Shalom, Mishpachah.
Today is Yom Richown. The "head day" of the week. Since it is still only 10:35 pm, we would call it "Saturday," although it is no longer the Shabbat.
Continuing on, let's actually take the time to define these words. First, Strong's has this to say about them (and I'm using Dan. 9:27 for the Tanakh - the OT - and Matt. 24:15 for the Brit Chadashah - the NT:
OT:8074 shaameem (shaw-mame'); a primitive root; to stun (or intransitively, grow numb), i.e. devastate or (figuratively) stupefy (both usually in a passive sense):
KJV - make amazed, be astonied, (be an) astonish (-ment), (be, bring into, unto, lay, lie, make) desolate (-ion, places), be destitute, destroy (self), (lay, lie, make) waste, wonder.
OT:8251 shiqquwts (shik-koots'); or shiqquts (shik-koots'); from OT:8262; disgusting, i.e. filthy; especially idolatrous or (concretely) an idol:
KJV - abominable filth (idol, -ation), detestable (thing).
NT:946 bdelugma (bdel'-oog-mah); from NT:948; a detestation, i.e. (specially) idolatry:
KJV - abomination.
NT:2050 ereemoosis (er-ay'-mo-sis); from NT:2049; despoliation:
KJV - desolation.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
Now, knowing that words in Hebrew usually are found in "families," and that words in Greek often stem from other sources, we should also look at the words to which the numbers refer:
OT:8262 shaaqats (shaw-kats'); a primitive root; to be filthy, i.e. (intensively) to loathe, pollute:
KJV - abhor, make abominable, have in abomination, detest, utterly.
NT:948 bdelussoo (bdel-oos'-so); from a (presumed) derivative of bdeoo (to stink); to be disgusted, i.e. (by implication) detest (especially of idolatry):
KJV - abhor, abominable.
NT:2049 ereemo-oo (er-ay-mo'-o); from NT:2048; to lay waste (literally or figuratively):
KJV - (bring to, make) desolate (-ion), come to nought.
NT:2048 ereemos (er'-ay-mos); of uncertain affinity; lonesome, i.e. (by implication) waste (usually as a noun, NT:5561 being implied):
KJV - desert, desolate, solitary, wilderness.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
(We could go another level with NT:5561, but I'm going to stop here.)
Now, something that is VERY important is to LEAVE THE LABELS BEHIND! What I mean is this: Both Gavri'el (Gabriel) quoted by Dani'el (Daniel) and Mattityahu (Matthew) were trying to convey a message and were using these words to describe events to come; they were NOT introducing some title of an event! The words MEANT SOMETHING and were intended to disseminate knowledge at a basic level.
Gavri'el's words were as follows in Dan. 9:27:
27 Vhigbiyr briyt laarabiym shaaVuwa` echaad
vachatsiy hashaaVuwa` yashbiyt zeVach uwminchaah
v`al knaf shiquwtsiym mshomeem v`ad kaalaah
vnecheraatsaah titakh `al shomeem:
Allow me a bit of leeway on my transliteration scheme, here: A "bet" at the beginning of a word is ALWAYS a "bet" (a "b" sound), whether the dagesh dot is included or not, and is never a "vet." So, any "v" sound at the beginning of a word MUST be a "vav." Thus, I can capitalize at the beginning of sentences with a "V" for a "vav" and a "B" for a "bet." Elsewhere in the sentences, a "v" represents a "vav" and a "V" represents a "vet," and a "b" represents a "bet."
Also, the "vav" following a "cholem" making a "cholem with vav" or a "vav" with a central dot making a "shureq" instead of a "qibbuts" is represented with a "w" attached to the "o" or the "u," as "ow" and "uw," respectively. The vowel sound does not change that much and may not be recognizable by the ear of an English speaking person.
27 Vhigbiyr = 27 And-he-shall-strengthen
briyt = a-covenant
laarabiym = with-many
shaaVuwa` = seven
echaad = one
vachatsiy = and-in-middle
hashaaVuwa` = of-the-seven
yashbiyt = he-shall-stop
zeVach = sacrifice
uwminchaah = and-gift
v`al = and-against
knaf = a-wing
shiquwtsiym = of-abominations
mshomeem = he-shall-desolate
v`ad = and-until
kaalaah = an-end
vnecheraatsaah = and-that-decided
titakh = shall-be-poured
`al = against
shomeem: = desolated:
27 And-he-shall-strengthen a-covenant with-many seven one and-in-middle of-the-seven he-shall-stop sacrifice and-gift and-against a-wing of-abominations he-shall-desolate and-until an-end and-that-decided shall-be-poured against desolated:
And, as I have said on numerous occasions within the forums I visit, the "he" here must refer to the "Messiah" of verse 26, not the "prince that shall come," which is within a prepositional phrase (in English) or a subordinate noun in a noun construct state (in Hebrew).
Thus, it is not some "antichrist" who (1) strengthens a covenant with many for one seven, (2) who stops the sacrifice and the gift in the middle of that seven, and (3) leaves the desolated desolate until everything determined is poured out against them until the end, because of a WING of abominations! It is Yeshua` the Messiah of God who does all of that.
First, (1) the covenant strengthened for one seven is the DAVIDIC COVENANT and Yeshua` offered Himself as their anointed King only to be rejected, even though God the Father Himself anointed Him with the "oil of gladness" and identified Him as David's rightful heir by calling Him His own Son (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22 cff Psalm 2:1-12; 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 17:13; 28:6; Psalm 89:3-4, 26-29, and 33-37).
It was (2) HE who stopped the sacrifice and the gift in the middle of the seven by completing the need for sacrifice in the presentation of His own body (the veil) for sin (Hebrews 10:1-22).
And it was (3) HE who left the house of Isra'el DESOLATE until everything determined is poured our against them until the end comes, because of a myriad of abominations in rejecting Him as their King (Matthew 23:37-39)!
Hi, Retro
ReplyDeleteWorhty asked me to stop saying I'm banned. It's true some things have got through. Going foward I'll sign 'banned where it matters most.'
Sorry to see you don't interact. That makes for better communication.
I have read the Aug. 1 installment (Aug.1 was a Wednesday, so was a bit puzzled by the sabbath remark)
I understand the point you are making about the pronoun antecedent of Dan. 9. The interesting thing is that vision sort of makes the point about antichrist anyway, because Messiah wouldn't commit abomination, would he? (Well, he would if you were in Judaism!)
This makes the fact that Josephus treated the passage more intriguing. He was a trained priest, and stands 1900 years closer. But he doesn't say who the characters
(sorry this system processes horribly. Can't spend any more time on it. Hope you will write, direct, and I'll send you GOSPEL I NEVER KNEW. ask@interplans.net)
Shalom, Marcus.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that I don't "interact"; it's that I don't have TIME to interact to all I might if I could dedicate my time solely to interaction! I'm trying to get some books written in addition to posting on two boards (Worthy and Christian Eschatology Forum) and frankly, I use most of my free time posting to the other forum. Please don't think I'm ignoring you or your requests.
Now, as far as your "Mod Review," when a Moderator must review your posts before they will be posted, you just need to understand that it's ALL IN THE PRESENTATION!
Be careful with how you word your responses, knowing that the board doesn't believe in preterism or allegorical interpretation. You can be passionate without appearing to be aggressive. Try the "Socratic question" approach in presenting your logic. Learn the techniques for good debate, and make sure that you ALWAYS give an opponent the benefit of the doubt.
Don't be like another poster I know who always comes to the conclusion that, if you don't agree with him, then you are an "instrument of Satan" and must not be truly "saved!" (I know you don't do that; I'm just expressing the extreme.)
Always remember that you are communicating with - at the very least - a POTENTIAL child of God, a POTENTIAL brother or sister in Christ, in the Messiah, and when you address a child of God who possesses the Ruach haQodesh (the Holy Spirit), you are addressing the Ruach haQodesh HIMSELF!
I believe that, as they see your attitude is a sincere desire to learn, communicate the truth of God's Word, and debate in a friendly manner at the same time, they will eventually lighten the scrutiny.
In the Messiah's love,
Retrobyter
Thanks for the notes. It helps a little bit. I didn't realize they took themselves as seriously as they did, but they don't quote many of the usual scholars in backgrounds. when the speak of humility and arrogance, I heard agreement and disagreement with favorite positions...
ReplyDeleteTried to send COLLABORATION THEOLOGY but it was took big. Here are the 1st 3 paragraphs.
COLLABORATION THEOLOGY
--Interplanner, Aug. ‘12
Collaboration Theology (CT) means that the essential thrust of the New Testament in handling the OT and in describing what transpired at the coming of Christ is that all nations including Israel were appealed to, to join in the mission of the Gospel. This is slightly different than just saying they are joined into one group or people, which is clear from Eph. 2-3. It goes further to say they have the one task, which Mt. 21 calls the stewardship of the vineyard. The task is clear because the wonders of the resurrection need to be declared; man can find justification from his sins, proven by Christ’s restored life. Everything God promised to the fathers was fulfilled in it (Acts 13). But, for the same reason, it wouldn’t work to call this either Fulfillment Theology or Joining Theology because they lacks the attention to mission.
Anti-RT
The reason for expressing CT is to overcome RT, or Replacement Theology, which plays the church against Israel, in which both pro and contra positions are fixed on people-groups. RT usually sounds like the church is another Israel, so much so that one critic says ‘notice how the church always gets the benefits of Israel, but never gets the bad stuff.’ Israel was a theocracy, so the idea of RT is that this ‘other’ Israel (the church) must be one. This also misses the mission. One might say that was the problem of Israel when Christ arrived, to be set on its identity as a nation, not on its task.
Anti-RT tends to be unhistorical because it finds so much fulfillment in the 2nd coming. By unhistorical, I mean, not finding the fulfillment just mentioned in the sweeping statement of Acts 13. Notice that this is in Acts, which opens with the disciples wondering if the kingdom of Israel was about to be restored. Anti-RT is very much absorbed with trying to work out this problem, but not from immediate sources.
Retro,
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate your trying to explain how Worthy works. What do you do about these 2 things:
1, it's OK to be 'borderline' abusive if you're defending millenialism, or neo-Judaism
2, what if my conclusions, which aren't too hard to see, but extremely startling, are that the very beliefs that were refuted by the apostles then (or claimed--in the case of how to treat Dan.9) are being championed today in a sort of time-warp that begs the question of their fulfillment in the 1st century? This is why at Worthy, I realized about 2 weeks ago that the really pressing question is not whether Dan. 9 has happened. It is: if Dan.9 is going to repeat, what would that look like? (It would repeat because these sincere folks are very sure of some or all of it happening future, yet it is so vividly about the 6th decade. And being quite familiar with the events of Jewish War and inter-relations between the apostles and Christ, if Judaism resurges and creates the type of leaders it did then, how awful. Yet how impossible in any immediate sense, because of Islam there.
This led me to ask GDemoss I think why he had the date of next spring. Because to do what Dan. 9 says in a current sense, a temple has to be there!
(By the way, as far as time warp goes, I'm not at all first or unique in noticing that the 'millenium' has its evil ending too. That is the kind of time warp I'm noticing, although one segment earlier).
--Inter
In all my visits to Messianics meetings, I find them heavily focused on atomic particulars. One class on Hebrew insisted on finding the pictographic meaning of each letter, for ex., 'bet' meant mouth. Then each word becomes a 'sentence' that you read first, before the normal sentence.
ReplyDeleteWell, whatever happened to going the other direction? Find those NT paragraphs that interpret the OT and the times of the NT and read them in a normal sense for a big picture? I may be wrong but I just don't think the atomic direction can really said to be a safe pursuit of the meaning.
--Inter
Do you think you could ask these people at Worthy why they don't repsond to emails? The way this has worked out is so infantile. The forum could be a great site, but so far it is not even a forum. You have to go in like Paul in Acts 17 and make your point from complete scratch. If it crashes and burns, so be it.
ReplyDeleteJust 4. Just ask them on Worthy PMs why they don't resond. ReformedTheologian is not very different from what I think. So it must be some other reason.
"WrthyBabbler" ;"WrthyFriendJacob" ;"WrthyJustinM" ;"WrthyRfrmdEvnglst" ;
--Inter, advocate of Collaboration Theology to stop RT and Dispensationalism