70th Week - It Is Still Pending

[iamlamad]

GOD answered before you asked (Ref. 12:4). But apparently you didn't like HIS answer so then you asked a second time to make sure that GOD didn't make a mistake in HIS First Answer?

So did HE give you a different answer the Second time? And if so, then is there anything we can TRUST in Scripture, without depending on YOU to query the veracity of what's in Scripture?

I guess we don't need "Mary" anymore, now that you're the designated point-of-contact?


In my naivete, I'll pass on the Second "sanity-check", and simply TRUST the Scriptures as originally provided.
Thanks,
DaDad

Ask - and keep on asking - and you will receive. Knock - and keep on knocking - and the door will be opened.

You can't just cherry pick favorite scriptures. You know better! The first time I ever heard His voice - what seemed like an audible voice - I had been asking for 6 months. I don't think I missed one day in six months. But just as the scriptures say, I kept right on asking, KNOWING one day He would answer.

I don't have a corner on hearing. What do the scriptures say? MY SHEEP know my voice, and they hear me and follow me. Are you a sheep?

Mary? Please tell me you are not asking Mary!

 

[DaDad]

Ask - and keep on asking ...

Not me. Certainly I ask for confirmation, but NEVER for GOD to change what HE's already said. Thus the guidance with the context:

Daniel 12:4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”​

You know, there is one thing I'd like you to ask GOD about. It has to do with being "covetous". -- My wife says I have too many motorcycles, but I'd like another one, and maybe more. Could you ask HIM to re-define "covetous" to exclude motorcycles?

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[iamlamad]

Not me. Certainly I ask for confirmation, but NEVER for GOD to change what HE's already said. Thus the guidance with the context:

Daniel 12:4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”​

You know, there is one thing I'd like you to ask GOD about. It has to do with being "covetous". -- My wife says I have too many motorcycles, but I'd like another one, and maybe more. Could you ask HIM to re-define "covetous" to exclude motorcycles?

Thanks,
DaDad

So you are saying you disagree with Matthew - or maybe agree but just won't follow. Got it!
As for Daniel, it IS the time of the end. That is why God is revealing much to the church today. I don't have a problem with motorcycles.

 

[DaDad]

So you are saying you disagree with Matthew - ...

You're not doing what Matthew said, you're doing what Zechari′ah did:

Luke 1:18 And Zechari′ah said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” 19 And the angel answered him, “I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news. 20 And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.” ​

Now if WE could only be so lucky ...

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[BobRyan]

Actually, the 600, 60 and 6 as it was written in the Greek look VERY MUCH like "In the Name of Allah" written in Arabic. Could it be that is what Daniel actually saw? Or is that just a coincidence?

John is the one writing about 666... it is only found in Rev 13. The Roman Empire was the ruling entity at the time he was writing and Roman letters were also used as numbers in some cases. So nothing Arabic about that. The way that the number is calculated for a name under the Empire that John is under - means that only the Italian, Roman numeral system could be considered by all his readers as the context.

 

[BobRyan]

Great to hear.

Daniel 12:4 ... and knowledge shall increase.”​

What makes this possible without computers and the internet?

I think I already agreed that the Daniel 12:4 statement could easily include such things.

Using the SAME methodology to "calculate" the number of the a/c's name, you can sum "Computer" to 666. -- And it's not a "coincidence".

Whaaaat?

Symbol I V X L C D M
Value 1 5 10 50 100 500 1,000

CoMputer
C = 100
M = 1000
======
that's 1100

How is it that 1100 looks like 666???

Furthermore "binary" in-and-of-itself appears to validate the Rev. 13 premise and methodology.

Whaaaat??

bInary
I = 1.
How is it that 1 looks like 666?

Wrong calculation method.

Its the only one John and his readers would have known to use.
exegesis is "king" when it comes to interpreting the text.

The "world's language" is English. Every international flight Pilot and Tower use English.

That is true for "today" but not at all applicable to Rev 13 and not even remotely exegesis of the text.

Rather you are going on only in the context of "creative writing"-- alone.

. And virtually every student around the world is taught English. So use ENGLISH as the basis
with increments of "6":

A = 6
B = 12
C = 18 etc.
​

Another even more extreme example of "creative writing"?

English has no such system as "every letter has numeric equivalent and always increments by six".

Your appeal to "creative writing alone" for your "solution" is...err...ummmm... "creative"
​

 

[DaDad]

...

Is there a reason why you simply re-posted the prior nonsense?

It would have been better if you'd defended each aspect of:

1. "Computer" sums to 666.
2. The World's Most Senior JEWISH Political Statesman name sums to 666.
3. UPC barcodes use the number "6" as registration marks
4. The binary hand counting method is the "Peace" symbol
5. That binary for "7" is "111"

... just for starters. But I guess not, so you remain in your ignorance.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[BobRyan]

. And virtually every student around the world is taught English. So use ENGLISH as the basis

with increments of "6":

A = 6
B = 12
C = 18 etc.

Another even more extreme example of "creative writing"?

English has no such system as "every letter has numeric equivalent and always increments by six".

Your appeal to "creative writing alone" for your "solution" is...err...ummmm... "creative"

Is there a reason why you simply re-posted the prior

I was debunking some "creative writing" as shown near the end of my post

It would have been better if you'd defended each aspect of:

1. "Computer" sums to 666.
2. The World's Most Senior JEWISH Political Statesman name sums to 666.
3. UPC barcodes use the number "6" as registration marks
4. The binary hand counting method is the "Peace" symbol
5. That binary for "7" is "111"

That is more "creative writing" --- not an exegesis of any Bible text at all.
BTW - 666 in binary is - 1010011010... but has nothing to do with the text.

 

[DaDad]

...BTW - 666 in binary is - 1010011010... but has nothing to do with the text.

OR, binary for 6 - 6 - 6 is: 110 / 110 / 110.

And the word "computer" DOES sum to six hundred and sixty-six, as does the name of the World's Most Senior JEWISH Political Statesman.

So I guess Scripture is CORRECT Both ways ...

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[BobRyan]

OR, binary for 6 - 6 - 6 is: 110 / 110 / 110.

And the word "computer" DOES sum to six hundred and sixty-six, as does the name of the World's Most Senior JEWISH Political Statesman.

So I guess Scripture is CORRECT Both ways ...

All of which have absolutely nothing to do with scripture

- your insistence that John and his readers rely on "English" for their calculation of 666 is not reasonable, not logical.. etc.

-your imaginative A=6 and B=12.... totally out of "thin air"

Neither John nor his readers would have been wild-guessing-out-on-that-limb.

First rule of Bible exegesis - you have to stay within the limits of what the writer intended -- and not go free wheeling deep out into creative-writing-land to be taken seriously by others.

What is more - I doubt that the number of English speaking people who think that A=6 and B=12... rises about the amount of 5 or 10.

Please be serious. Consider the time test objective Bible study method of exegesis... eisegesis is so "plastic" that all creative writing qualifies in it.

 

[DaDad]

- your insistence that John and his readers rely on "English" for their calculation of 666 is not reasonable, not logical.

Ummmm, GOD often provides depictions of end-time circumstances, for an end-time generation, which is not understood by the current writer. Even Jesus cited Daniel saying "let the reader understand". So to presume that GOD CANNOT give guidance as to future technology, events, and social conventions (i.e., the English language) is at best presumptuous, and probably closer to a misrepresentation of GOD's Word.

And there's nothing that says you have to have common sense, but sometimes it helps.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[BobRyan]

Ummmm, GOD often provides depictions of end-time circumstances, for an end-time generation, which is not understood by the current writer.

Which is no excuse for making stuff up and ignoring exegesis entirely.

John was writing to his own contemporaries - he was talking to them about a very well known practice of taking the Roman numeral/letters in a person's name or title and "calculating the number of the name".

Making stuff up about "no he meant for them to do it in Mandarin Chinese or English or Hindi" is not even remotely exegesis of anything no matter how many billions of people speak those languages today.

 

[DaDad]

... John was writing to his own contemporaries - ...

You presume too much:

“[The] five of whom are fallen [presumes John’s work to be written in] Vespasian’s reign. Titus is to come, but only to last for a short time. Perhaps the writer knew of the hopeless condition of Titus’ health. He is therefore either using a literary convention, and assuming an earlier date than is the fact to give his words the force of a prophecy concerning Titus, or, more likely, his is using here material written in Vespasian’s reign which partly suits his purpose and partly not; for there are very good reasons for thinking that this book was written, not in Vespasian’s reign, but in Domitian’s.”[1]
[1]Eiselen, Frederick, Edwin Lewis, & David Downey, The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Abingdon Press, NY, 1929, p. 1392​

Don't you love the term "literary convention"? Yeah, let's not call it a LIE, -- we'll use a euphemism. It will be so much more polite.

The fact is, these prophecies are for the end-time, and certainly can be interpreted using end-time conventions, such as tanks, helicopters, nuclear weapons, and LANGUAGE.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[BobRyan]

Ummmm, GOD often provides depictions of end-time circumstances, for an end-time generation, which is not understood by the current writer.

Which is no excuse for making stuff up and ignoring exegesis entirely.

John was writing to his own contemporaries - he was talking to them about a very well known practice of taking the Roman numeral/letters in a person's name or title and "calculating the number of the name".

Making stuff up about "no he meant for them to do it in Mandarin Chinese or English or Hindi" is not even remotely exegesis of anything no matter how many billions of people speak those languages today.

You presume too much:

I love it when differences are that clearly contrasted and defined for all to read.

The fact is, these prophecies are for the end-time

That is true - but John does not use that as an excuse to starting writing in English and start making up stuff like "A=6, B=12".

Please be serious.

 

[DaDad]

... Please be serious.

Please be honest:

“[The] five of whom are fallen [presumes John’s work to be written in] Vespasian’s reign. Titus is to come, but only to last for a short time. Perhaps the writer knew of the hopeless condition of Titus’ health. He is therefore either using a literary convention, and assuming an earlier date than is the fact to give his words the force of a prophecy concerning Titus, or, more likely, his is using here material written in Vespasian’s reign which partly suits his purpose and partly not; for there are very good reasons for thinking that this book was written, not in Vespasian’s reign, but in Domitian’s.”[1]
[1]Eiselen, Frederick, Edwin Lewis, & David Downey, The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Abingdon Press, NY, 1929, p. 1392
​

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[BobRyan]

Ummmm, GOD often provides depictions of end-time circumstances, for an end-time generation, which is not understood by the current writer.

Which is no excuse for making stuff up and ignoring exegesis entirely.

John was writing to his own contemporaries - he was talking to them about a very well known practice of taking the Roman numeral/letters in a person's name or title and "calculating the number of the name".

Making stuff up about "no he meant for them to do it in Mandarin Chinese or English or Hindi" is not even remotely exegesis of anything no matter how many billions of people speak those languages today.

You presume too much:

I love it when differences are that clearly contrasted and defined for all to read.

The fact is, these prophecies are for the end-time

That is true - but John does not use that as an excuse to starting writing in English and start making up stuff like "A=6, B=12".

Please be serious.

Please be honest:

John does not use that as an excuse to starting writing in English and start making up stuff like "A=6, B=12".... "and we all know it".

Is that what you are looking for???

 

[DaDad]

...
John was writing to his own contemporaries ...

Yep, the Book of Revelation was fulfilled during ~70AD. You got me there.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[BobRyan]

Yep, the Book of Revelation was fulfilled during ~70AD. You got me there.

Thanks,
DaDad

A. John had not written a word of the book of Revelation in 70 A.D.
B. You use "Creative writing" to invent the idea that when a prophet speaks about a future event he should not convey the information in terms his contemporaries could understand - nor even the language of his contemporaries since you insist that the Greek text needs to be understood as predicting how English letters would have A=6 and B=12 and C=18...etc weighting.

Please be serious.

Consider hopping off that eisegesis-in-creative-writing train and joining the actual Bible students in what is called exegesis.

 

[Biblewriter]

Hey, lets start at the BEGINNING, and see where we end up.
I'm game, are you?

The Chapter 11 prophecy starts in Chapter 10. To solve 10:1 we have to address 1:21:

Daniel 1:21 says that Daniel DIED in the first year of King Cyrus. Per Calvin:

Expositors are puzzled with this verse, because, as we shall afterwards see, the Vision occurred to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus’s reign. Some explain the word היה, haiah, by to be “broken;” but this is by no means in accordance with the history. ...
​

Here we find that Calvin deferred to "history" to discount 1:12, and accept 10:1. And where "history" can't account for Darius the Mede being in the Medo/Persian Empire, we can only conclude it wasn't "history" after all. It was really only believing 10:1 at the expense of 1:21.

But if we look closely at 10:1, we will not find the 1:21 reference to Cyrus as being "king":

1:21 And Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.
​

Instead 10:1 only presents Cyrus as "king" over the "Persians", -- not "king" over Daniel:

10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia ...
​

So now we should conclude that 10:1 pre-dates 1:21, and predates the conquest of Babylon. After the conquest of Babylon per verse 21, Cyrus became KING over all, and then Daniel DIED.​

And in a broader concept, Chapter 1 covers the span of Daniel's life. So of course 1:21 accounts for his DEATH.​

And I'm not "right". Scripture is. I merely cite what Scripture says.

Thanks,
DaDad

There was a Cyrus, king of Persia, who was the grandfather of Cyrus the Great. So there is no contradiction here at all.

Daniel 10:1 refers to the first Cyrus, and Daniel 1:21 refers to the second Cyrus.