Daniel was told 70 weeks were determined against the holy people, Israel.

The messiah would be cut off at the 62nd week AFTER the 7 weeks that would transpire until the command to rebuild Jerusalem.

Okay, that is a total of 69 weeks or 483 years. In the same week that Messiah was cut off, he uttered these words:

Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

The holy place is in the temple and no one stood in the temple when Jesusalem was sacked in AD 70. It was at this time that Israel ceased being a nation. No one giving the chronology of Israel in AD 70 would say, "well, Israel is 1567 years old", and then come back in AD 71 and say, "Well, Israel is 1568 years old", and then 5 years later come back and say, Well, Israel is now 1573 years old". But, if the CONFIRMATION of this covennant in Da 9 is the marking of God for time again for Israel, then the 70th week is clearly shown and the prince of the Romans who destroyed the city and the temple is yet to stand in the holy place at the middle of that 70th week!

The Lone Wolf wrote:
According to the passage, the Mesiah was cut off AFTER the 69 weeks, not during the 69 weeks. It was in the 70th week that he CONFIRMED, not established THE covenant. The "he" is talking about the Christ and the covenant is the New Covenant.

When Daniel made this prophecy, it was after he read a prophecy of Jeremiah concerning 70 years and he asked to understand it. Chapter 9 is the explanation. It is a prophecy of 70 weeks of years, not 69 weeks of years.

Now read:

Da 9:2B that he would accomplish seventy years in the DESOLATION OF JERUSALEM! Can you read?

Jerusalem was at that very minute desolate with it's temple destroyed and the walls broken down! Nehemiah went back later and rebuilt the walls with a weopon in one hand and a tool in the other. Troublous times, I would say.

But, when will you FINISH the desolation of Jerusalem, Lord? Nehemiah went back after the decree from Cyrus, 49 years.

V 26B and the PEOPLE of the prince that SHALL COME (AFTER THE 69 WEEKS) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;

rogerant wrote:
God Expressed love to His people Israel not because they were Holy in themselves, but because they were Holy because He imputed Holiness to them, because of His promise to Abraham. There was nothing within them that merited favor from God. It was because of his unconditional promise to Abraham that he would have many descendants, physical and Spiritual.

The plagues that will be poured out on the kingdom of the anti-christ were typified by the encounter God had with Pharoah back in Egypt when he delivered Israel from his iron and persecuting claw by the hand of Moses who typified Christ. So, Revelation is the anti-type when the real clash of two kingdoms take place with winner take all.

The end of the week finds Satan and his man, the anti christ soundly defeated and cast into prison and the earth a devastation as Egypt was after the plagues in Exodus.

Then we see the nation established and the laws of God established like it was when Israel was led out of Egypt and . There will need to be laws if Christ reigns in perfect righteousness with a rod of iron.

It is interesting that God miraculously destroyed Pharoah's army at once in the RED Sea and when Christ comes back to the valley of Megeddo, his destruction of Anti-christ's army will be such that the blood will run for some 180 miles to the depth of the horses bridle. This is surely like a Red Sea and an immersion of an army.

Here is what God said was the reason he chose Israel:

The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

God did not choose Isreal from before the foundation of the world and this election was not individual election and never were all of these Israelites believers

But God loved and chose Israel. But why?

6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
When did he choose them?

When they were in the land of Egypt. Ez 20:5.

In Israel, God has shown that he loves people who never become believers.

I guess I do not know what your point is but I do not attempt to validate the word of God by personalities of the past. I do not quote them but sometimes I comment on what others say about them. The bible, which I consider to be the KJV, can stand on its own without a need to look into the past to see what other men thought about it. My defence of the KJV is mainly from it's internal testimony and while it is profitable to study the manuscript evidence, I think, it is not essential for me to conclude that the KJV is the ONLY word of God in the English.

I really don't care about Wesley, whether he was good or bad. I care about what is going on today and this article says that watered down translations are the major part of the problem. MurryA and men like him are today's enemies of the word of God and I am in the battle on the side of the KJV and I am defending it and marking those who are against it and warning against fellowship with them.

John Wesley had his opportunity and now it is past and he is gone on to his reward. Now, it is my turn.

I certainly would not purposely slander Mr Wesley. I have an admiration for the man. He certainly was used of God but my point is that whatever decisions he made had consequences and PILUT and you both are just using him as an example of the things he did to validate your positions, which are opposites.

But this is your question:

JD, you just don't get it, do you. I am not denying that the Word is our authority, but a line of argument was first raised by PILUT further down, that God's use of the KJV in revivals of the past somehow vindicates it.
Now, for you is this a valid line of argument, or not?

I would say "no" IF there are instances of revivals breaking out under the ministries of someone using other translations. However, if you cannot cite any, then you must agree that the KJV does make the difference. That would only be logical.

But did you read the artoicle?

"THE church faces a "crisis" as the number of people bothering to read the Bible plummets, research has found."

What? One of the main arguments is that the modern translations are easier to read? But the history of the English bible shows that mens writings can never compete with God's.

Re 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

Re 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

Re 18:20 Rejoice over her, [thou] heaven, and [ye] holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

In this kind of economy there cannot be one standard for truth like the KJV and a mindset that would be prone to insist on it would not be good and would not be tolerated. If you are going to have such a system, you must have toleration and the KJV and it's condemnation of certain life styles with words like "sodomites" will just not fit in the collective scenario.

1) This book is signified Re 1:1
2) This book is a prophecy Re 1:3
3) This book is attested to by a faithful witness, Jesus Christ Re 1:5

As to point one, it is expected in the epistle for one thing to picture another. In Re 4, John pictures the church and for him the scence changes fromn earth to heaven but there were still things going on in the earth, and he recorded them as well as some heavenly happenings.

On point 2, it should not surprise us that God knows and can see the end from the beginning. He did say he was the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending and he did say it was he that was giving this vision to John and it was not a product of John's imagination.

He gave him the division of the book in Re 1:19

1) Write the things which thou hast seen - The vision of the glorified Christ in Chapt 1
2) the things which are - The seven churches - (John, to the seven churches WHICH ARE in Asia, Re 1:4)
3)Things which SHALL BE HEREAFTER. (here after the churches) - Re 4:1B and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

It is not unusual for God to give prophecy of his intentions.

These are important things!

Edit-correction

From:
1,425 votes for Amil, the most by far.

Amillennialism cannot be correct because the Scriptures teach a 1000 year reign. 1000 = a Millennium. This lets this out of consideration.

Re 20:6b ...but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

That is one of the clearest statements in the Scriptures on the subject. Nothing could be more clear!

So, does the Lord come to rule before the mil or after it?

This is pretty clear as well that he comes back before his reign because he comes back to the earth in Re 19 and then he begins his 1000 year reign in Re 20.

This is the REVELATION of Jesus Christ. Re 19 is the first time any lost people (that didn't get saved, i e the apostle Paul) has seen him since the cross?

In Re 19 he comes to the earth and in Re 20 he reigns for a thousand years. This makes his coming premillennial. So, the correct answer is #2, premil.

Re 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

This is pretty easy when one gets to looking at it.

The English word love is in the KJV NT 212 times and the word grace is in the KJV NT 131 times. There is more love than grace. However, in the Pauline epistles the word grace is used 91 times and the word love is used 82 times.

It looks like the gentiles needs more grace than love.

In the whole bible it is love 350 and 170 for grace. More than twice as much love as grace. For the record, hate is in there 92 times. Lots more love and grace than hate.

Some have said that pronouns like the "us" in 1 Jn 4:10 is referring just to the believers and those who were elected. That of course could be argued but that argument would not hold up in 2 Cor 5:14-21 where we elect are constrained by the love of Christ whose love has been shed abroad in our hearts to be an ambassador to the lost.

I think you could look at it that way if God were pouring from a fruit jar but I doubt a fruit jar would hold the Holy Ghost, don't you?

But if God poured him out in such abundance that he covered every Jew in the world? Would that not be more in line with what our Lord said here, quoting John?

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Wouldn't you think Jesus baptized in the Holy Ghost in the same way John baptized in water? If John sprinkled water, then Jesus probably sprinkled the Holy Ghost. Of course we know both John and Jesus Immersed, don't we?

You would agree that both John's and Jesus' baptism was a national baptism, would'nt you?

The world was immersed in the Spirit too according to Peter in Acts 11.

If this is true then truly what Paul told the Athenians in Acts 17 that God was not far from any one of us takes on new meaning and if he is like water he can be received by anyone because he is everywhere

And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely!

It seems God has oft times typified salvation and deliverance by water. The flood was a type of Israel being delivered through the persecution of the anti christ. They were baptized in the Red Sea, a deliverance just anead of Pharoah's army. They were called to the Jordan River by John the Baptist in anticipation of the Messiah because there was much water there and all Israel could be immersed in it with plenty left over. This pictured the pouring out of the Holy Ghost, who is typified as water and when he was poured out it was in such abundance that all Israel could be immersed and were commanded to be Acts 2:38 with plenty left over to immerse the gentiles as well.
Our Lord himself was baptized in the Jordan and immediately coming up out of the water the Holy Spirit lit upon him as a dove. This is a sure sign of what God intended by this baptism. It was a type!

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

Acts 11:15 is part of Peter's defense to the Jews after the fact. You say he spoke 3 words and the Holy Spirit fell on them. Peter says as he began to speak the Holy Ghost fell on them. This means he did not finish his sermon but Luke told us what was said and when the Holy Spirit actually fell on them. It was after they heard the gospel of Jesus Christ. No one is saved without believing the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. see 1 cor 15:1-4

Now, if you insist that the giving of the Holy Spirit is a two-stage affair, like you are implying, you must show where the Scripture teaches that and then make the application in this affair.

You may be too emotional for a conversation that challenges your core beliefs and shows how they are suspect at the very least.

Concerning the Spirit being given and your comment here

"God orchestrated the ENTIRE Cornelius/Peter episode [Acts 10:1 - 11:18] for the purpose of revealing to Peter and his Jewish believers that the Gentiles were ALSO INCLUDED in God's New Covenant"

If you mean that God gave them his Holy Spirit to save them, well, but I doubt that is what you mean

You seem to forget that I have conversed here with many and sundry calvinists on a variety of subjects and we have had long conversations about the indwelling Holy Spirit and what it means. Your friends have insisited that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is the same in the OT as it is in the NT. They see very little significance to God sending his Holy Spirit to the earth and they have said it certainly wasn't to indwell men and give them eternal life. They cannot reconcile justification by faith in the OT without the indwelling Spirit with God sending him in the NT to do that very thing for the believers in Christ

The Spirit is the Spirit of Christ!