RocksInMyHead said:

I'd say the odds are pretty good that the Navy bought those "eggs" while Biden was still president, so yeah, definitely Biden's fault.

Click to expand...

That is only correct because Biden was president in 2017.

Mark Quayle said:

Starting, as you seem to think you did, with the fact that a god who fails to complete what he set out to do is not God,

Click to expand...

Do you not think God set out to destroy Nineveh in 40 days? If not, why did He tell them He was going to destroy them in 40 days? Does He have to lie to get them to repent?

Mark Quayle said:

it is not a logical result that God must try, but fail, to redeem mankind. That notion denies his omnipotence and omniscience, his aseity, and many other things attributable to God. God did not plan to save all mankind, and fail to do so. He did not even try to save all mankind. It is not logical to exalt man's capabilities to God's level, as you do in matters of mental agility, moral ability, sentient stance, and so on. We are not able to choose in the same way he is.

Click to expand...

Correct, God did not set out to redeem all mankind, but He is not happy about the result that all mankind will not be saved.

Mark Quayle said:

Second, and as I have said before, it IS logical to see, from several different directions of thought, that we are not able to be entirely free to choose without being caused/compelled to do so.

Click to expand...

Are you saying God is not capable of making us entirely free to choose without being caused/compelled to do so?

Mark Quayle said:

Cause-and-effect is completely pervasive, and ties all fact together precisely as things pan out. We do choose, and that choice is real, and many of my ilk even say we are free to choose within constraints, though I don't say that. But if one's choices are made from a corrupt spirit, that choice is corrupt, no matter what choice is made. For example, if one chooses to "accept Christ", from a corrupt spirit, that choice is corrupt, and is not valid to produce the proposed outcome. Our fickle choices should have shown us that by now.

Click to expand...

If one chooses to repent, from a corrupt spirit, is it not still a valid choice to repent, even if the power to accomplish perfectly it is lacking? Were the people of Nineveh then not really repentant, and God's mercy not the right response, since it was a corrupt and faulty repentance?

Mark Quayle said:

Third, it is logical to see, also from several different directions of thought, that God did not intend to save all, because there can be no more first causes—God is the only one.

Click to expand...

So God can't make a being that can make a free choice. God can't do it at all, since only He is the first cause?

Mark Quayle said:

Yet you propose free will, where, like Gods, we are free to produce entirely spontaneous choices on our own, apart from prior cause.

Click to expand...

Why not? What prevents God from making a person that can then reject His will? Yet you are saying that no one can reject God's will--it is impossible for God to make such a creature.

Mark Quayle said:

Fourth, as I have often shown, SINCE God is First Cause, all things come from him, logically descend from his causing, however you want to put it. All other things besides HIM, are result. So, if God knew precisely, yet caused, then all things were intended precisely as they fall out.

Click to expand...

Which means that no one ever has acted against God's will, right? So everyone, for all time, has been completely within the will of God, and therefore God punishes people for doing His will, exactly as He wants them to do.

Jesus Christ is the Light of the World. He is all that is righteous, just, morally pure, upright, honest, faithful, and holy. And he is The Word of God, for he is God, the second person of our triune God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And so the words he speaks are the words of God. And he is the one who brings to us the truth of the gospel of our salvation, first in the words that he spoke, and then in his death and resurrection, for our deliverance from sin. For he put our sins to death with him so we will die to sin and live for him.

But in his teachings he taught us that to come after him, we must deny self, take up our cross daily (die daily to sin and to self) and follow (obey) him. But if we decide to hold on to our old lives of living in sin and for self, we will lose them for eternity. But if for Jesus’ sake we die to sin and now walk in obedience to his commands, then we have eternal life in him. For those who are his true followers will not walk (in conduct) in darkness (sin), but will have the Light of life, i.e. salvation from sin and eternal life with God.

Now Jesus was speaking to his fellow Jews, but many (or most) of them were not in agreement with him and with his teachings. And some (or many) of them opposed Jesus and fought against him and his teachings. And so they would try to pick a fight with him, often accusing him falsely of what he did not do or say, for they were trying to find fault in him so they would have cause to accuse him of wrongdoing. And so they were all the time laying traps for him, hoping to catch him in a snare so they could “take him down.”

And we have many people today doing the same thing, disagreeing with Christ and his teachings, trying to find fault with what he said, and attacking his words and his messengers, too, who are bringing forth the truth of the gospel of our salvation. For many are those who profess faith in Jesus Christ, but who prefer a more diluted and altered “gospel” which pampers human flesh and which makes no requirements of the person of “faith” other than they just make a verbal confession of Christ as Lord and Savior of their lives.

And Jesus is saying to them, through his word, and through his messengers, that they don’t really know Jesus Christ or God the Father, for if they truly knew Jesus, they would know the Father also. And to know Jesus is to deny self, die daily to sin, and to follow him in surrender to his will in walks of obedience to his commands. Yet this does not make us perfect people, for we are still clay in the hands of the Potter (God) being made into the likeness of Christ, if indeed we are of genuine faith in him, by God’s grace.

But the point Jesus was making here, and that he is still making, is that if we claim to believe in him, then we must follow him, and to follow him is to obey him and his commandments (New Covenant). And it is to die with him to sin daily, in his power. And if we claim to know God, but while we reject Christ’s teachings, and the teachings of his New Testament apostles, and so we continue living in sin, and not in obedience to our Lord’s commands, then we do not know God the Father or his Son Jesus Christ, in truth.

So we need to take Jesus’ words to heart, for he means what he says: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’” (Matthew 7:21-23 NASB1995).

[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13; Hebrews 10:19-39; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:1-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22]

Follow Him

Based off Luke 9:22-25
An Original Work / February 21, 2013
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Jesus, Son of God,
Died for us on a cross.

Anyone who would come to Him
Must deny himself and follow.
He must take up his cross daily;
Die to sin and self each day.

Father, God above,
Loved us so: gave His Son.

If you want to save your old life;
Keep on sinning, follow your ways,
You will lose your life forever;
Hope of heaven gone away.

Spirit of our God
Gives us life in God’s Son.

Nonetheless, if you die to self;
Forsake your sin; follow Jesus,
You will live with God in heaven,
And forever praise His name!

Login to view embedded media
If You Know Jesus
An Original Work / December 4, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

The sequence of the prophecy in Daniel 9 is decree goes out to rebuild - 49 years (7 times 7) pass and the city is rebuilt- 434 (62 times 7) years pass messiah is cut off aka the crucifixion. I will not be focused on the 70th 7 here.
Problem is there are 4 different decrees in the bible, and another problem is does year mean a solar year of 365 days or a 360 day year like is used in Genesis, Jubilees, and Revelation because over 483 years there is 7 year difference between those 2 things.

The following is help from chat GPT. I have checked the dates, and they are the same on human written websites
There are FOUR decrees in Scripture that relate to “restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem.”
1. DECREE OF CYRUS — Ezra 1:1–4; 2 Chronicles 36:22–23
Content: Return of exiles; Rebuild the Temple; Restore temple vessels
Does NOT authorize rebuilding the city walls
Historical Date: 538 BC (first year of Cyrus over Babylon)
2. DECREE OF DARIUS I — Ezra 6:1–12
Content: Reaffirms Cyrus’ decree; Orders governors to support Temple rebuilding; Provides funding and protection
Does NOT authorize rebuilding the city
Historical Date: 520/519 BC (second year of Darius)
3. FIRST DECREE OF ARTAXERXES I (Ezra’s commission) — Ezra 7:11–26
Content: Authorizes Ezra to restore the law, priesthood, and judicial authority; Permits more exiles to return; Provides resources for Temple service
Implied civil restoration but NO explicit command to rebuild the walls
Historical Date: 457 BC (seventh year of Artaxerxes I)
4. SECOND DECREE OF ARTAXERXES I (Nehemiah’s commission) — Nehemiah 2:1–8
Content: Explicit authorization to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls and gates; Letters to governors; Timber for walls and gates
This is the ONLY decree that explicitly fulfills “restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (Daniel 9:25)
Historical Date: 445 BC (20th year of Artaxerxes I; sometimes 444 BC depending on reckoning)
SUMMARY TABLE:
Cyrus — Ezra 1; 538 BC — Rebuild Temple, NOT city
Darius — Ezra 6; 520 BC — Enforce Temple rebuilding, NOT city
Artaxerxes (Ezra) — Ezra 7; 457 BC — Religious/civil restoration, partial/implicit
Artaxerxes (Nehemiah) — Neh 2; 445 BC — Rebuild walls, city, FULL restoration
Only the decree in Nehemiah 2 explicitly commands rebuilding Jerusalem itself.

The sources for those dates are
Here is a clean list of the exact sources for every date I gave, with each point on its own line and no blank line breaks, just as you requested:

The dates for the four biblical decrees come from these historical sources:
Cyrus’ decree (538 BC) — Source: Babylonian Chronicle tablets (Nabonidus Chronicle) which record Cyrus’ capture of Babylon in 539 BC and his accession as king; Greek historians such as Herodotus and Xenophon; Jewish historian Josephus; ancient chronographers like Julius Africanus and Eusebius who date the first year of Cyrus at 538 BC; astronomical dating of Cyrus’ first regnal year using contemporary cuneiform sources.
Darius I’s decree (520/519 BC) — Source: Darius’ own inscriptions (Behistun Inscription) and Babylonian King Lists that date his accession to 522 BC; ancient chronographers (Africanus, Eusebius) who place his second year at 520/519 BC; synchronisms with the Persian regnal year system documented in cuneiform tablets.
Artaxerxes I (Ezra’s mission, 457 BC) — Source: Persian king lists (Herodotus, Ctesias), Ptolemy’s Canon, Elephantine papyri, and ancient chronographers who consistently date the seventh year of Artaxerxes I to 457 BC; widely accepted historical regnal tables that date Artaxerxes I’s reign from 465–424 BC.
Artaxerxes I (Nehemiah’s mission, 445 BC) — Source: Same Persian king lists (Herodotus, Ctesias, Ptolemy’s Canon); the year 20 of Artaxerxes I falls at 445 BC based on fixed astronomical anchor points used in the Persian regnal system; confirmed by Elephantine papyri that document correspondences with Artaxerxes’ regnal years.


In Nehemiah 2-4 the rebuilding the walls takes place in the same year the decree is given 445 BC, and is completed within 52 days Nehemiah 4 says. This means by 445 BC every single part of the city has been rebuilt. Assuming this is when the 49 years end then it means a decree went out 494 BC but none of the 4 decrees are close to that date.

​

1. The Second Temple was completed on the 3rd day of Adar in the 6th year of Darius I (Ezra 6:15).
Ezra 6:15 — “The temple was finished on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.”
This means: The Second Temple was finished → 3rd day of Adar → Year 6 of Darius.
2. Historical year: The 6th year of Darius = 516 BC.
Darius I began ruling in 522 BC; his first regnal year was 521 BC; therefore his 6th year = 516 BC.
Thus: The Temple was completed in Adar (Feb–Mar) 516 BC.
3. Summary: The Second Temple was rebuilt and completed in 516 BC in the 6th year of Darius I.
4. Compact biblical rebuilding timeline:
536 BC — Temple foundation laid (Ezra 3:8).
Work halts due to opposition (Ezra 4).
520 BC — Work resumes under Haggai and Zechariah in the 2nd year of Darius (Ezra 5).
516 BC — Temple completed (Ezra 6:15).

If the end of the 49 years was 516 BC then it means a decree went out 565 BC to rebuild which does not match anything. Assuming 445 BC is the true date for the decree in Nehemiah 2, and the city is fully rebuilt in the same year there is no decree 49 years earlier that matches. Forget about the crucifixion date 434 years later, and try to reconcile this 49 year timeframe if someone wants. Keep in mind the decree in Ezra is 7th year of Artaxerxes, and the one in Nehemiah is the 20th year therefore internally in the bible alone there are 13 years between those two events so the decree 457 BC (7th year) can not be the one in Daniel 9 as the city is fully rebuilt by 445 BC - not 49 years later 408 BC.

Fervent said:

Not really, it's callled examining the existing texts.

Click to expand...

Obviously your opinion and mine differ even though both of us have examined the texts.

Fervent said:

There's no need for other God-breathed Scripture, especially since you have yet to establish that God-breathed means what you insist it means contrary to the contemporaraneous uses of it.

Click to expand...

There is no need for other God breathed Scripture because there isn’t any other. I’ll let Clement of Rome answer for me regarding the meaning of God breathed.

“Let us act accordingly to that which is written (for the Holy Spirit saith, “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom)....Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit.”
Clement, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, XIII

Fervent said:

The ECFs didn't treat it as a sui generis work, they saw it as the Orthodox see it today as the cornerstone of a larger tradition handed down from the apostles.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The ECFs recognized the divine authorship and apostolic origin which puts the scriptures in a category of their own. I don’t see scriptures like the Orthodox or the Catholics do nor do I recognize tradition at being on par with the Holy Scriptures.

The scariest aspect of the whole situation, is that wildlife is becoming affected. A recent study showed that 92% of sharks, near the waters of Brasil have tested positive for recent cocaine use.

“Cocaine Shark”: First report on cocaine and benzoylecgonine detection in sharks - ScienceDirect https://share.google/1XscrXO1VDXOi99k2



"This is the first report on COC and BE concentrations in free-living sharks. It is noteworthy that all analyzed Brazilian Sharpnose sharks were exposed to cocaine during their lifetimes, as COC was detected in all muscle and liver samples. Both COC and BE concentrations in sharks exceeded levels reported in the literature for fish and other aquatic organisms by up to two orders of magnitude."

​

#​

The Cost of Trump’s Coal Fixation​

- October 27 2025

FORCING COAL PLANTS TO KEEP OPERATING TO PROVIDE A MARKET FOR COAL INDUSTRY
*****************************************************************************************************
- The administration’s policies ask the American taxpayer to pick up the tab for a dangerous and polluting industry with a failing market, while they simultaneously attack affordable and reliable clean energy.

- Removing pollution control requirements forcing outdated coal power plants to operate their retirement dates, and offering up our public lands to industry will not only harm our health and environment:

- The administration’s use of sham emergency orders to stop a Michigan coal-fired plant from retiring cost customers $29 million in just the first five weeks it was forced to keep burning coal.

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZING COAL INDUSTRY
***************************************************************************************************
- While the administration and Republicans in Congress remove incentives for and block clean energy development, they are also increasingly subsidizing the fossil fuel industry at our expense.

- The Department of Energy recently announced that it will provide $625 million to subsidize aging, polluting coal-fired power plants.

- earlier this year, the Republicans passed a budget bill that cut the coal royalty rate from a 12.5% floor to a 7% ceiling, providing the coal industry a handout at the expense of a critical funding stream for state and local governments that goes toward schools and colleges, highway and road construction, and city and town budgets.

AMERICA LESS COMPETITIVE IN RENEWABLE ENERGY MARKETPLACE
*************************************************************************************************
- Clean energy is now cheaper than coal in many places and investing in it helps to keep down electricity costs for Americans. -

- In addition to raising energy prices, the Trump Administration and its allies in Congress have given a competitive edge to other countries that continue to grow their clean energy industries

- the MAGA movement now seems hellbent on rejecting these new opportunities to allow other countries to win the clean energy space.

..... renewables have now overtaken coal as the primary source of electricity around the world for the first time. Trump and congressional Republicans are holding us back from competing on the global stage

TRUMP'S FAKE ENERGY EMERGENCY - COAL-FIRE ENERGY INTENDED TO MEET DEMANDS OF Al Al DATA CENTERS
**********************************************************************************************************************
- Even before Trump took office, the U.S. was producing more oil and gas than any nation on the planet

- Much of the administration’s push for fossil fuels is ostensibly about fueling large-load data center development and the massive energy requirements that come with it, rather than providing power for American families. Communities are being forced (oftentimes without their knowledge) to take on both the cost and environmental risks of the AI boom.

COAL LEASES AMERICA'S PUBLIC LANDS
************************************************************************************
- The Trump Administration recently announced that it was opening 13.1 million acres of our national public lands to coal leasing.

- a whopping 72%. Americans want our elected officials to protect our public lands for recreation opportunities, wildlife, and economic benefits for local communities

TRUMP'S COAL FANTASY
*****************************************************************************************
- While the U.S. may see a temporary bump in coal production, it will not last as the market continues to move toward cheaper and cleaner energy.

- as the recent failed lease sales show, the market is already rejecting the Trump administration’s coal fantasy.

- the Trump Administration’s failure to enforce limits on silica dust — a carcinogen that has led to a spike in black lung disease. The Administration is ignoring worker health while helping its industry executive friends get even richer.










-

ThatRobGuy said:

I'm pretty sure some stand-up comedians have tackled that as well lol.

I forget who it was, but it was something to the effect of "oh was this shipment of green beans originally intended for Somalia and got rerouted here with the expectation that I'd be eating them all?"

Click to expand...

Though apparently even though it made little sense, those that heard it acquired all kinds of positive traits.
HERE

Guojing said:

So you are saying that, in the OT even after Exodus when God announced the nation of Israel, gentiles can come to God without going thru Israel?

Click to expand...

Yes, they always could. Did Nineveh go through Israel? Rahab the "sojourner" lived among Israel. Isaiah 56:7, Isaiah 66:20. Job and Ruth. Even the Gentile nations listed in Acts 2, and the proselyte Jews that came to Pentecost, heard the Gospel in their own language, and believed, then took the Gospel message back to those Gentile nations that already had churches formed, some practicing OT believers, Gentile, and some may have already heard the Gospel and believed due to the Apostles traveling and preaching the Gospel. The Laws applied to Israel, not Gentiles. I think Israel had a special covenant, but that did not limit the Gentiles from having access to God through faith.

Nature is a cathedral

Jesus = The Sun = FIRE

Mary = The Moon = WATER

Fire is the element of Wrath.

Water is the element of Mercy.

stevevw said:

Trying to prove this by what measure. Thats sort of the point. That you want this verified by material science and because it cannot be verified its all fake.

The reason why its important to acknowledge that there is alternative and what we would consider advanced knowledge is because epistemically it shows that there is more than one way to gain knowledge about the world and reality for that matter.

Once this is accepted then people will stop before they make absolute claims that there is only one way to understand reality. They will be open to the possibility that there may have been ancients who had knowledge beyond what methological naturalism can explain.

But if you reject this out of hand then this is already being biased and narrow minded which is more about belief than reality.

Click to expand...

What is the alternative to actual science? Please be specific how it applies to Egypt, particularly with pre-dynastic vases, pyramid construction, and stone cutting/quarrying as these are the topics that have come up most often and from which you complain about our use of "material science".

Hail Mary
Full Of Grace
The Lord Is With Thee

Blessed Art Thou Amongst Women
And Blessed Is The Fruit Of Thy Womb
Jesus

Holy Mary
Mother Of God
Pray For Us Sinners
Now
And At The Hour Of Our Death

Amen

There are

pastorwaris said:

Dear Brother, thank you for all three replies your effort, calculations, and desire for accuracy are genuinely appreciated.​

You clearly care deeply about chronology and the integrity of the text, and I respect that.
Let me address your points carefully and biblically.

1. About the 360-day year​

You have argued strongly that the Bible uses a 360-day year, based on:

• Genesis 7–8
• Jubilees
• Revelation 11–12

These examples do show the prophetic calendar using round 30-day months, especially in apocalyptic literature.

However, the question is:
Does Daniel 9 require a 360-day year?
The answer is no, because Daniel 9 never assigns any days, only:

שָׁבֻעִים – “weeks / units of seven”​

The Hebrew term means “sevens” not days, not lunar months, not solar years.
There is zero linguistic requirement for 360-day years in Daniel 9.
Most Jewish interpreters from antiquity (including Josephus, Philo, early rabbis) treated the 70 weeks figuratively or symbolically not as exact-day mathematical calculations.
So:
✔️ 360-day prophetic calendar exists
❌ but Daniel 9 doesn’t mandate it.
This means the conversion math may be interesting, but the text doesn’t require it.

2. About the decree date: 445/444 BC vs. 457 BC​

You argued strongly for a Nehemiah 2 (445–444 BC) decree.
That is a valid view many dispensational scholars hold it.
But the Hebrew wording in Daniel 9:25 says:

מִן־מֹצָא דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם​

“From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”
The key word is:

לְהָשִׁיב – “to restore” (not just rebuild walls)​

Ezra 7 (457 BC) is the only decree that:

• restores Jewish law
• restores autonomy
• restores worship
• restores judicial authority
• restores the temple economy

Nehemiah’s decree (444 BC) does not restore it only repairs the walls.
So historically and textually:
✔️ 445 BC is possible
✔️ 457 BC is linguistically stronger
This is why most classical and Jewish scholars use 457 BC, not 444 BC.

3. About the math leading to 20 AD or 18 AD crucifixion​

Dear Brother, you are honest enough to admit your calculations were changing.
That alone shows your sincerity.

Let me lovingly say this:

If the math produces an impossible crucifixion year, that means the system not the Bible is flawed.​

The Bible is consistent.

• Jesus’ ministry begins in “the 15th year of Tiberius” (Luke 3:1) → 27/28 AD
• Jesus is “about 30” at that time (Luke 3:23)
• Passover crucifixion fits 30–33 AD astronomically

Anything earlier (18–25 AD) simply does not match the New Testament.

So any chronological system that pushes the crucifixion earlier than 30 AD is mathematically elegant, but biblically impossible.
This is the problem with forcing 360-day conversions on a text that never requires them.

4. “2 Thessalonians 2 happened in 70 AD”​

Paul says the man of lawlessness:

• exalts himself as God (2 Thess 2:4)
• sits in the temple of God
• performs false signs and wonders (2 Thess 2:9)

Josephus records:
❌ No individual claiming to be God
❌ No supernatural signs
❌ No global deception
❌ No covenant with many (Dan 9:27)
❌ No stopping of sacrifices by a false messiah
❌ No “breath of the Lord destroying him” (2 Thess 2:8)

So respectfully,
70 AD simply does not match Paul’s description.
Paul also wrote 2 Thess before 70 AD and said:


So Paul contradicts the idea that 70 AD fulfills the passage.

5. “All of Matthew 24 happened in 70 AD”​

Jesus says:

• the gospel will be preached to all nations (Matt 24:14) not completed in 70 AD
• the sun and moon will be darkened (24:29) did not happen
• tribulation such as never was or never will be (24:21) WWII exceeded 70 AD
• they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds (24:30) did not occur
• angels gathering the elect (24:31) no record of this event

This cannot be compressed into 70 AD.
Jesus clearly divides:

1. Local signs (70 AD) Luke 21
2. Global final signs (end times) Matthew 24

6. “Revelation was written in 41 AD”​

There is zero historical evidence for a 41 AD date.
All early Church fathers agree:

• Irenaeus (AD 180)
• Clement of Alexandria
• Origen
• Victorinus
• Eusebius

all testify Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian (81–96 AD).
There is no manuscript
no commentary
no Greek tradition
no early writer
no historian
that places Revelation in 41 AD.
So that part of your system is historically unsupported.

7. “The final 7 years were 63–70 AD”​

Daniel 9:27 says the one who makes the covenant:

• strengthens a covenant with many
• stops sacrifices
• sets up an abomination
• is destroyed at the consummation

Nothing in 63–70 AD fits that complete sequence.
The Zealots stopping sacrifices was:

• not covenant-related
• not done by a single ruler
• not accompanied by abomination signs
• not followed by the ruler’s destruction
• not followed by everlasting righteousness (9:24)

Back to the Topic: Does Daniel 9 support a dual 70-week structure?​

Yes! because:

1. The Hebrew word נֶחְתַּךְ (“divided out, cut off”)​

allows sequential “divisions” of time.

2. The structure of the prophecy is chiastic​

A–B–C–D–C’–B’–A’

3. There is a clear gap after the 69th week (Dan 9:26)​

4. Jesus places part of Daniel 9 in the future (Matt 24:15)​

5. Paul places elements of Daniel 9 in the future (2 Thess 2)​

6. John places elements of Daniel 9 in the future (Rev 11–13)​

Thus:
✔️ A dual-layer fulfillment fits both the textual grammar and the biblical canon.


Blessings Dear Brother

Click to expand...

457BC, and 444 BC both have problems. It was going to be 49 years until the city was rebuilt. The decree given 445 BC was only for the walls ,and they rebuilt them in 52 days (Nehemiah 4) so by 445 BC the whole city had been rebuilt. 445-49=396 BC, 457- 49 = 408 BC but again everything was rebuilt by 445 BC. If 445 BC was the end of 49 years then it means "the decree" went out 49 years earlier 494 BC but then that poses problems for the crucifixion date. If you use an earlier decree of Cyrus or Darius it causes even worse problems for the crucifixion date. So.... the archaeological dates appear to be wrong. It might be easier to date the crucifixion using NT sources like you did then work backwards.


2 Thessalonians 2 meant the physical standing temple at the time that had the holy spirit in it. This ceased to exist 70 AD. The prophecy is set within the first century. It happened before 70 AD.

All of Math 24 happened 70 AD. See the thread on Enoch, and Jude I made. Jude, and 1 Enoch
Revelation was written 41 AD. Paul in 2 Corinthians 55 AD said he knew someone 14 years earlier caught up to heaven that saw things that can't be written which is what happens to John in Revelation; an angel tells him don't write some things down. Paul doesn't say it was the author of Revelation he is talking about because he does not want to boast. Internally in Rev 11 the temple is still standing, and being destroyed, and Daniel 9 which ended 70 AD said vision, and prophecy would stop 70 AD, and Revelation contains vision, and prophecy. I reject external evidence if it conflicts with inspired scripture therefore I reject apocryphal acts of John (150 AD), and Irenaeus (180 AD) that say Revelation was written in the 90s AD under Domitian.
63-70 AD was the final 7. Eleazar Ben Hanania stops the daily sacrifice in the temple 66 AD that the Judeans had been doing for the Romans (not the torah ones) [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing off the Romans, and starting the Judean Roman wars. The torah ones stopped 70 AD due to no one do do them. It is referring to these daily sacrifices Exodus 29.38-43; Numbers 28:1-8 Leviticus 6.8-13. When the daily sacrifice stops in Dan8, and 11, and someone puts up an abomination of desolation in the temple that was about Maccabees, and Antiochus 4 when he stopped the animal sacrifices, and put a greek god statue in the temple so when Dan 9 uses the same language it is about stopping sacrifices in the temple, and someone putting a statue in it around 70 AD. It is not about Jesus holding up the cup, and saying this is the new covenant, and he did not put a statue in the temple. I will make another post about the problems with the Daniel decree numbers.

9Rock9 said:

Can one affirm both the Mytho-History/cosmic
Temple view and framework hypothesis, or do they conflict in some way?

Click to expand...

I don't believe there is a contradiction between the two. Most scholars, including John Walton note in writings that they acknowledge the triad structure of Genesis with days 1-3 relating to ordering the realms, tohu, and days 4-6 filling those realms with their host, bohu.

I would recommend the book "Reading Genesis 1 and 2: An Evangelical Conversation".

This book gives 5 different interpretations of Genesis. 4 out of the 5 are not YEC. So you'll see a lot of crossover commentary between the framework hypothesis and a handful of well studied scholarly opinions. And each scholar shares a perspective and the other 4 critique that perspective, then the book rotates to a different scholar and a different topic of Genesis.

NxNW said:

Which never happened.

Which also never happened.

Click to expand...

Wrong again.

Denial doesn't change reality.

The Barbarian said:

This might be too egregious an act of terror for even Trump to pardon him.

Click to expand...

If he'd committed fraud, well...

durangodawood said:

Candace Owens is where the whole right wing reality disconnection industry leads. Not shocked when they turn on each other for some advantage.

Click to expand...

Candace Owens has lost her mind

Akita Suggagaki said:

You spoke of defending “unjustifiable” action.
You want to defend unjustifiable action?

Click to expand...

Only to the extent that I would defend unjustifiable action based on a premise that we have limited information, and not the full story. In regards to Trump pardoning someone, he says he has a reason based on "facts" according to his own words, but does not share those facts.

I can defend someone based on my belief that those facts do exist, in the same way we often trust our government based on other classified facts that they do not share, based on reasons we are not permitted to know.

I certainly hope it was a joke. She's not the brightest person in the world, but that would be world-class stupid, wouldn't it? My first impression was that it was satire. Apparently not.

durangodawood said:

For sure! ACA was exactly that. It was not single payer, and it explicitly accounted for:
-pre existing conditions
-preventative medicine
-many pharmaceutical payment issues
-lifetime maximums
-etc etc

It was very comprehensive. The people who devised it took the matter extremely seriously. By contrast the Rs have given us nothing more than "concepts of a plan" - which is being generous.

This is not to say ACA is working well long term. Medical inflation is obviously blowing it up. My point is just that its authors put in the work to devise a scheme that was fleshed out enough for the rest of us to properly analyze. They took the issue seriously.

Click to expand...

...but is your position on that the "orthodox" position on that?

Granted, It's possible my example wasn't the best to use on that.

I was speaking to the overall mindset of
"The evidence of how critically you've thought about a problem is measured by how much you agree with me, if you would've actually thought about it critically and correctly, you'd have come to the same conclusion as me"

For what it's worth, there actually is some research on it from San Diego State University.

The new study evaluated more than 20,000 college students between 2002 and 2007 and found a faster rate of increase in narcissistic traits overall than an earlier study which evaluated students between 1982 and 2006.


In a meta-analysis examining many studies together, Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell and Bushman (2008) showed that this narcissism appeared to be increasing even faster in college students compared to other age groups. By 2006, college students' scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) increased by 30% over the average scores obtained for those in the original sample who were evaluated from 1979 to 1985.

This surge toward narcissism appeared to be speeding up, with the years 2000-2006 showing an especially steep increase. Twenge and Campbell (2009) analyzed data gathered from college students in 2008-2009 on the NPI, which showed that a full third of college students sampled rated the majority of the questions in the narcissistic direction, with two-thirds scoring above average on narcissism traits. This compares with a fifth of students in 1994.

That does jive with the timelines from that original graph I posted earlier, interestingly enough.

A Devil's Advocate said:

I’m not sure I would agree with that. Scripture never teaches that Gentiles were ‘cut off’ from God in the sense of being unable to come to Him. We were not part of Israel’s covenant identity, and we were not chosen as the priest-nation, but that has never meant Gentiles were unable to know God or be saved.

Click to expand...

See Genesis 17:14 and Ephesians 2:11-12.

A Devil's Advocate said:

Abraham himself wasn’t part of Israel either when he first believed, and God counted him righteous simply because of his faith. That has always been the way God saves people, Jew or Gentile.

Click to expand...

Once God gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision, no male gentile could approach God without physical circumcision.

eclipsenow said:

Sure Acts 8:1 shows their love for and focus on Jerusalem. Generally speaking they saw that as their general focus -

Click to expand...

You are aware of the order specified in Luke's version of the Great Commission Luke 24:47?

The 12 were aware that the final week of Daniel's prophecy, the 70th week, will begin anytime after the cross (Acts 2:16-21), once Acts 7 happened and national Israel stoned Stephen, Peter was expecting that final week to begin anytime (1 Peter 1:5-9),

So there is a reason why they never left Jerusalem, and its not for the love.

Say it aint so said:

No one is denying fraud was taking place. What is not proved is the money was being directed to some movement. What I am saying is given the silence as Trump pardons fraudster after fraudster, Trump supporters don't care about fraud.

Click to expand...

Clearly, we have very strong disagreements about your conclusions.

Oompa Loompa said:

If you were referring to Hegseth, he stated that he never made such order.

Click to expand...

The Admiral testified to that effect as well.