Michael stands up - Daniel 12:1, Revelation 12:7-9

[Douggg]

Where does it say
2. the worst time of trouble in history will then take place?

David, in Daniel 12:1 there is a set of words that indicates a time of trouble as never was (ever) since there was a nation even to that same time (i.e. up to that time). i.e never matched in history

I will be first to admit that the wording is difficult to understand. Some may also argue it is only speaking about Israel, not nations in general.

What verifies it is talking abut the worst time of trouble in history, is that time is said to be a time, times, half times in Daniel 12:7 - the same time/times/half times in Revelation 12:14, when Satan is cast down to earth (woe to the inhabiters of the earth).

There are three places in the Bible which the expression "time, times, half times" is found. Daniel 7:25, Daniel 12:7, Revelation 12:14.
And when compared, it becomes apparent that all three are referring to a specific time in history. Generally speaking, the second half of the 7 year 70th week.


Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

 

[David Kent]

David, in Daniel 12:1 there is a set of words that indicates a time of trouble as never was (ever) since there was a nation even to that same time (i.e. up to that time). i.e never matched in history

I will be first to admit that the wording is difficult to understand. Some may also argue it is only speaking about Israel, not nations in general.

What verifies it is talking abut the worst time of trouble in history, is that time is said to be a time, times, half times in Daniel 12:7 - the same time/times/half times in Revelation 12:14, when Satan is cast down to earth (woe to the inhabiters of the earth).

There are three places in the Bible which the expression "time, times, half times" is found. Daniel 7:25, Daniel 12:7, Revelation 12:14.
And when compared, it becomes apparent that all three are referring to a specific time in history. Generally speaking, the second half of the 7 year 70th week.


Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Yes as I have continually said. "such as" not "worse than".

Tell me when there was a time of troublesuch as that in AD70. The curses in the prophecy of Deut 28 were fulfilled then.

 

[Timtofly]

Yes as I have continually said. "such as" not "worse than".

Tell me when there was a time of troublesuch as that in AD70. The curses in the prophecy of Deut 28 were fulfilled then.

70AD did not affect the whole nation. It only affected that generation of Jews. The northern 10 tribes were already scattered in 720 BC, almost 800 years prior, which was the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28.

70AD fulfilled Daniel 9:26, but not Daniel 12:1. When God comes and deals with Israel at the Second Coming is when Israel as a nation from out of all nations will endure the worse trouble since Jacob was named Israel. That is when Israel will stand in Judgment before God. Not for Israel's sake, but because they are the descendants of Adam.

Daniel 12 is not just because they rejected the OT Covenant. At the Second Coming, they will have also rejected the NT Covenant. The 70AD event was only the judgment of that generation for the events that led to Jesus being placed on the Cross, not because of Deuteronomy 28.

Besides 70AD was 40 years after God Himself did away with the OT Covenant on the Cross, and the temple veil was torn from top to bottom. The NT was already established when 70AD happened.

 

[David Kent]

70AD did not affect the whole nation. It only affected that generation of Jews. The northern 10 tribes were already scattered in 720 BC, almost 800 years prior, which was the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28.

70AD fulfilled Daniel 9:26, but not Daniel 12:1. When God comes and deals with Israel at the Second Coming is when Israel as a nation from out of all nations will endure the worse trouble since Jacob was named Israel. That is when Israel will stand in Judgment before God. Not for Israel's sake, but because they are the descendants of Adam.

Daniel 12 is not just because they rejected the OT Covenant. At the Second Coming, they will have also rejected the NT Covenant. The 70AD event was only the judgment of that generation for the events that led to Jesus being placed on the Cross, not because of Deuteronomy 28.

Besides 70AD was 40 years after God Himself did away with the OT Covenant on the Cross, and the temple veil was torn from top to bottom. The NT was already established when 70AD happened.

AD 70 did affect all the nation at that time. Jews throughout the nation and the Empire suffered.

As I keep saying, it doesn't anywhere say it is worse, that is misquoting scriptre.

Please give scripture references for the second part of your second paragraph.

I can't see your reasoning for the last paragraph.

 

[David Kent]

70AD did not affect the whole nation. It only affected that generation of Jews. The northern 10 tribes were already scattered in 720 BC, almost 800 years prior, which was the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28.

70AD fulfilled Daniel 9:26, but not Daniel 12:1. When God comes and deals with Israel at the Second Coming is when Israel as a nation from out of all nations will endure the worse trouble since Jacob was named Israel. That is when Israel will stand in Judgment before God. Not for Israel's sake, but because they are the descendants of Adam.

Daniel 12 is not just because they rejected the OT Covenant. At the Second Coming, they will have also rejected the NT Covenant. The 70AD event was only the judgment of that generation for the events that led to Jesus being placed on the Cross, not because of Deuteronomy 28.

Besides 70AD was 40 years after God Himself did away with the OT Covenant on the Cross, and the temple veil was torn from top to bottom. The NT was already established when 70AD happened.

Jesus said it would all come on that generation.

70 AD was a retribution for the crucifixion,

 

[Timtofly]

AD 70 did affect all the nation at that time. Jews throughout the nation and the Empire suffered.

As I keep saying, it doesn't anywhere say it is worse, that is misquoting scriptre.

Please give scripture references for the second part of your second paragraph.

I can't see your reasoning for the last paragraph.

The blindness in part per Romans 11 included all of Israel even prior to 720 BC.

They were blind to the Gospel. It would seem that even the Ethiopian eunuch was reading the book of Isaiah for the first time. You are dwelling too much on the writings of Josephus, and you want me to quote Scripture?

The Gospel is not about restoring Israel to the OT Covenant after the ten tribes were scattered across the earth. The Gospel is the redemption of all of Adam's offspring, not just the nation of Israel.

So why would 70 AD fulfill any Scripture other than Jesus' own words that the temple would be destroyed? Your point is that the whole nation suffered as if 720BC had never happened.

Jesus said it would all come on that generation.

70 AD was a retribution for the crucifixion,

I would agree in part, but you claimed it was because of Deuteronomy 28.

 

[David Kent]

The blindness in part per Romans 11 included all of Israel even prior to 720 BC.

They were blind to the Gospel. It would seem that even the Ethiopian eunuch was reading the book of Isaiah for the first time. You are dwelling too much on the writings of Josephus, and you want me to quote Scripture?

The Gospel is not about restoring Israel to the OT Covenant after the ten tribes were scattered across the earth. The Gospel is the redemption of all of Adam's offspring, not just the nation of Israel.

So why would 70 AD fulfill any Scripture other than Jesus' own words that the temple would be destroyed? Your point is that the whole nation suffered as if 720BC had never happened.


I would agree in part, but you claimed it was because of Deuteronomy 28.

You say that the tribulation was the worst... Scripture says:
Daniel 12: 1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

It always says "such as" not worse than. Different in kind, not intensity. When referring to that most people misquote it.

 

[Timtofly]

You say that the tribulation was the worst... Scripture says:
Daniel 12: 1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

It always says "such as" not worse than. Different in kind, not intensity. When referring to that most people misquote it.

"Such as never was". You left off the "never was" part. This trouble soon coming has never happened that way yet. Just another way of saying, "You think that was bad, you have not seen anything yet."

 

[David Kent]

"Such as never was". You left off the "never was" part. This trouble soon coming has never happened that way yet. Just another way of saying, "You think that was bad, you have not seen anything yet."

There never was any any tribulation such as that during the Roman War.

 

[Douggg]

There never was any any tribulation such as that during the Roman War.

David, the great tribulation at the time of the end will be global in nature. Time of the end is Daniel 12:4.

 

[David Kent]

David, the great tribulation at the time of the end will be global in nature. Time of the end is Daniel 12:4.

The time of thevend of what? It is similar wording to ghat in ge Olivet discourse. The end of the Jeewish dispensation.

 

[Douggg]

The time of thevend of what? It is similar wording to ghat in ge Olivet discourse. The end of the Jeewish dispensation.

David, time of the end, end of the days, will be when Daniel is resurrected.

Daniel 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

The Jews in Matthew 24 would have been familiar with the writings in Daniel12, and other passages in the scriptures they had at the time that talk about the time of the end, end of days, latter days, latter years. So I think that is what prompted their question..

 

[Timtofly]

There never was any any tribulation such as that during the Roman War.

Have you not read 1 Kings, 2 Kings, and 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles?

There was nothing new in the writings of Josephus, they had not already experienced as a nation.

 

[Douggg]

Have you not read 1 Kings, 2 Kings, and 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles?

There was nothing new in the writings of Josephus, they had not already experienced as a nation.

Tim, what are you implying in your first sentence ? I am not arguing, just curious about your statement/question.

 

[David Kent]

Have you not read 1 Kings, 2 Kings, and 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles?

There was nothing new in the writings of Josephus, they had not already experienced as a nation.

Yes there was, for it was the ending of the Priesthood and the end of the Jewish state. The house of records was burnt down so no Jew could prove their genealogy. Josephus said the sacrifice ceased because there was no priest left to offer it. When the sacrifice ceased under Antiochus Epiphanes it was the enemy who stopped it.

 

[Timtofly]

Yes there was, for it was the ending of the Priesthood and the end of the Jewish state. The house of records was burnt down so no Jew could prove their genealogy. Josephus said the sacrifice ceased because there was no priest left to offer it. When the sacrifice ceased under Antiochus Epiphanes it was the enemy who stopped it.

No. God stopped the Temple practices with the Cross. There was literally nothing between Israel and God relationship wise, after the Cross. Besides, not having an economy is not really tribulation. They started to revolt in payment of God's punishment. They were even killing each other trying to gain some semblance of control. You think they rebelled against Rome because they wanted to? Besides God knows who is who genealogy wise and will chose 144k to reboot Israel as a well governed nation at the Second Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

@Douggg

Tim, what are you implying in your first sentence ? I am not arguing, just curious about your statement/question.

Reading the history of Israel in God's Word as opposed to the Writings of Josephus about 70AD.

 

[Douggg]

Reading the history of Israel in God's Word as opposed to the Writings of Josephus about 70AD.

oh. I agree with that thinking.

 

[grafted branch]

No. God stopped the Temple practices with the Cross.

If the temple practices were stopped why did Paul take a vow that involved a sacrifice when James and all the elders told him to? See Acts 21:17-26.

 

[DavidPT]

Yes as I have continually said. "such as" not "worse than".

Tell me when there was a time of troublesuch as that in AD70. The curses in the prophecy of Deut 28 were fulfilled then.

and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

There are a few things here there are plainly obvious, thus can't be denied, at least according to this particular translation(KJV). First the text tells us that there has never been a time of trouble in the past that even compares to this, starting with the time nations initially existed up though until when this this time of trouble begins. Which means, for example, if there has been around 6000 years of earth history preceding this time of trouble, not one event during that past 2000 years compares to this time of trouble mentioned in Daniel 12:1.

That obviously equals what you are denying it equals, that it is worse than any time of trouble during the 6000 years preceeding it. For the life of me I can't figure out why you just don't want to stick with what the text is telling us, that this time of trouble, once it begins, it will be worse than any time of trouble that has preceded it? It's that clear, it's crystal clear, that in all of the years that have preceded this time of trouble, nothing was worse than this time of trouble will be.

IOW, pertaining to the 6000 years of human history preceding this event, no matter what time of trouble you pick out, such as 70 AD, for instance, that time of trouble will be nothing compared to the time of trouble Daniel 12 will be involving. Because, if it equals this time of trouble, or is even worse than, that means we were lied to in Daniel 12:1 since that verse is covering all of human history that precedes this time of trouble, and that the text is plainly telling us that there has not been a time of trouble in the past 6000 years compared to what this time of trouble will be. That clearly, undeniably equals that this time of trouble will be worse than any time of trouble that has preceded it, period, end of story. That's just common sense.

But we also have to factor in the time of trouble involving Matthew 24:21. Is that referring to this very same time of trouble Daniel 12:1 is? Of course it is. It is beyond preposterous to conclude otherwise. But before we look at that, something else that is undeniable in Daniel 12 is the fact there is a resurrection event during/at the end of or maybe shortly after this time of trouble. We have to keep that in mind when considering Matthew 24:21, that a resurrection event has to follow this time of trouble.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


We undeniably already know from Daniel 12:1, assuming there are 6000 years of earth history preceding this time of trouble, that it will be worse than any time of trouble that ever occurred during this past 6000 years. And this presents a major problem, thus an obvious contradiction, unless one is just plain blind or maybe is allowing doctrinal bias to overwhelm them in this particular case, if we have Matthew 24:21 not meaning Daniel 12:1, but meaning a time preceding Daniel 12:1. If that is not an example of an obvious contradiction, nothing is.

Look what Matthew 24:21 plainly says--- such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. What part of--no, nor ever shall be---are some failing to comprehend if they have Matthew 24:21 not involving the same time period Daniel 12:1 is involving? Since the beginning of this world, wouldn't that too be meaning that nothing prior to it, meaning since man was put on the earth, that none of that was worse than what this will be, and that nothing in the future will be worse than this, either---thus---no, nor ever shall be? Of course it would. To deny that is to deny what the text plainly says.

Except that would be an undeniable lie if Matthew 24:21 is involving an era of time that Daniel 12:1 isn't, and that it precedes the era of time Daniel 12:1 is involving. Unfortunately, apparently, and maybe this includes you, or maybe it doesn't, some interpreters are just too prideful to ever admit that they have been wrong about some things for years and years already, even after their position has clearly been debunked.

The key to interpreting Matthew 24:21 and Daniel 12:1 correctly, is simple. Both accounts have to be involving the same same era of time and that a resurrection event has to be at the end of this time of trouble. Good luck reasonably making 70 AD fit any of that.