Why Daniel's 70th week must be in the future

[AandW]

No. The prophecy is about Israel fulfilling those things

The man who commits the abomination of desolation ends the sacrifice. You can’t offer sacrifice in a holy place that is rendered desolate By An abomination of desolation

Sacrifice never took away sin most definitely by the evil high priest in Jesus day

Amen!

But as long as the Temple existed, the Jews would have never fully had reason to look toward Christ as Lord and Savior.
As long as the Jews were able to offer Daily Sacrifice, there was no need for the Sacrifice Christ provided.
So these things had to END!

And Daniel, clearly from the Hebrew I have provided, was [Never] discussing the AoD as being a Person/Man/Antichrist. Daniel was saying without the ability to offer Sacrifice, there is no way to cover SIN! So when they were no longer able to offer Daily Sacrifice, that became an Abomination of Desolation!

But to those Jews, who did understand who Christ was and what He accomplished, they were able to understand why the Temple and Daily Sacrifice Ended. They understood that Christ provided all of the Sacrifices they would ever be required to offer.

 

[OldSage]

I've already stated in past posts with you, that v.2 is speaking of the events surrounding 70ad, JUST AS Matt22:7 is; and JUST AS Lk19:41-44 is (Jesus SAID on the very day that the "69 Wks [total]" were CONCLUDED; and DID the Zech9:9 thing); and JUST AS Lk21:6 and Mk13:2 is; and JUST AS Lk21:12-24a is... etc...


First off, I'd like to know if you see Luke 21:8-11 as being identical events as that of Matt24:4-8 and Mk13:5-8, even though Lk21:8-11 does not LABEL them as "the beginning of birth pangs"... and then whether or not you see v.12 as saying "BUT BEFORE ALL THESE" as referring to what was just described in vv.8-11 (namely the beginning of birth pangs in those verses), and that what v.12 refers to as coming "BUT BEFORE ALL THESE [beginning of birth pangs]" is what is found in vv.12-24a (i.e. these verses describing the events surrounding 70ad, which must come "BEFORE ALL THESE" vv.8-11 things).

Do you see this much?

Thanks. I will note that you are unable to (or are purposely disregarding to) address what I've put in Post #617 (bottom half of that post), pg 31.

I've frequently addressed this. You believe Matthew 24: verse 2 is about AD 70 , and the subsequent two chapters are not.
I find this absurd, I told you. It's so ridiculous. If you want to pursue the idea you need a new thread.

And Luke does not mention odin, birth pangs, as if this allusion means that he is talking about something completely different to Matthew and Mark, which is just a very weak argument, unless you have more to add.

 

[OldSage]

[besides disagreeing with you on the ID of the "24 elders" in Rev4-5 (who say of themselves "hast redeemed US to God by thy blood out of EVERY..." (not just out of Israel [singular nation])]


Consider:

[quoting from Gaebelein's commentary on Joshua 21, at BibleHub--SEE all of Joshua 21]

"In chapters 13:14, 33 and 14:3, 4 the statement is made that Moses gave no inheritance to the Levites. The Lord was their inheritance. After the tribes had received their allotments the heads of the fathers of the Levites came to Joshua and Eleazar with a petition. They based their petition upon the Word of God spoken to Moses. “Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in; and ye shall give also unto the Levites suburbs for the cities round about them” (Numbers 35:2). The people were obedient and gave them cities out of their several inheritances. But the cities were also assigned by lot, so that the Lord assigned them their habitations. How it must have pleased Him to see His Word remembered, obeyed and acted upon! They were scattered throughout the entire domain of Israel. The Kohathites and the children of Aaron had thirteen cities in the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Simeon, and two more in Ephraim, Dan and Manasseh. The Gershonites were placed in cities in eastern Manasseh, Issachar, Asher and Naphtali. The Merarites were in Zebulun and among Gad and Reuben. The divine purpose in scattering them over the land was, no doubt, that they might exercise a beneficent influence in divine things to exhort the tribes to worship Jehovah, to remind them of His goodness and to restrain them from idolatry. At the close of this chapter we read of the faithfulness of the Lord. He gave them the land; He gave them rest; He gave them victory. “There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken.” All God’s promises will be in due time accomplished."

--Gaebelein, Commentary on Joshua 21 - Joshua 21 Gaebelein's Annotated Bible (biblehub.com)

[end quoting; bold and underline mine]




____________

[... if I've understood your point correctly...]

Why do you always try and complicate things?
The earthly Temple is an image of the heavenly. (Hebrews - worth reading).
The 24 elders had a place chosen by lot.

1 Chronicles 24 These were the divisions of the descendants of Aaron:The sons of Aaron were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. 2 But Nadab and Abihu died before their father did, and they had no sons; so Eleazar and Ithamar served as the priests. 3 With the help of Zadok a descendant of Eleazar and Ahimelek a descendant of Ithamar, David separated them into divisions for their appointed order of ministering. 4 A larger number of leaders were found among Eleazar’s descendants than among Ithamar’s, and they were divided accordingly: sixteen heads of families from Eleazar’s descendants and eight heads of families from Ithamar’s descendants. 5 They divided them impartially by casting lots, for there were officials of the sanctuary and officials of God among the descendants of both Eleazar and Ithamar.6 The scribe Shemaiah son of Nethanel, a Levite, recorded their names in the presence of the king and of the officials: Zadok the priest, Ahimelek son of Abiathar and the heads of families of the priests and of the Levites—one family being taken from Eleazar and then one from Ithamar.

7 The first lot fell to Jehoiarib,
the second to Jedaiah,
8 the third to Harim,
the fourth to Seorim,
9 the fifth to Malkijah,
the sixth to Mijamin,
10 the seventh to Hakkoz,
the eighth to Abijah,
11 the ninth to Jeshua,
the tenth to Shekaniah,
12 the eleventh to Eliashib,
the twelfth to Jakim,
13 the thirteenth to Huppah,
the fourteenth to Jeshebeab,
14 the fifteenth to Bilgah,
the sixteenth to Immer,
15 the seventeenth to Hezir,
the eighteenth to Happizzez,
16 the nineteenth to Pethahiah,
the twentieth to Jehezkel,
17 the twenty-first to Jakin,
the twenty-second to Gamul,
18 the twenty-third to Delaiah
and the twenty-fourth to Maaziah.

19 This was their appointed order of ministering when they entered the temple of the Lord, according to the regulations prescribed for them by their ancestor Aaron, as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded him.

 

[OldSage]

But to one of your original points; if we're saying a remnant of Israel returned to the land, then THEY were the obedient/remarried ones (not the ones who didn't return). OK, so then if this is true let's assume the 2nd temple period remnant cleaned up their act per Ezra and Nehemiah and became fully law observant...the portion in Jeremiah says "no more will they" (those who return to the land) "be stubborn and follow their evil hearts" once there. So when descendants of those same people rejected the Messiah that act contradicted the Almighty's prophecy here.

Also, portion in the prophecy says "all the nations will flow to Jerusalem to honor the name of the LORD" at that time. This part of the prophecy is also contradicted by the events of the 1st century as no nations gathered to honor the Almighty or the Messiah.

The "there was no ark of the covenant" portion is true of the remnant of the 2nd temple period...but so would it be true for Israel that returns to Jerusalem when the Messiah comes in the future.

-----

Those who returned during the 2nd temple period simply don't fit Jeremiah's prophecy.



Hmm...

I'm sorry sir Sage, but I just can't agree with this for the following reason:

If we say David's throne became eternal through Messiah then that means BEFORE Messiah it wasn't eternal...and if not eternal, then - again - how can the kingdom of Israel exist prior to Messiah?

If we're saying that Neb began operating in the function of David's throne after the captivity (again before the Messiah), then the promise that DAVID would always have a heir - his seed - on the throne is now contradicted also. If we try to force-fit Neb then we can make a case for ANYONE fulfilling the promise made to David such as the Medo-Persian rulers who conquered Babylon...to Alexander from Macedonia who conquered them...down to the Caesars of Rome. See what I mean?

[In fact, that's what all of the Merovingian and other European monarchs of medieval times attempted to argue; that they were descendants of King David also. Even today's Queen Elizabeth tries to make this argument by tracing her throne back to David's.]

No, it must be David's seed...from his loins...on Israel's throne.

This is why it only seems reasonable to say (as a fulfillment of Almighty's promise) that "as long as the throne of Israel exists, David's seed will sit on it. That is, as long as the throne exists." It's not reasonable to say "David's throne of Israel, and thus Israel, has always existed through other kings not from David".

Hi Yashuah,
Your objections are correct.
It would be good to attack this on a new thread.

However, when Ezra returned from Babylon, (516BC or 47XBC depending on your camp) he came with Israelites.

2 Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city; 2 Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mizpar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel:.......
.......................................70 So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

And Luke does not mention odin, birth pangs, as if this allusion means that he is talking about something completely different to Matthew and Mark, which is just a very weak argument, unless you have more to add.

I've already stated (in numerous posts and threads) that:

--Matthew 24:4-8 and Mark 13:5-8 and Luke 21:8-11 are the EXACT IDENTICAL ITEMS occurring in the SAME TIME-PERIOD (coz they ARE THE SAME)





--v.12 (of Lk21) says, however, "BUT BEFORE ALL THESE" (BEFORE ALL THESE that vv.8-11 just DESCRIBED [which are EQUIVALENT to Matt24:4-8 and Mk13:5-8, aka "the beginning of birth pangs"]) and then proceeds to spell out (in the verses which follow, thru v.24a) the events surrounding 70ad that this passage is saying [must] come PRIOR TO them (i.e. the events surrounding 70ad taking place BEFORE "the beginning of birth pangs")

--Paul references also the SAME INITIAL "birth PANG [but in the SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" that Jesus had already spoken about (and Jesus goes on to speak further of PLURAL ones that thereafter unfold, not merely a SINGULAR / INITIAL one); And Paul says that the INITIAL one is the ARRIVAL of "the day of the Lord [time-period]"... LIKE... the one that COMES UPON a woman... (he elaborates also in 2Th2:2[-3,-9a] about same, meaning the same time-period and its setting...)

--"the beginning of birth PANGS" Jesus spoke of are PARALLEL the "SEALS" of Rev6, and Rev6 is in the section of that Book which Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1 says are "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (like Lk18:8 and Rom16:20 using that same time-related-phrase [not to mention same "themes"]); so they are NOT things which would unfold over the course of some near-2000 years beginning from the first century, as some suppose

--some would like to suggest that Matthew 5:26 ['until you have paid the last farthing / kodrantes / kodranten [G2835]"] is saying the EXACT SAME THING as Luke 12:59 ["until you have paid the last lepton [G3016]"] even though Mark 12:42 clearly distinguishes these two[!], the one being twice the amount of the other and not meant to be EQUATED--I see this throughout these discussions... the disregarding of Rev1:1's "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" is changed to "soon [adverb]" or "shortly [adverb]" so as to *fit* their theory without so much as batting an eye, and then turn right around and accuse others of doing what they themselves are doing [twisty-stuffs]... smh [*lowercase*]

 

[OldSage]

I've already stated (in numerous posts and threads) that:

--Matthew 24:4-8 and Mark 13:5-8 and Luke 21:8-11 are the EXACT IDENTICAL ITEMS occurring in the SAME TIME-PERIOD (coz they ARE THE SAME)


--v.12 (of Lk21) says, however, "BUT BEFORE ALL THESE" (BEFORE ALL THESE that vv.8-11 just DESCRIBED [which are EQUIVALENT to Matt24:4-8 and Mk13:5-8, aka "the beginning of birth pangs"]) and then proceeds to spell out (in the verses which follow, thru v.24a) the events surrounding 70ad that this passage is saying [must] come PRIOR TO them (i.e. the events surrounding 70ad taking place BEFORE "the beginning of birth pangs")

--Paul references also the SAME INITIAL "birth PANG [but in the SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" that Jesus had already spoken about (and Jesus goes on to speak further of PLURAL ones that thereafter unfold, not merely a SINGULAR / INITIAL one); And Paul says that the INITIAL one is the ARRIVAL of "the day of the Lord [time-period]"... LIKE... the one that COMES UPON a woman... (he elaborates also in 2Th2:2[-3,-9a] about same, meaning the same time-period and its setting...)

--"the beginning of birth PANGS" Jesus spoke of are PARALLEL the "SEALS" of Rev6, and Rev6 is in the section of that Book which Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1 says are "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (like Lk18:8 and Rom16:20 using that same time-related-phrase [not to mention same "themes"]); so they are NOT things which would unfold over the course of some near-2000 years beginning from the first century, as some suppose

--some would like to suggest that Matthew 5:26 ['until you have paid the last farthing / kodrantes / kodranten [G2835]"] is saying the EXACT SAME THING as Luke 12:59 ["until you have paid the last lepton [G3016]"] even though Mark 12:42 clearly distinguishes these two[!], the one being twice the amount of the other and not meant to be EQUATED--I see this throughout these discussions... the disregarding of Rev1:1's "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" is changed to "soon [adverb]" or "shortly [adverb]" so as to *fit* their theory without so much as batting an eye, and then turn right around and accuse others of doing what they themselves are doing [twisty-stuffs]... smh [*lowercase*]

I feel like you have flip-flopped. But anyhow, the main thing is I understand you. So you are not actually disputing that these birth pangs lead to the desolation of Jerusalem?

Matthew 24: 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I feel like you have flip-flopped. But anyhow, the main thing is I understand you. So you are not actually disputing that these birth pangs lead to the desolation of Jerusalem?

I've not flip-flopped.

I'm saying what I've said in every post covering this Subject.

You do not seem to understand me, because you "explained it back to me" exactly how I did NOT say it, nor intend (but the OPPOSITE of what I just said).



I almost think you must be joking...



NO.

Read carefully: [this Lk21:12 verse is saying...] the events surrounding 70ad (vv.12-24a) TAKE PLACE *BEFORE ALL* of "the beginning of birth pangs" (Lk21:8-11 / Matt24:4-8 / Mk13:5-8)

... the BoBPs DO NOT "lead to" the 70ad events

[and I do not say *immediately* before... same as scripture itself elsewhere shows]

 

[OldSage]

I've not flip-flopped.

I'm saying what I've said in every post covering this Subject.

You do not seem to understand me, because you "explained it back to me" exactly how I did NOT say it, nor intend (but the OPPOSITE of what I just said).



I almost think you must be joking...



NO.

Read carefully: [this Lk21:12 verse is saying...] the events surrounding 70ad (vv.12-24a) TAKE PLACE *BEFORE ALL* of "the beginning of birth pangs" (Lk21:8-11 / Matt24:4-8 / Mk13:5-8)

... the BoBPs DO NOT "lead to" the 70ad events

[and I do not say *immediately* before... same as scripture itself elsewhere shows]

No I did understand you correctly. But then you keep saying that you haven't been understood,
and that you've had to post the same thing so many times, implying that I (or we) am a bit stupid.
So then I am thinking you must mean the opposite of what I understood, and then you leave nebulous statements like:

--Matthew 24:4-8 and Mark 13:5-8 and Luke 21:8-11 are the EXACT IDENTICAL ITEMS occurring in the SAME TIME-PERIOD (coz they ARE THE SAME)

So I am thinking:
"Aha! Now I see why he is upset. He never meant what I thought at all!"

But now I find out that you do mean it. Okay, we continue.

 

[OldSage]

I've not flip-flopped.

I'm saying what I've said in every post covering this Subject.

You do not seem to understand me, because you "explained it back to me" exactly how I did NOT say it, nor intend (but the OPPOSITE of what I just said).



I almost think you must be joking...



NO.

Read carefully: [this Lk21:12 verse is saying...] the events surrounding 70ad (vv.12-24a) TAKE PLACE *BEFORE ALL* of "the beginning of birth pangs" (Lk21:8-11 / Matt24:4-8 / Mk13:5-8)

... the BoBPs DO NOT "lead to" the 70ad events

[and I do not say *immediately* before... same as scripture itself elsewhere shows]

Well I've answered this already:

https://christianchat.com/threads/why-daniels-70th-week-must-be-in-the-future.200137/post-4603709

I think you have missed the wood for the trees. Jesus is saying, as I understand him, that timeline up to the desolation
is one matter, but more important is that the disciples will be preaching the gospel and will face intense persecution.
This period from AD33 to to AD67 was the formative epoch for the Church. Just in case you were not aware.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

and that you've had to post the same thing so many times, implying that I (or we) am a bit stupid.

I wasn't implying that, I was specifically addressing your direct comment about you perceiving me to have "FLIP-FLOPPED" (so I was saying there, nope, I'm saying what I've said in every other post I've made about it--NO FLIP-FLOPPING--tho you just now had said you think I had.)

My purpose was to clarify, since what you "explained back to me" (of what I just said) was completely opposite of what I had just expressed. I do realize it is easy to breeze through another's post and miss the entire gist of it. I don't mind explaining repeatedly... My aim is to know the other has indeed grasped what I hoped and intended to convey (even if there remains disagreement). But I didn't find that you actually grasped my meaning, there.



I did see your post LATER (after I'd made comment regarding)... but, sorry to say, I do not find your explanation of "BEFORE" [definition] (v.12) to be nearly as convincing to me as the hundred items at back of my own explanation. lol





[again noting the "THEREFORE" in Matt24:15 being just one more indication that what is to be "SEE[N]" (so as to "FLEE") in each passage is *distinct* and occurring at wholly *distinct* time-slots--Matthew 24's is FOLLOWING "the beginning of birth pangs" ("the beginning of birth pangs" themselves occur AT ONE TIME-SLOT [/period-of-time]... and that is SEQUENTIALLY AFTER the events surrounding 70ad with its OWN "SEE-then-FLEE" )]

 

[OldSage]

I wasn't implying that, I was specifically addressing your direct comment about you perceiving me to have "FLIP-FLOPPED" (so I was saying there, nope, I'm saying what I've said in every other post I've made about it--NO FLIP-FLOPPING--tho you just now had said you think I had.)

My purpose was to clarify, since what you "explained back to me" (of what I just said) was completely opposite of what I had just expressed. I do realize it is easy to breeze through another's post and miss the entire gist of it. I don't mind explaining repeatedly... My aim is to know the other has indeed grasped what I hoped and intended to convey (even if there remains disagreement). But I didn't find that you actually grasped my meaning, there.

I did see your post LATER (after I'd made comment regarding)... but, sorry to say, I do not find your explanation of "BEFORE" [definition] (v.12) to be nearly as convincing to me as the hundred items at back of my own explanation. lol

[again noting the "THEREFORE" in Matt24:15 being just one more indication that what is to be "SEE[N]" (so as to "FLEE") in each passage is *distinct* and occurring at wholly *distinct* time-slots--Matthew 24's is FOLLOWING "the beginning of birth pangs" ("the beginning of birth pangs" themselves occur AT ONE TIME-SLOT [/period-of-time]... and that is SEQUENTIALLY AFTER the events surrounding 70ad with its OWN "SEE-then-FLEE" )]

Does anyone else hold your idiosyncratic misinterpretation?
If not I think I can check out here.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ @OldSage , yes (well, depending on which aspect of my posts you are referencing in particular, I suppose... but if I'm guessing correctly on what you mean)... but I am not sure I can find my LIST that I used to have (on that)... the particular list I had mentioned also in a post quite some time back:

Post #290 (pg 15; different thread... back in May of 2019) - https://christianchat.com/threads/i...levant-for-the-church-now.182210/post-3925337


...let me know if you meant something different... and I can attempt [slim chance!] to track down that list of scholars holding to this basic viewpoint (pertaining to the particular point I *think* you are intending).






Another thought is, what is the point, really? Won't you just say, "big deal... 'appeal to authority' [even if I find the list and actually here name all 50] is futile, esp if all 50 scholars are WRONG" [read: ...interpreting it differently than OS is interpreting it ])

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Amen!

But as long as the Temple existed, the Jews would have never fully had reason to look toward Christ as Lord and Savior.
As long as the Jews were able to offer Daily Sacrifice, there was no need for the Sacrifice Christ provided.
So these things had to END!

And Daniel, clearly from the Hebrew I have provided, was [Never] discussing the AoD as being a Person/Man/Antichrist. Daniel was saying without the ability to offer Sacrifice, there is no way to cover SIN! So when they were no longer able to offer Daily Sacrifice, that became an Abomination of Desolation!

But to those Jews, who did understand who Christ was and what He accomplished, they were able to understand why the Temple and Daily Sacrifice Ended. They understood that Christ provided all of the Sacrifices they would ever be required to offer.

Yet Israel is still in sin. They are still denying Christ and getting ready to build a new temple. They have already practiced offering sacrifice again for when the temple is built

The city is still in ruins there is no temple and Israel is still in sin. All things Daniel prayed would stop

So I guess God failed. That’s the only comclusion I can come up with

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Absolutely...

However, it is much easier for the side that accepts the simple straight-forward meaning of a passage than it is for the side that accepts nothing that is not a complex convoluted twisted meaning.

Absolutely

Sadly. That’s not your side. I take it for what it says. Not for what I want it to say

I hate these type of responses. Let’s just stick to the word ok?

 

[OldSage]

^ @OldSage , yes (well, depending on which aspect of my posts you are referencing in particular, I suppose... but if I'm guessing correctly on what you mean)... but I am not sure I can find my LIST that I used to have (on that)... the particular list I had mentioned also in a post quite some time back:

Post #290 (pg 15; different thread... back in May of 2019) - https://christianchat.com/threads/i...levant-for-the-church-now.182210/post-3925337

...let me know if you meant something different... and I can attempt [slim chance!] to track down that list of scholars holding to this basic viewpoint (pertaining to the particular point I *think* you are intending).

Another thought is, what is the point, really? Won't you just say, "big deal... 'appeal to authority' [even if I find the list and actually here name all 50] is futile, esp if all 50 scholars are WRONG" [read: ...interpreting it differently than OS is interpreting it ])

Ah, okay. Well you have a following so I will carry on discussing, for now, but it seems a bit futile really, as
interpreting differently to TDW will just be defined as interpreting wrong I think.

Okay. Your exegesis is ..... wrong.

To summarize what is actually said, if I may be so bold:

Disciples - Wow look at the Temple!
Jesus - (unimpressed) - This whole thing will soon be a heap of rubble
Disciples - Whoa! When is this going to happen, what will be the sign it is about to happen?
Jesus - (I'm not giving you a specific date as that will fall into enemy hands, so here's the rundown);
You will see a set of events in the world, (Ev1, Ev2), etc, culminating in famines, plagues and astral events, then you will see the Roman Army surround Jerusalem, and that is your sign, it's gonna blow'

It's that straightforward TDW, unless you are TDW

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Ah, okay. Well you have a following so I

I'm unsure what you mean by the bold above ^ , in view of what I'd put in response to your question ('does anyone else believe it like you do?'... I assumed you meant Bible teachers [etc]... those outside of this "discussion board," no??)

 

[cv5]

Why do you always try and complicate things?
The earthly Temple is an image of the heavenly. (Hebrews - worth reading).
The 24 elders had a place chosen by lot.

1 Chronicles 24 These were the divisions of the descendants of Aaron:The sons of Aaron were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. 2 But Nadab and Abihu died before their father did, and they had no sons; so Eleazar and Ithamar served as the priests. 3 With the help of Zadok a descendant of Eleazar and Ahimelek a descendant of Ithamar, David separated them into divisions for their appointed order of ministering. 4 A larger number of leaders were found among Eleazar’s descendants than among Ithamar’s, and they were divided accordingly: sixteen heads of families from Eleazar’s descendants and eight heads of families from Ithamar’s descendants. 5 They divided them impartially by casting lots, for there were officials of the sanctuary and officials of God among the descendants of both Eleazar and Ithamar.6 The scribe Shemaiah son of Nethanel, a Levite, recorded their names in the presence of the king and of the officials: Zadok the priest, Ahimelek son of Abiathar and the heads of families of the priests and of the Levites—one family being taken from Eleazar and then one from Ithamar.

7 The first lot fell to Jehoiarib,
the second to Jedaiah,
8 the third to Harim,
the fourth to Seorim,
9 the fifth to Malkijah,
the sixth to Mijamin,
10 the seventh to Hakkoz,
the eighth to Abijah,
11 the ninth to Jeshua,
the tenth to Shekaniah,
12 the eleventh to Eliashib,
the twelfth to Jakim,
13 the thirteenth to Huppah,
the fourteenth to Jeshebeab,
14 the fifteenth to Bilgah,
the sixteenth to Immer,
15 the seventeenth to Hezir,
the eighteenth to Happizzez,
16 the nineteenth to Pethahiah,
the twentieth to Jehezkel,
17 the twenty-first to Jakin,
the twenty-second to Gamul,
18 the twenty-third to Delaiah
and the twenty-fourth to Maaziah.

19 This was their appointed order of ministering when they entered the temple of the Lord, according to the regulations prescribed for them by their ancestor Aaron, as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded him.

But wait where is Daniel?.......

 

[OldSage]

I'm unsure what you mean by the bold above ^ , in view of what I'd put in response to your question ('does anyone else believe it like you do?'... I assumed you meant Bible teachers [etc]... those outside of this "discussion board," no??)

A following wind. I forgot the all important word. Wind

 

[cv5]

I feel like you have flip-flopped. But anyhow, the main thing is I understand you. So you are not actually disputing that these birth pangs lead to the desolation of Jerusalem?

Matthew 24: 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

You're never going to figure it out if you continue to conflate 70 A.D. with the A of D.....

 

[cv5]

No I did understand you correctly. But then you keep saying that you haven't been understood,
and that
So then I am thinking you must mean the opposite of what I understood, and then you leave nebulous statements like




So I am thinking:
"Aha! Now I see why he is upset. He never meant what I thought at all!"

But now I find out that you do mean it. Okay, we continue.

<<<"you've had to post the same thing so many times, implying that I (or we) am a bit stupid">>>

As far as I can tell, this is the only accurate statement you've ever posted on this thread.