwell there, neither shall any son of man sojourn therein.

Do you also expect the literal and actual cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to "come back to life"?

For the city of Babylon is compared in v40 to Sodom and Gomorrah. Thus the city of Babylon continues to lay in ruin to this very day.




Daniel 9:25 ; know and discern. It is from that decree, that the 7 and 62 weeks commence. Of which, the 70 week immediately follows.




Yet, under Rome, the city and sanctuary were destroyed.

<snip>



Well, I guess it only makes sense to refer to the Hindu calendar now since the Mayan calendar was a bust. Since when do we interpret the things of YHVH through outside sources? May as well use Goethe's Mephisto to interpret the things of YHVH.




"evenings and mornings". What "sanctuary" is being trampled by "heathen gentiles" today? The sanctuary was destroyed.

Under Greece, which is the one under whom the 2,300 evenings and mornings occurred, the sanctuary was brought low, not destroyed. The sanctuary and the host were trodden underfoot. At the end of the 2,300 evenings and mornings, the sanctuary was cleansed / made right.

Which, is the origin of the "Feast of Dedication" as seen in John 10:22.

Of which, what does your Strong's say with regard to the word "dedication" in John 10:22?

Richard, you argue for a particular outcome. Perhaps it would be good for you to reveal to me your understanding, i.e. is it a pre-trib position that you hold to or is it some other theory/understanding that you have. I have seen that you support a Reformation position that the fourth beast is the Roman Empire, a position that I do not subscribe to. Thanks.

 

[Richard_oti]

Richard, you argue for a particular outcome.

Actually no. I am attempting to show that the 2,300 evening and mornings were under Greece, and have no part of anything future to us.

OTOH: Couldn't the same be said of you, that you are arguing for a coming outcome.

Perhaps it would be good for you to reveal to me your understanding

I think I have written quite a bit that reveals my so called understandings.

i.e. is it a pre-trib position that you hold to or is it some other theory/understanding that you have.

That isn't pertinent to this discussion from my perspective. From my perspective, this appears to be an attempt to redirect the direction this has been going.

However, to answer to your question in so that you won't think that I am attempting to side-step: I am post -trib. However, there is more to it than simply that which I shall not go into here.

I have seen that you support a Reformation position

Actually no. I don't even know what that position is. Rather than to attempt to force things upon / into the text and the reading thereof. Once upon a time, I stayed away from these things for a time, then when I re-approached it, I read the text according to the pshat [plain and simple] reading of it, and allowed the text to speak for itself. It's amazing how much easier and clearer it all is when one takes that approach without attempting to read into the text the so called teachings of men.

that the fourth beast is the Roman Empire, a position that I do not subscribe to. Thanks.

Yet, the abomination of desolation that Jesus spoke of, and the city and the sanctuary being destroyed, did not occur under Greece. They were clearly done under Rome.

And yes, I have heard all the so called arguments for there being a dual or triune fulfillment of such. From my perspective, they don't hold water for one, and I have seen the text tortured to attempt to make dual and triune fulfilments fit just about anything.


Edit: @bbyrd009 @KBCid : With this line of posting, I shall consider fulfilled that which I said I would do elsewhere with regard to another.

 

[Jay Ross]

Actually no. I am attempting to show that the 2,300 evening and mornings were under Greece, and have no part of anything future to us.

OTOH: Couldn't the same be said of you, that you are arguing for a coming outcome.




I think I have written quite a bit that reveals my so called understandings.




That isn't pertinent to this discussion from my perspective. From my perspective, this appears to be an attempt to redirect the direction this has been going.

However, to answer to your question in so that you won't think that I am attempting to side-step: I am post -trib. However, there is more to it than simply that which I shall not go into here.




Actually no. I don't even know what that position is. Rather than to attempt to force things upon / into the text and the reading thereof. Once upon a time, I stayed away from these things for a time, then when I re-approached it, I read the text according to the pshat [plain and simple] reading of it, and allowed the text to speak for itself. It's amazing how much easier and clearer it all is when one takes that approach without attempting to read into the text the so called teachings of men.




Yet, the abomination of desolation that Jesus spoke of, and the city and the sanctuary being destroyed, did not occur under Greece. They were clearly done under Rome.

And yes, I have heard all the so called arguments for there being a dual or triune fulfillment of such. From my perspective, they don't hold water for one, and I have seen the text tortured to attempt to make dual and triune fulfilments fit just about anything.


Edit: @bbyrd009 @KBCid : With this line of posting, I shall consider fulfilled that which I said I would do elsewhere with regard to another.

Richard, thank you for indicating that you hold to a post trib understanding.

I also hold to that understanding of the unfolding End Times that the rapture will occur post trib, in our distant future.

 

[Richard_oti]

Richard, thank you for indicating that you hold to a post trib understanding.

I also hold to that understanding of the unfolding End Times that the rapture will occur post trib, in our distant future.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Helen]

Jay Ross said: ↑
Richard, thank you for indicating that you hold to a post trib understanding.

I also hold to that understanding of the unfolding End Times that the rapture will occur post trib, in our distant future.

Thanks for the discussion.

How wonderfully refreshing to see two mature people "get into it" in a discussion...and stay in a good spirit.
Praise God...Bless you both.