ECT What Is Dispensationalism; really?

Danoh said:

I was referring to the interim between the one and the other, as MAD does not hold to 1948.

Click to expand...

I am referring to the "parenthesis theory" that forms the linchpin of Dispensationalist Eschatology.


There are several ways to look at Daniel 9:24-27 without needing to put a 2000 year gap between the first 483 years and the last 7 years of the 490 year prophecy.

genuineoriginal said:

I am referring to the "parenthesis theory" that forms the linchpin of Dispensationalist Eschatology.

_____
Examining the Dispensational Parenthesis Theory of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks Prophecy
. . .
The parenthesis theory of the seventy weeks prophecy is firmly rooted within a system of biblical interpretation called dispensationalism. Dispensationalist scholars, who hold to this theory, believe that the primary focus of Daniel 9:24-27 is on “the history of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.”
. . .
Dispensationalist scholars believe a parenthesis exists between the sixty-two “sevens” (69th week) and the final “seven” (70th week). For them, the final “seven” does not take place immediately after the second period of sixty-two “sevens,” but will take place sometime in the indeterminate future.
. . .
_____​

There are several ways to look at Daniel 9:24-27 without needing to put a 2000 year gap between the first 483 years and the last 7 years of the 490 year prophecy.

Click to expand...

It's almost the linchpin. The actual one is 2P2P. Ryrie said it is the 'sine qua non' (the one thing without which the idea is indistinct.)

genuineoriginal said:

I am referring to the "parenthesis theory" that forms the linchpin of Dispensationalist Eschatology.

_____
Examining the Dispensational Parenthesis Theory of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks Prophecy
. . .
The parenthesis theory of the seventy weeks prophecy is firmly rooted within a system of biblical interpretation called dispensationalism. Dispensationalist scholars, who hold to this theory, believe that the primary focus of Daniel 9:24-27 is on “the history of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.”
. . .
Dispensationalist scholars believe a parenthesis exists between the sixty-two “sevens” (69th week) and the final “seven” (70th week). For them, the final “seven” does not take place immediately after the second period of sixty-two “sevens,” but will take place sometime in the indeterminate future.
. . .
_____​

There are several ways to look at Daniel 9:24-27 without needing to put a 2000 year gap between the first 483 years and the last 7 years of the 490 year prophecy.

Click to expand...

Not if you believe for Matt 24 and all written there to be an accurate assessment that speaks of todays current events.

Interplanner said:

It's almost the linchpin. The actual one is 2P2P. Ryrie said it is the 'sine qua non' (the one thing without which the idea is indistinct.)

Click to expand...

And Ryrie; an OVER rely-er on books "about" based systems in his own right; was off.

Interplanner said:

It's almost the linchpin. The actual one is 2P2P. Ryrie said it is the 'sine qua non' (the one thing without which the idea is indistinct.)

Click to expand...

The Dispensational 2P2P is only half right, but it leads to misinterpretations of Daniel 9:24-27 and adds foolishness like a rapture followed by a seven year tribulation period followed by the return of Christ for the thousand year reign.

The correct interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 is that it is a demand for the children of Israel to repent, and if they do not repent then the land and the city of Jerusalem will be desolated again, and the desolation will last until the end.

Combine this with the Olivet Discourse, and the period of desolation of the land and the city of Jerusalem mentioned in Daniel 9:27 is the beginning of the great tribulation, the second exile of the children of Israel from the land.

No need for a rapture, only the hope of the second coming of Jesus in Glory.

Cross Reference said:

Not if you believe for Matt 24 and all written there to be an accurate assessment that speaks of todays current events.

Click to expand...

It is not an accurate assessment.
The people that believe it is are looking for things that Jesus specifically said were not signs.

genuineoriginal said:

The Dispensational 2P2P is only half right, but it leads to misinterpretations of Daniel 9:24-27 and adds foolishness like a rapture followed by a seven year tribulation period followed by the return of Christ for the thousand year reign.

The correct interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 is that it is a demand for the children of Israel to repent, and if they do not repent then the land and the city of Jerusalem will be desolated again, and the desolation will last until the end.

Combine this with the Olivet Discourse, and the period of desolation of the land and the city of Jerusalem mentioned in Daniel 9:27 is the beginning of the great tribulation, the second exile of the children of Israel from the land.

No need for a rapture, only the hope of the second coming of Jesus in Glory.

Click to expand...

Darby might have agreed with you...

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/darby/daniel/9.htm

Now watch that related by Darby there - as plain as day as it is to the more astute - watch it go right over the head of most...

Danoh said:

Darby might have agreed with you...

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/darby/daniel/9.htm

Now watch that related by Darby there - as plain as day as it is to the more astute - watch it go right over the head of most...

Click to expand...

Darby was very mistaken about Daniel 9:27.

Daniel 9:27 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.​

Darby made the mistaken assumption that the "he" in the verse is some Roman ruler.
It is not.

"He" has the power to confirm the covenant.

Jeremiah 31:31 31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:​

"He" has the power to cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.

Isaiah 1:13 13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.​

"He" has the power to make the holy city desolate.

Jeremiah 7:34 34 Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate.​

genuineoriginal said:

It is not an accurate assessment.
The people that believe it is are looking for things that Jesus specifically said were not signs.

Click to expand...

Do you know the saying, "picking fly .... out of pepper"?

genuineoriginal said:

Darby was very mistaken about Daniel 9:27.

_____
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/darby/daniel/9.htm
. . .
This is the first thing that characterises the week; the Jews form an alliance with the head, at that day, of the people who had formerly overthrown their city and their sanctuary. They form an alliance with the head of the Roman Empire. This refers to the week as a whole. But, the half of the week spent [See Note #2], things assume another aspect. This head causes the sacrifice and the oblation to cease;
. . .
What the passage tells us is this: first, the prince, the head that is of the Roman empire, in the latter days makes a covenant referring to one whole week; on the other hand, the Lord speaks of the last half of the week as being to take place immediately before His coming, as the time of unequalled tribulation that precedes it. If this were all, the foregoing history of the prince to come, who makes a covenant, would fall into the general history of the state of things. The question whether one or two half-weeks remain to be fulfilled, and in what way, during the manifestation of the power of evil, I reserve (as to its full development) for the book of Revelation; remarking only that Messiah is cut off after the end of 69 weeks. We know from the New Testament that His ministry lasted just half the week.
. . .
_____​

Daniel 9:27 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.​

Darby made the mistaken assumption that the "he" in the verse is some Roman ruler.
It is not.

"He" has the power to confirm the covenant.

Jeremiah 31:31 31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:​

"He" has the power to cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.

Isaiah 1:13 13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.​

"He" has the power to make the holy city desolate.

Jeremiah 7:34 34 Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate.​

Click to expand...

Sometimes Darby is the result of what happens when you don't know 1st century history. Which is really odd in his case, because the best exponent of it over the past 200 years lived near his time--Pastor Peter Holford.

Danoh said:

Darby might have agreed with you...

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/darby/daniel/9.htm

Now watch that related by Darby there - as plain as day as it is to the more astute - watch it go right over the head of most...

Click to expand...

For one thing, Darby lost it about the intercession for Israel. The answer was the atonement in Christ. Darby thinks it is another rebuilding. Not.

2nd, Darby does not understand that the structures are supposed to be gone and that's OK. If he had picked up on the 'rebellion that desolates' of 8:13, he might have got it. But he is 2P2P and thinks that there is a phase coming where Christ reigns in Jerusalem because Judaism has to be brought back so that God works through it. Not.

I have read several treatments of 'and have nothing' and several said it went the direction '...cut off and not for himself.' Which ties in with atonement, propitiation and the righteousness of God (which Darby thinks is wrath). If you go the route of 'have nothing' it is probable that you will think there is Judaistic mode that Christ is going to enact or participate in. Not. You will probably think that Messiah was supposed to have but they did instead. However, this is in the 70th week, and they were only going to have it a very short time longer and in much turmoil (30-70AD) so they are not gaining so much.

Darby is way too unfamiliar with 1st century components to be talking. The thing about 'no king but Caesar' (at Christ's crucifixion) is not what resulted in the DofJ. It was not what God (in Hebrews) said was going to bring the ruin, nor in Lk 21. Actually, the thing that resulted in the conflagration was the open defiance of Caesar by the zealots.

Apparently none of you self-appointed geniuses caught the obvious point I was making, in relation to what had been posted prior to my post.

In Darby's treatment of Daniel 9, not once did he relate its parenthesis to the supposed "church age parenthesis" you each erroneously attribute to Dispensationalists.

But that is to be expected when dealing with books based geniuses; unless a thing is pointed out to them in a book somewhere; past their heads it goes.

:chuckle:

genuineoriginal said:

Darby was very mistaken about Daniel 9:27.

_____
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/darby/daniel/9.htm
. . .
This is the first thing that characterises the week; the Jews form an alliance with the head, at that day, of the people who had formerly overthrown their city and their sanctuary. They form an alliance with the head of the Roman Empire. This refers to the week as a whole. But, the half of the week spent [See Note #2], things assume another aspect. This head causes the sacrifice and the oblation to cease;
. . .
What the passage tells us is this: first, the prince, the head that is of the Roman empire, in the latter days makes a covenant referring to one whole week; on the other hand, the Lord speaks of the last half of the week as being to take place immediately before His coming, as the time of unequalled tribulation that precedes it. If this were all, the foregoing history of the prince to come, who makes a covenant, would fall into the general history of the state of things. The question whether one or two half-weeks remain to be fulfilled, and in what way, during the manifestation of the power of evil, I reserve (as to its full development) for the book of Revelation; remarking only that Messiah is cut off after the end of 69 weeks. We know from the New Testament that His ministry lasted just half the week.
. . .
_____​

Daniel 9:27 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.​

Darby made the mistaken assumption that the "he" in the verse is some Roman ruler.
It is not.

"He" has the power to confirm the covenant.

Jeremiah 31:31 31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:​

"He" has the power to cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.

Isaiah 1:13 13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.​

"He" has the power to make the holy city desolate.

Jeremiah 7:34 34 Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate.​

Click to expand...

Dispensationalism not withstanding, I beleive you are correct insofar as I believe Israel will be cleansed by an invasion, ravaged with the attempt unto it's complete distruction but, not until the 144,000 of them have been sealed. This will happen after the distruction of "mystery Bablyon" [USA] that all the glory be given to God..

The righteous remnant will be extricated by the event of per Eze.38 and 39 which will usher in the one thousand year reign of Jesus. But, that is just my opinion.

Question: I wonder how many messianic Jews there are in todays land of Israel?

Danoh said:

Apparently none of you self-appointed geniuses caught the obvious point I was making, in relation to what had been posted prior to my post.

In Darby's treatment of Daniel 9, not once did he relate its parenthesis to the supposed "church age parenthesis" you each erroneously attribute to Dispensationalists.

But that is to be expected when dealing with books based geniuses; unless a thing is pointed out to them in a book somewhere; past their heads it goes.

:chuckle:

Click to expand...

It was inevitable. The Darby system is such a mistake that the only explanation Walvoord, Pentecost, Ryrie, LaHaye, Needham, etc. could come up with was the after-thought parenthesis. The set-ups are there in the Darby commentary, but not all dots are connected.

And that's just one comment. I was brought up under people who carried the so-called "Scofield Reference Bible" and despised all others. It's all through that thing. So I suppose now you will split hairs between them (D and S).

Danoh said:

Apparently none of you self-appointed geniuses caught the obvious point I was making, in relation to what had been posted prior to my post.

In Darby's treatment of Daniel 9, not once did he relate its parenthesis to the supposed "church age parenthesis" you each erroneously attribute to Dispensationalists.

But that is to be expected when dealing with books based geniuses; unless a thing is pointed out to them in a book somewhere; past their heads it goes.

:chuckle:

Click to expand...

And anyway, Danoh, books are evil, remember? But here you are quoting them.

"Darby" and "Scofield" books are not what I'm talking about when referring to 1st century scholarship. D&S are guys who tried to 2nd guess what God was up to when the 2nd coming did not happen right away. The problem of it not happening right away is why the paragraph in Lattourrette's history, p43 is so important. From that moment of realization, which way was church leadership supposed to go? The proclamation of the Gospel or the industry of 2nd-guessing God?

Interplanner said:

And anyway, Danoh, books are evil, remember? But here you are quoting them.

"Darby" and "Scofield" books are not what I'm talking about when referring to 1st century scholarship. D&S are guys who tried to 2nd guess what God was up to when the 2nd coming did not happen right away. The problem of it not happening right away is why the paragraph in Lattourrette's history, p43 is so important. From that moment of realization, which way was church leadership supposed to go? The proclamation of the Gospel or the industry of 2nd-guessing God?

Click to expand...

Books are evil?

That's news to me.

What I have repeatedly asserted, and you have just now proven once more; is that an OVER reliance on books; for intended sense, ends one up in being unable to get at the actually intended sense of a thing without first having to havd said intended sense spoonfed to them through said; if not more books - as I right now find myself having to do to you - spoonfeed you my intended sense, once more.

Far too often, books are the result of writers of books who have been weaned on books for intended sense themselves.

The result being that all they are doing is parroting the same old crutch once more - how to think a thing through not actually based on how to do so objectively, rather; on what to think about a thing as handed down from book writing parrot; to book reading parrot; to new book writing parrot; to new book reading parrot; and so on.

That ends up so much said parrot culture's sense of objectivity that to point it out to them is to attempt to shut up one of those huge, loud, annoying parrots - too late; the darned thing is simply too enamoured with its own loud noise; it is simply to busy parroting its' rigid "RWRK! Polly wants a cracker! Polly wants a cracker!" - it is unable to hear anything said to it.

You might as well re-classify yourself as "a Millennial" :chuckle:

:doh:

That classification would be mistaken because it wouldn't be thought out. It's not that there is no millenium at all but rather that the term means a very long period and it refers to Christ's reign now.

So...what you meant all along about books was books that failed to parrot what you think. I knew that from the start with you. I seriously doubt if any of the most useful ones I encountered agreed more than 10% with each other. One of them is Cornfeld, the Jewish archeologist whom Zondervan had write the oversize, illustrated study of JEWISH WAR with commentary. He doesn't have any idea that Dan 8 and 9 are involved. And none of those books have much agreement with Brinsmead of PRESENT TRUTH / VERDICT, although he was quite a heavy quoter of Luther.

Interplanner said:

That classification would be mistaken because it wouldn't be thought out. It's not that there is no millenium at all but rather that the term means a very long period and it refers to Christ's reign now.

So...what you meant all along about books was books that failed to parrot what you think. I knew that from the start with you. I seriously doubt if any of the most useful ones I encountered agreed more than 10% with each other. One of them is Cornfeld, the Jewish archeologist whom Zondervan had write the oversize, illustrated study of JEWISH WAR with commentary. He doesn't have any idea that Dan 8 and 9 are involved. And none of those books have much agreement with Brinsmead of PRESENT TRUTH / VERDICT, although he was quite a heavy quoter of Luther.

Click to expand...

Why not stay with the Bible as the basis for your understanding instead of the all the various fleshly details that are waste of time except for maybe emphasizing the Spiritual ramifications of the such fleshly historical facts of how it all works out for God?

Cross Reference said:

Why not stay with the Bible as the basis for your understanding instead of the all the various fleshly details that are waste of time except for maybe emphasizing the Spiritual ramifications of the such fleshly historical facts of how it all works out for God?

Click to expand...

Very simple to answer.
1, your use of 'flesh' is mistaken. There is nothing evil about the body, sex, food, history. 'Flesh' in the NT means the depraved nature of man, about which he is often in denial. Through that basis, 'flesh' can sometimes also mean 'lineage' or 'descendancy'. And of course, it means lust, which is the reckless use of a good desire. If this distinction is not kept, even marriage is evil.

2, In case #1 is too general for you, let's see a specific example in historical work in action. Luke 19:46. The term in NIV is 'robbers.' But there is a historical problem here. The Greek is 'leistes' and 'leistes' is never a simple robber. It is always a politically-motivated robber: an insurgent, an insurrectionist, a brigand. There are several other terms for the simple robber. So why did Luke choose this?

In Luke, especially, there is attention to what the zealots are doing in both his gospel and in Acts, and the introduction to each is for a person who represented Paul (an attorney) probably about this question of association with zealots. In Acts 21 he is misidentified as one. In Lk 19, Jesus had just said (vs41+ right before 'cleansing') that the temple would be demolished shortly because ideally the Jewish person who heard Christ was supposed to be a missionary for the Gospel. The opposite of that, of course, is a zealot who joins the rebellion (predicted in Dan 8:13, and mentioned again in 9) to 'liberate' Judea.

So now we see what Jesus is complaining about at the temple: it is raising money for insurrectionists! We then see something happen that is pretty shocking, yet approved by the crowd that worships at the temple: they want the release of a KNOWN terrorist over Christ! Now, in the text, immediately after this we find Jesus warning the generation AGAIN about what would happen. By the time the children are adults, they will be doing worse than what was just forced on him. The upshot: the place will be overrun by insurrectionists and self-destruct, which is what happened to Israel in the 6th decade, 40 years later.

Luke definitely wrote this to clarify that Paul was not part of the zealot insurrection movement. It was not the only purpose, but it was covered clearly.

It is unfortunate that people think the Bible has no historical value or just don't seem to know what historical value is.

Interplanner said:

That classification would be mistaken because it wouldn't be thought out. It's not that there is no millenium at all but rather that the term means a very long period and it refers to Christ's reign now.

So...what you meant all along about books was books that failed to parrot what you think. I knew that from the start with you. I seriously doubt if any of the most useful ones I encountered agreed more than 10% with each other. One of them is Cornfeld, the Jewish archeologist whom Zondervan had write the oversize, illustrated study of JEWISH WAR with commentary. He doesn't have any idea that Dan 8 and 9 are involved. And none of those books have much agreement with Brinsmead of PRESENT TRUTH / VERDICT, although he was quite a heavy quoter of Luther.

Click to expand...

Here; let me spoonfeed you what I meant.

I was referring to the Marketing Demographic "Millennial."

Might as well refer to them as mindless; unless it is spoonfed to them, they are simply unable to extract the meaning of what's been said despite the obvious context it was said in.

:doh: