My Timeline for Planet Earth

[Davy]

#1. Dan. 9:2 says "years"

#2. Have you ever gone for a ride in a "cool" car? Did you wear an overcoat, a hat, gloves, and scarf? -- That's the analogy for the "unusual" INCONCISE Masculine gender text which was used by Daniel and is found ONLY in the 9th Chapter of Daniel, and NO WHERE ELSE in the ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT. But of course the Feminine gender text is found throughout the Old Testament, including in Daniel 10.

But you wouldn't know these things because you're apparently are not familiar with Walvoord, Young, Kiel, and Kliefoth. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with their works.


Many of you should NOT be "teachers"!
Bobby Jo

Poor soul. You cannot even grasp the simplicity in God's Holy Writ.

Dan 9:24-27
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

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.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
KJV



1st period was defined by the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. That was 454 B.C. as I showed.

2nd period was from that command to Messiah when He was 'cut off', which was 29 A.D.

3rd period is 1 seven ("one week") that is yet to be accounted for.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

I built this timeline in the long ago.... Estimated dates....

4300 BC - Creation of Adam
2640 BC - The Great Flood
2060 AD - Christ’s coming
3100 AD - End of millennial and destruction of planet earth

I have man on this planet 7,400 years, and would put the accuracy of these dates within 400 years....

Noah's dad Lamech complained of a cursed ground... " And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed." - Genesis 5:29

Taking the timeline of the church in parallel with the generations of Adam there was a severe famine during the time Noah was born. I would imagine a time of famine during the time of the Black Horseman, which days I believe we now live in....

As far as Isaac Newton’s 2060AD quote he said....

““It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner. This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fancifull men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, & by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail. Christ comes as a thief in the night, & it is not for us to know the times & seasons which God hath put into his own breast." –- Isaac Newton

I think that because God created Adam who represents mankind, to live forever this planet Earth will be righteous mankind external home. Even though Adam chose to disobey God and mankind dies today, God has already made a way for that to be remedied by sending his Son to die for mankind. It's true some of mankind have been bought from mankind to be with Jesus in heaven who also will be rewarded with immortality and inherit incorruption but the majority of mankind that God has judged worthy of life will live on Earth being ruled over by Jesus and the 144,000 for eternity.

 

[Bobby Jo]

Poor soul. You cannot even grasp the simplicity in God's Holy Writ.
...

You use the English Translation as though it were a FAITHFUL CONVERSION from Hebrew. But there is NO PERFECT TRANSLATION. Sometimes we MUST use the Original Text. Where you defy what Walvoord reported regarding Young, -- who in turn reported what Keil and Kliefoth reported --, it's YOU who are ignorant.

And it's ok to be ignorant, but you shouldn't abuse it,
Bobby Jo

 

[Davy]

You use the English Translation as though it were a FAITHFUL CONVERSION from Hebrew. But there is NO PERFECT TRANSLATION. Sometimes we MUST use the Original Text. Where you defy what Walvoord reported regarding Young, -- who in turn reported what Keil and Kliefoth reported --, it's YOU who are ignorant.

And it's ok to be ignorant, but you shouldn't abuse it,
Bobby Jo

The 1611 Authorized KJV is still the BEST... English translation to date. It doesn't take a lot to confirm from the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek using other Bible study tools, which I also do. Thus your disagreement is not just with the KJV translation, but with those other tools also.

 

[Bobby Jo]

The 1611 Authorized KJV is still the BEST...

NO! The BEST VERSION is the ORIGINAL! Everything else is a cheap imitation, -- kind of like disregarding an original painting in favor of a picture of the painting.

Without the ORIGINAL MASORETIC, you most likely will NEVER know the depth of the text used in Daniel 9, -- AND WILL NEVER KNOW THE TRUE INTERPRETATION.

And it's ok to believe the Commentator/Pulpit LIES. -- It most likely won't affect your salvation, but it may affect your ability to survive the tribulation.

Bobby Jo

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

You use the English Translation as though it were a FAITHFUL CONVERSION from Hebrew. But there is NO PERFECT TRANSLATION. Sometimes we MUST use the Original Text. Where you defy what Walvoord reported regarding Young, -- who in turn reported what Keil and Kliefoth reported --, it's YOU who are ignorant.

And it's ok to be ignorant, but you shouldn't abuse it,
Bobby Jo

The original writings which were inspired by God Holy Spirit have corroded into the dust long ago so the only writings of scriptures we have are copies so you have to explain what original texts you're speaking about because the actual inspired writings of scripture don't exist, there only copies that we have.

 

[Bobby Jo]

The original writings which were inspired by God Holy Spirit have corroded into the dust long ago so the only writings of scriptures we have are copies so you have to explain what original texts you're speaking about because the actual inspired writings of scripture don't exist, there only copies that we have.

It's ok to ask for help. So let me help:

The O.T. Masoretic text is the original text which was used to convey GOD's messages to humanity. And because most of us don't speak Hebrew, we try our best to find English words to parallel what the original Hebrew said. But because languages don't have exact equivalents, part of the message is lost. So if you want to find what went you missed, you have to research exactly what the original text was attempting to convey.

For example, the Daniel 9 word "weeks" is not the usual concise feminine gender text. Instead Daniel used the inconcise masculine gender text. It might be analogous to "slang", where using the word "cool" is not a literal depressed thermal gradient, but conveys a different connotation.


Hope this helps,
Bobby Jo

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

It's ok to ask for help. So let me help:

The O.T. Masoretic text is the original text which was used to convey GOD's messages to humanity. And because most of us don't speak Hebrew, we try our best to find English words to parallel what the original Hebrew said. But because languages don't have exact equivalents, part of the message is lost. So if you want to find what went you missed, you have to research exactly what the original text was attempting to convey.

For example, the Daniel 9 word "weeks" is not the usual concise feminine gender text. Instead Daniel used the inconcise masculine gender text. It might be analogous to "slang", where using the word "cool" is not a literal depressed thermal gradient, but conveys a different connotation.


Hope this helps,
Bobby Jo

Isn't the dead sea scrolls older than the masorectic text by about 1000 years. Since it has the same scriptures, with some differences that the masorectic text has doesn't that show that the masorectic text is a copy just as the dead sea scrolls are, since they are 1000years older than the masorectic texting

 

[Bobby Jo]

Isn't the dead sea scrolls older than the masorectic text by about 1000 years. Since it has the same scriptures, with some differences that the masorectic text has doesn't that show that the masorectic text is a copy just as the dead sea scrolls are, since they are 1000years older than the masorectic texting

The answer to your question is NO, -- mainly because you've failed to understand your own question.

The fact is, the Dead Sea Scrolls is the oldest copy of portions of the O.T. So when comparing this ancient copy against the Septuagint, there are numerous discrepancies. But when comparing against the Masoretic, there are very few minor discrepancies:

Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
April 1995 - 15[4]:25-30

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

...
THE SCROLLS AND THE MASORETIC TEXT
...
Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MT, which formed the basis of our English versions of the Old Testament, since there was such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs. Because of this uncertainty, [?Septuagint?]scholars often “corrected” the text with considerable freedom.
...
A comparison of the MT to this earlier text revealed the remarkable accuracy with which scribes copied the sacred texts. Accordingly, the integrity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which generally has heightened its respect among scholars and drastically reduced textual alteration.
...
CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP, DANIEL, AND THE SCROLLS
...
Daniel was peculiarly safeguarded to the extent that we have at our disposal parts of all chapters of Daniel, except chapters 9 and 12.
...
INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT
...
Further, a comparison of the Septuagint translation (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) with the MT revealed tremendous disparity in length and content between the two texts. Due to these and other considerations, critical scholars assigned little value to the MT rendition of Daniel.

Once again, however, the findings at Qumran have confirmed the integrity of Daniel’s text. Gerhard Hasel listed several strands of evidence from the Daniel fragments found at Qumran that support the integrity of the MT (see 1992, 5[2]:50). First, for the most part, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Daniel are very consistent in content among themselves, containing very few variants. Second, the Qumran fragments conform very closely to the MT overall, with only a few rare variants in the former that side with the Septuagint version. Third, the transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic are preserved in the Qumran fragments. Based on such overwhelming data, it is evident that the MT is a well-preserved rendition of Daniel. In short, Qumran assures us that we can be reasonably confident that the Daniel text on which our English translations are based is one of integrity. Practically speaking, this means that we have at our disposal, through faithful translations of the original, the truth God revealed to Daniel centuries ago.
...

http://www.apologeti...rg/articles/266 -- a non working address ...​

But the discussion in this Topic is whether a English translation accurately represents the Original Masoretic text, -- and in several aspects it fails COMPLETELY. So each of us are well advised to follow the exact diction (as might be pointed out by the scholars) to accurately understand what GOD is attempting to convey to his church.


And again, in Daniel 9, the seventy "weeks" are NOT SEVENTY "SEVENS". Young, Keil, & Kliefoth all agree that the text has a different interpretation, but they couldn't solve the mystery -- apparently because the angel in Dan. 12:4 & 9 stipulates that the Book is shut up and sealed until the time of the end, and apparently Young, Keil, & Kliefoth weren't close enough to the time of the end to unseal the prophecies.


Bobby Jo

 

[Keraz]

The issue of whether to trust our Bible translations or not, is crazy and just detracts from what we should be concentrating on. That is: what does God Plan for His people in these end times?

It is obvious that the KJV is rife with error and is written in an archaic form of English with the mindset of 400 years ago. It and several other Bibles, like the Jehovah's Witness Bible, should be avoided and a good modern translation, based on all the many sources available today, used as our trusted guide.

If we can't trust the Word as received, then is God a God of confusion? NO!
Arguing that we must learn how to read Hebrew, or to question the scriptures, is a fruitless exercise.
Try to address the OP of this thread; time periods ARE important to God. He uses 7 and 40 frequently and His decreed time for mankind is 7- 1000 year periods. From simple addition of the given times in the Bible, we are now very close to the 6000th year. This should be a huge wake up call for everyone!

 

[Bobby Jo]

The issue of whether to trust our Bible translations or not, is crazy ...

We've already has this conversation, and you were PERFECTLY CONTENT needing to grab a ~hat, coat, gloves, and scarf~ to go for a ride in a "cool" car. So either go all bundled up, or not at all. It's your choice!

Bobby Jo

 

[Philip James]

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

The answer to your question is NO, -- mainly because you've failed to understand your own question.

The fact is, the Dead Sea Scrolls is the oldest copy of portions of the O.T. So when comparing this ancient copy against the Septuagint, there are numerous discrepancies. But when comparing against the Masoretic, there are very few minor discrepancies:

Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
April 1995 - 15[4]:25-30

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

...
THE SCROLLS AND THE MASORETIC TEXT
...
Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MT, which formed the basis of our English versions of the Old Testament, since there was such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs. Because of this uncertainty, [?Septuagint?]scholars often “corrected” the text with considerable freedom.
...
A comparison of the MT to this earlier text revealed the remarkable accuracy with which scribes copied the sacred texts. Accordingly, the integrity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which generally has heightened its respect among scholars and drastically reduced textual alteration.
...
CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP, DANIEL, AND THE SCROLLS
...
Daniel was peculiarly safeguarded to the extent that we have at our disposal parts of all chapters of Daniel, except chapters 9 and 12.
...
INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT
...
Further, a comparison of the Septuagint translation (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) with the MT revealed tremendous disparity in length and content between the two texts. Due to these and other considerations, critical scholars assigned little value to the MT rendition of Daniel.

Once again, however, the findings at Qumran have confirmed the integrity of Daniel’s text. Gerhard Hasel listed several strands of evidence from the Daniel fragments found at Qumran that support the integrity of the MT (see 1992, 5[2]:50). First, for the most part, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Daniel are very consistent in content among themselves, containing very few variants. Second, the Qumran fragments conform very closely to the MT overall, with only a few rare variants in the former that side with the Septuagint version. Third, the transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic are preserved in the Qumran fragments. Based on such overwhelming data, it is evident that the MT is a well-preserved rendition of Daniel. In short, Qumran assures us that we can be reasonably confident that the Daniel text on which our English translations are based is one of integrity. Practically speaking, this means that we have at our disposal, through faithful translations of the original, the truth God revealed to Daniel centuries ago.
...

http://www.apologeti...rg/articles/266 -- a non working address ...​

But the discussion in this Topic is whether a English translation accurately represents the Original Masoretic text, -- and in several aspects it fails COMPLETELY. So each of us are well advised to follow the exact diction (as might be pointed out by the scholars) to accurately understand what GOD is attempting to convey to his church.


And again, in Daniel 9, the seventy "weeks" are NOT SEVENTY "SEVENS". Young, Keil, & Kliefoth all agree that the text has a different interpretation, but they couldn't solve the mystery -- apparently because the angel in Dan. 12:4 & 9 stipulates that the Book is shut up and sealed until the time of the end, and apparently Young, Keil, & Kliefoth weren't close enough to the time of the end to unseal the prophecies.


Bobby Jo

It's my understanding that the scholars are at a debate with the dead sea scrolls, with scholars on both sides disagreeing so your statement doesn't really apply as far as I can see. There are very qualified scholars on both sides. I know you probably have those you side with but that's all that means to me.

The answer to your question is NO, -- mainly because you've failed to understand your own question.

The fact is, the Dead Sea Scrolls is the oldest copy of portions of the O.T. So when comparing this ancient copy against the Septuagint, there are numerous discrepancies. But when comparing against the Masoretic, there are very few minor discrepancies:

Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
April 1995 - 15[4]:25-30

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

...
THE SCROLLS AND THE MASORETIC TEXT
...
Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MT, which formed the basis of our English versions of the Old Testament, since there was such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs. Because of this uncertainty, [?Septuagint?]scholars often “corrected” the text with considerable freedom.
...
A comparison of the MT to this earlier text revealed the remarkable accuracy with which scribes copied the sacred texts. Accordingly, the integrity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which generally has heightened its respect among scholars and drastically reduced textual alteration.
...
CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP, DANIEL, AND THE SCROLLS
...
Daniel was peculiarly safeguarded to the extent that we have at our disposal parts of all chapters of Daniel, except chapters 9 and 12.
...
INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT
...
Further, a comparison of the Septuagint translation (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) with the MT revealed tremendous disparity in length and content between the two texts. Due to these and other considerations, critical scholars assigned little value to the MT rendition of Daniel.

Once again, however, the findings at Qumran have confirmed the integrity of Daniel’s text. Gerhard Hasel listed several strands of evidence from the Daniel fragments found at Qumran that support the integrity of the MT (see 1992, 5[2]:50). First, for the most part, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Daniel are very consistent in content among themselves, containing very few variants. Second, the Qumran fragments conform very closely to the MT overall, with only a few rare variants in the former that side with the Septuagint version. Third, the transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic are preserved in the Qumran fragments. Based on such overwhelming data, it is evident that the MT is a well-preserved rendition of Daniel. In short, Qumran assures us that we can be reasonably confident that the Daniel text on which our English translations are based is one of integrity. Practically speaking, this means that we have at our disposal, through faithful translations of the original, the truth God revealed to Daniel centuries ago.
...

http://www.apologeti...rg/articles/266 -- a non working address ...​

But the discussion in this Topic is whether a English translation accurately represents the Original Masoretic text, -- and in several aspects it fails COMPLETELY. So each of us are well advised to follow the exact diction (as might be pointed out by the scholars) to accurately understand what GOD is attempting to convey to his church.


And again, in Daniel 9, the seventy "weeks" are NOT SEVENTY "SEVENS". Young, Keil, & Kliefoth all agree that the text has a different interpretation, but they couldn't solve the mystery -- apparently because the angel in Dan. 12:4 & 9 stipulates that the Book is shut up and sealed until the time of the end, and apparently Young, Keil, & Kliefoth weren't close enough to the time of the end to unseal the prophecies.


Bobby Jo

 

[Bobby Jo]

It's my understanding ...

You miss the discussion all together. We were discussing whether ANY text written in an ORIGINAL LANGUAGE more accurately conveys the intent of the author, or whether a translation, using different conveyances (words) because it is a different language, is as accurate.

Perhaps this discussion to too complex for you to grasp, so maybe you're better off just believing whatever some "church authority" tells you to believe!

Whew,
Bobby Jo

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

I understand what I read and I understood what you were discussing. I just don't agree with anyone who uses the masorectic text as a original Manuscript text when the manuscripts of the scriptures are copies of copies of the scriptures and this includes the masorectic text. The original Manuscripts of the scriptures corroded into dust long ago so any manuscripts we have of the scriptures are not those original Manuscript scriptures. The point is I don't think it wise for anyone to even imply we have the original Manuscripts by saying that the masorectic text is an original Manuscript text of the scriptures it's not, it's a manuscript copy of the scriptures. People are imperfect they make mistakes and some people deliberately do things for whatever reason. Why do you suppose we have so many religious scholars religious leaders on opposite sides debating on what manuscripts we should agree with. It has been proven that some manuscripts have differences . Like why would older manuscripts not have certain scriptures in them, then all of a sudden newer manuscripts have scriptures in them the older or earlier manuscripts didn't. Where did these newer manuscripts get their information if the older or earlier manuscripts didn't have those scriptures. Like you I'm going to decide which manuscripts to agree with or not agree with. I understand that when someone translates the scriptures from one language such as Hebrew or Greek some words or phrases may not convey the original thought accurately.

 

[Bobby Jo]

... I understand that when someone translates the scriptures from one language such as Hebrew or Greek some words or phrases may not convey the original thought accurately.

... so if you follow Walvoord's citations of Young, who in turn cites Keil & Kliefoth, -- you should discover that the seventy "sevens" are not "sevens", because instead of Daniel using the usual CONCISE Feminine Gender text, Daniel used the INCONCISE Masculine Gender text. Thus where the "commentators" interpret the seventy "sevens" as 490 years, the ONLY thing for certain is that they ARE NOT 490 years.

Of course, the Masoretic gives the Masculine Gender text distinction, but the failed Septuagint DOES NOT. -- And the Masoretic is CORRECT.

And we could digest critical aspects of Dan. 9 to arrive to a fulfillment which meets the angel's criteria set forth in 12:4 &9. And having done that we should discover that NONE of the Commentator "interpretations" are correct, but a MODERN HISTORY fulfillment IS CORRECT.

But most people are too lazy to do the work necessary to discover what Scripture actually says. They rather sit like potatoes on a pew and be fed regurgitated thoughts.

Bobby Jo

 

[Naomi25]

Some of these conversations be like....

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

... so if you follow Walvoord's citations of Young, who in turn cites Keil & Kliefoth, -- you should discover that the seventy "sevens" are not "sevens", because instead of Daniel using the usual CONCISE Feminine Gender text, Daniel used the INCONCISE Masculine Gender text. Thus where the "commentators" interpret the seventy "sevens" as 490 years, the ONLY thing for certain is that they ARE NOT 490 years.

Of course, the Masoretic gives the Masculine Gender text distinction, but the failed Septuagint DOES NOT. -- And the Masoretic is CORRECT.

And we could digest critical aspects of Dan. 9 to arrive to a fulfillment which meets the angel's criteria set forth in 12:4 &9. And having done that we should discover that NONE of the Commentator "interpretations" are correct, but a MODERN HISTORY fulfillment IS CORRECT.

But most people are too lazy to do the work necessary to discover what Scripture actually says. They rather sit like potatoes on a pew and be fed regurgitated thoughts.

Bobby Jo

The thing about a lot of these theologians these days is that they also mix their philosophy which they learned in the seminary they graduated from. The scriptures are very clear to me that people's philosophy shouldn't be listened to especially when combination with scripture. How other people choose to see things is their business. The point is I don't listen or agree to everything such person has to say about scripture or end times prophecy

 

[Dave Watchman]

Thus where the "commentators" interpret the seventy "sevens" as 490 years, the ONLY thing for certain is that they ARE NOT 490 years.

I can't remember hearing anyone say that before.

I haven't been at this for too long, but a heptad is a heptad.

And the numbers add up.

490 years are 10 Jubilee cycles.

49+49+49+49+49+49+49+49+49+49=490 years.

The 50th year then becomes year number one for the next Jubilee Cycle.

... so if you follow Walvoord's citations of Young, who in turn cites Keil & Kliefoth, -- you should discover that the seventy "sevens" are not "sevens"

Don't follow Walvoord's citations of Young, or Keil & Kliefoth.

And don't read the Masoretic or the Masculine Gender text distinction.

Jesus said have the EYES to see and the EARS to hear.

The Old Time Jews had the Original Isaiah Scroll, and the Actual Jesus reading it to them in the Temple, but they still couldn't understand that the Kingdom of God was in their midst.

Say Bobby Jo, can you read Hebrew?

Can you read this or find a way to translate it for me?

The google translator won't do it.

תזכיר התאגדות החברה לפיתוח הרובע_1968.pdf

I hope this helps.

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[Bobby Jo]

... I don't listen ...

I knew that before we had this conversation.

Bobby Jo