Re: Christianity has no future and is in decline

AN

Continuing from Re: Anthony Flew leaving Atheism ... more accurate to state "Victory of Deism". As before, your words

[Above (click to enlarge): "Why the Gods are not Winning," by Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman, Edge, 2007:

"Since 1900 Christians have made up about a third of the global population, and are edging downwards. ... Christianity has withered dramatically in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. ... Churches are being converted into libraries, laundromats and pubs. ... the churches ... are in danger of dwindling past the demographic and organizational point of no return. Every time a nation becomes truly advanced in terms of democratic, egalitarian education and prosperity it loses the faith. ... Disbelief now rivals the great faiths in numbers and influence. Never before has religion faced such enormous levels of disbelief..."

This, paradoxically, is further evidence that Christianity is true, i.e. that we are in the Great Apostasy predicted by Jesus and the Apostles, which is a precursor of Jesus' imminent return. Indeed, such anti-Christian gloating over Christianity's demise is actually predicted in the Book of Revelation (see below). The gods are not winning but God is!]

are bold to distinguish them from mine.

3.One person stated about Christianity on your blog, that "it should be difficult to devote yourself to something that has no future". To that you replied, that "only under premices [sic] of Christianity there IS 'future' "(which is untrue, there is 'future' under Judaism as well).

What I actually wrote in a comment under my post, What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design was:

As for me, for these past nearly 40 years a Christian, it has been a joy to devote my entire life to the only "something" that has a future!

Which as a consistent Christian, I stand by. Because since Jesus (who was God-see below) taught that only Christians will be saved, and all non-Christians, will be lost:

John 3:16,18 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ... Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Acts 4:10,12 ... It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead... Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

therefore, only Christians have a future (i.e. a future to look forward to).

The reason is, as even non-Christian philosopher of religion John Hick pointed out, if "Traditional orthodoxy" was right that "Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate ... It follows ... that Christianity, alone among the world religions, was founded by God in person" and so "Christianity alone is God's own religion" and "God must wish ... Christianity shall supersede all the other world faiths":

"Traditional orthodoxy says that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate ... It follows from this that Christianity, alone among the world religions, was founded by God in person. ... From this premise it seems obvious that God must wish all human beings to enter this stream of saved life, so that Christianity shall supersede all the other world faiths. ... Christianity alone is God's own religion.... It is therefore divinely intended for all men and women without exception. All this follows logically from the central dogma of the deity of Jesus." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place,"pp.18-19).

But it seems that you just diverted the question. What person meant, it's not premices [sic] of Christianity, but the fact that Christianity has no future as wordly religion, and in decline, and that's true: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html

I did not divert the question, and in fact there was no question. All his anonymous comment stated was, "It must be tough to devote your entire life to something that has no future - only a past" and I responded directly to his claim that Christianity "has no future - only a past" with, it is in fact "only ... Christianity ... that has a future!"

Nor was there anything explicitly in his comment which claimed "Christianity [was] ... in decline." Christianity could be increasing in numbers and yet have no future (as in fact non-Christianity is). And if there had been anything explicitly in his comment that claimed Christianity was in decline, far from diverting it, I would have agreed with him! That is because it is in fact a prediction of Jesus that Christianity will decline in a "Great Apostasy" before He returns:

Mt 24:10-12 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold

Lk 18:8 ... However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

2Th 2:3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [Jesus' Second Coming] shall not come, except there come a falling away [Gk. apostasia] first ...

Here are quotes from my commentaries on the above, i.e. "It is a sombre picture of a church in decline ... before 'the end' comes ...":

"[Mt 24:] 9-12. ... the persecution is to come from all nations ... an international involvement of the disciples is envisaged ... many will fall away ... It is a sombre picture of a church in decline. ... which must run its course before 'the end' comes ..." (France, 1985, "Matthew," pp.338-339).

"[Lk 18:]8. ... Jesus is speaking of the certainty of speedy action when the time comes. When He asks whether the Son of man will find faith on earth, he is not suggesting that there will be no believers. He is saying that the characteristic of the world's people at that time will not be faith." (Morris, 1974, "Luke," pp.263-264).

"[2Th 2:]3. ... While the coming of 'the day of the Lord' will be unexpected (1 Thes. 5:2-3), certain things will precede it. One is the rebellion. ... In classical Greek apostasia meant a political or military rebellion, but in LXX it is used of rebellion against God ... Paul is saying that in the last times there will be a great uprising of the powers of evil against God (cf. Mt. 24:10ff.; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 4:3-4)." Morris, 1984, "Thessalonians," p.127).

And, as I have posted previously here on my CED blog, e.g. Re: Thoughts on your web page - Jesus' return #2 (21-Apr-07), as well as posts to my now-terminated Yahoo CED group: 23-May-03, 21-Apr-03 and 25-Feb-03 , I agree with the late great Bible commentator, William Hendriksen that we are in the period of the Great Apostasy, when just before Jesus returns, "the antichristian world ... shall battle against the Church and shall destroy it ," i.e. Christianity will appear to be totally defeated, as described in the Book of Revelation:

"Rev 11:3-14 ... The Church ... shall finish its testimony. ... the antichristian world ... shall battle against the Church and shall destroy it. This is the Battle of Harmagedon ... There are going to be believers on earth when Christ comes again, although they will be few in number ... But the Church itself ... will be destroyed. ... the Church ... has been silenced and smothered by the world ... in the midst of the world the Church is dead ... The world ... celebrates. ... Its joy is premature. ... In connection with Christ's second coming the Church is restored to life ... the world will become frozen with fear... the Church ascends to heaven in a cloud of glory" (Hendriksen, 1940, "More than Conquerors," pp.129-131).

Note that Hendriksen wrote that in 1940 - nearly seventy years ago! Subsequent world events have only further confirmed his insight.

In fact, the Protestant reformer John Calvin in 1540, nearly four hundred and seventy years ago, confirmed the Bible taught that before "The day of Christ" the "world [would have] fallen into apostasy" and "The Church must be reduced to a ... state of ruin":

"[2Th 2:]3. ... The day of Christ, he says, will not come until the world has fallen into apostasy ...the term apostasy to mean a treacherous rebellion from God. This would ... spread far and wide ... apostates ... those who have previously enlisted in the service of Christ .... Paul, then, is predicting a general defection on the part of the visible Church... `The Church must be reduced to a ghastly and horrifying state of ruin, before its full restoration is achieved.' ...it might have seemed ... [it] could not have been the work of God, had Paul not warned them long before that this would take place. " (Calvin, 1540, "Thessalonians," pp.398-399).

Here also are quotes from two other leading Christian theologians, confirming that the Bible teaches there will be "a final apostasy which will occur just before the Parousia" (Second coming of Christ):

"There is ... a ... New Testament passage which points ... to a final apostasy which will occur just before the Parousia ...for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [or apostasy; Greek, apostasia] comes first ... apostasia is preceded by a definite article: the apostasy or the rebellion. ... what is predicted here is a final, climactic apostasy just before the end-time. .... The fact that this sign is called a `falling away' or `apostasy' implies that this will be a rebellion against the Christian faith ... those who fall away will be at least outwardly associated with the people of God. The apostasy will occur within the ranks of the members of the visible church." (Hoekema, 1979, "The Bible and the Future," p.153).

that " before the Lord returns. ... there must be a rebellion (apostasy). ... a falling away from the faith ... a rebellion against God ... an apostasy... on the part of ... professing Christians":

"In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Paul indicates ... Two things must occur before the Lord returns. First, there must be a rebellion (apostasy). Second, there must be a revelation of the Man of Lawlessness [Antichrist]. ... As for the rebellion (apostasia), the word Paul uses here is used ... to speak of a religious crisis of some sort facing God's people-a falling away from the faith ... The word means a rebellion against God; specifically an apostasy (a falling away from the truth) on the part of God's people. Thus professing Christians ... must be the ones who fall away. " (Riddlebarger, 2006, "The Man of Sin," pp.124-125).

So we have a win-win situation. You, an "agnostic-deist" (see below), win by being able to gloat "that Christianity has no future as wordly religion, and [is] in decline" and I, a Christian, win by knowing that is in fact what the Bible teaches!

But the win-win is only apparent because it will, at Jesus unexpected return, suddenly and irrevocably turn into a loss-win, i.e. an infinite loss for non-Christians and an infinite win for Christians. So unless you (and any other non-Christian) changes sides before the "Battle of Harmagedon", i.e. to the side of the apparent loser, Christianity, you will remain on the side of the final loser, "the antichristian world"!

You see, we Christians have read, "the end of the book and

[Right: Album Michael W. Smith 2 by Michael W. Smith, which contains the song "End Of The Book" with the following lyrics:

When things get bad and you can't stand to look
It's time to read to the end of the book
Don't put it down 'til you get to the end
When Jesus come and His Kingdom begins
'Til He comes
God the Son
Teaches us to use the sword
And every fight
Has a light
When you know we win the war]

WE WIN!!!:

Rev 21:3-4; 22:1-5. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and GOD HIMSELF WILL BE WITH THEM and be their God. He will WIPE EVERY TEAR FROM THEIR EYES. There will be NO MORE DEATH OR MOURNING OR CRYING OR PAIN, for the old order of things has passed away." ...Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. THEY WILL SEE HIS FACE, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And THEY WILL REIGN FOR EVER AND EVER.

4. It seems that you by yourself, after accepting Christianity 40 years ago ,are not sure %100 that Christianity is true,you still seem to struggle and convince yourself . It follows from some of your posts, where you state that "it can not be provable", and your post about Daniel doesn't seem convincing, sorry.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am fully convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true, and have been the entire 41 years of my Christian life. The only difference is that I am even more convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true than I was when I became a Christian in 1967. Far from having to struggle to convince myself that Christianity is true, I would have to struggle to convince myself that Christianity is not true!

I would like to get your response on "CreationEvolutionDesign", or even in private mail.

Sorry, but I do not get involved in extended private email discussions on topics that are covered by my blogs. You now have this my response via my blog CED.

Best regards,
AN (agnostic-deist)

Thanks. But there is no such position as "agnostic-deist". It is self-contradictory, since an "agnostic" is "a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God:

"agnostic ... noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God. adjective relating to agnostics. - DERIVATIVES agnosticism noun." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008)

and a "deist" is a person who believes in the existence of God but He "does not intervene in the universe":

"deism ... noun belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Compare with THEISM. - DERIVATIVES deist noun deistic adjective" ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"One scholar put his finger on the problem when he explained that belief in the deity of Jesus-his unique status among human beings as God in the flesh-implies that Jesus is the only way for people to be properly related to God:

Traditional orthodoxy says that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate ... who became man to die for the sins of the world and who founded the church to proclaim this to the ends of the earth, so that all who sincerely take Jesus as their Lord and Savior are justified by his atoning death and will inherit eternal life. It follows from this that Christianity, alone among the world religions, was founded by God in person. God came down from heaven to earth and launched the salvific movement that came to be known as Christianity. From this premise it seems obvious that God must wish all human beings to enter this stream of saved life, so that Christianity shall supersede all the other world faiths. They may perhaps have some good in them and be able to function to some extent as a preparation for the gospel, but nevertheless Christianity alone is God's own religion.... It is therefore divinely intended for all men and women without exception. All this follows logically from the central dogma of the deity of Jesus.' [Hick J., "A Pluralist View," in Okholm, D.L. & Phillips, T.R., 1995, "Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, pp.51-52]

It is remarkable, however, that the person who made this observation doesn't believe in the deity of Jesus. He is, in fact, a well-known opponent of that doctrine." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, pp.18-19).

"[2Th 2:]3. Let no man beguile you. In order to keep from vainly promising themselves the glad day of redemption within so short a period, he gives them a gloomy prediction concerning the future dispersion of the Church. This discourse corresponds in every respect to that which was addressed by Christ to His disciples when they had asked Him about the end of the world. [Mt 24:3-14] ... The day of Christ, he says, will not come until the world has fallen into apostasy, and the rule of Antichrist has held sway in the Church. ... Paul, therefore, uses the term apostasy to mean a treacherous rebellion from God. This would not be confined to a single individual or even a few, but would spread far and wide among a considerably large number of persons. When the word apostasy is used without any addition it cannot be confined to a few individuals. Now the word apostates can be understood only of those who have previously enlisted in the service of Christ and His Gospel. Paul, then, is predicting a general defection on the part of the visible Church, as if he were saying, `The Church must be reduced to a ghastly and horrifying state of ruin, before its full restoration is achieved.' From this we may at once conclude how useful this prediction of Paul's is. For it might have seemed that a building which was suddenly destroyed, and which lay for so long in ruins, could not have been the work of God, had Paul not warned them long before that this would take place. " (Calvin, J., 1540, "The Epistles of Paul to the Romans and Thessalonians," Mackenzie, R., transl., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1960, Reprinted, 1980, pp.398-399).

"[Mt 24:] 9-12. These verses similarly speak in general terms of the sufferings to come, not now in relation to the world at large, but more with reference to Jesus' disciples. They will, as he has predicted already, be persecuted and hated. (Cf. 10:17-22, a passage closely related to this, and closer in wording to the parallel passage in Mk. 13:9-13. It is interesting that here, in contrast to both 10:17-22 and Mk. 13:9-23, the persecution is to come from all nations, not just from the Jews; in ch. 10 a mission to Jews only was in view (10:5-6, 23), but now an international involvement of the disciples is envisaged, as 28:18-19 will spell out.) This persecution will take its toll, in that many will fall away ('be tripped up', the same verb as in 5:29-30; 13:21; 18:6-9; etc.; here it echoes particularly Dn. 11:41), and the disciple group itself will be the scene of betrayal, hatred, false prophecy and wickedness (lit. 'lawlessness'). And lawlessness will lead to the cooling off of love, a connection to be noted. Most men's love is literally 'the love of the many', which could mean disciples' love for 'the many' outside; but the sequence of thought in these verses, where it is the disciple group itself which is under pressure, suggests that it means that 'the majority' (of the disciples) will cool off in their love, whether for God or for their fellow-men. It is a sombre picture of a church in decline. All this, the context indicates, is part of the history which must run its course before 'the end' comes; but there is no indication as to the temporal relation between such a situation and 'the end'." (France, R.T., 1985, "Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.338-339).

"The two witnesses ([Rev.] 11:3-14) ... This gospel age is, however, going to come to an end (cf. Mt. 24:14). The Church, as a mighty missionary organization, shall finish its testimony. The beast that comes up out of the abyss, that is, the antichristian world, urged on by hell, shall battle against the Church and shall destroy it. This is the Battle of Harmagedon. The beast will not kill every believer. There are going to be believers on earth when Christ comes again, although they will be few in number (Lk. 18:8). But the Church itself, as a mighty organization for the dissemination of the gospel and regular ministry of the Word, will be destroyed. ... Thus, just before the second coming, the corpse of the Church, whose public and official testimony has been silenced and smothered by the world, lies on the great city's High Street. ... So when we read that the corpse of the Church is lying on the broad avenues of the great city, this simply means that in the midst of the world the Church is dead: it no longer exists as an influential and powerful missionary institution! Its leaders have been slaughtered; its voice has been silenced. This condition lasts three days and a half, which is a very brief time. (Mt. 24:22; cf. Rev. 20:7-9.) The world does not even allow the dead bodies of the witnesses to be buried. In the High Street lie these corpses, exposed to insects, birds, and dogs. The world has a grand picnic: it celebrates. People send each other presents and gloat over these witnesses ... Their word will not torment them any more. Foolish world! Its joy is premature. The corpse suddenly begins to stir; the breath of life from God has entered into it; the witnesses stand upon their feet. In connection with Christ's second coming the Church is restored to life, to honour, to power, to influence. For the world the hour of opportunity is gone, and gone for ever. On the day of judgment when the world shall see the Church restored to honour and glory, the world will become frozen with fear. The Church still under the symbolism of the two witnesses-now hears a voice, 'Come up hither'. Thereupon the Church ascends to heaven in a cloud of glory. 'And their enemies beheld them.' This is no secret rapture!" (Hendriksen, W., "More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation," [1940], Tyndale Press: London, Reprinted, 1966, pp.129-131).

"There is, however, a specific New Testament passage which points unambiguously to a final apostasy which will occur just before the Parousia [Second coming of Christ]. We turn now to Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians: `Now concerning the coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [or apostasy; Greek, apostasia] comes first, and the man of lawlessness [Antichrist] is revealed.. ." ([2Th ]2:1-3). ... The word apostasia is derived from the verb aphistemi which when it is used intransitively means `to fall away' or `to become apostate.' As used in II Thessalonians 2:3, apostasia is preceded by a definite article: the apostasy or the rebellion. Both the definite article and the statement that this happening must precede the Parousia indicate that what is predicted here is a final, climactic apostasy just before the end-time. It should be noted, however, that this apostasy will be an intensification and culmination of a rebellion which has already begun, since in verse 7 Paul says, `For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.' We may see a parallel, therefore, between this sign and the sign of tribulation: both are evident throughout the present age but come to a climactic and final form just before Christ returns. The fact that this sign is called a `falling away' or `apostasy' implies that this will be a rebellion against the Christian faith as it has been heard or professed. We may therefore assume that those who fall away will be at least outwardly associated with the people of God. The apostasy will occur within the ranks of the members of the visible church. Those who are true believers will not fall away (John 10:27-29; I Pet. 1:3-5); but many who have made an outward profession of the faith will do so." (Hoekema, A.A., 1979, "The Bible and the Future," [1978], Paternoster Press: Exeter UK, p.153).

"[Lk 18:]8. Vindication will be done speedily, but we should understand this in terms of God's time (in which one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day, 2 Pet. 3:8). Jesus is speaking of the certainty of speedy action when the time comes. When He asks whether the Son of man will find faith on earth, he is not suggesting that there will be no believers. He is saying that the characteristic of the world's people at that time will not be faith. Men of the world never recognize the ways of God and they will not see His vindication of His elect." (Morris, L.L., 1974, "The Gospel According to Luke: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press Leicester UK, Reprinted, 1986, pp.263-264).

"[2Th 2:]3. The Thessalonians must not be deceived in any way, whether by the things listed in verse 2 or by anything else whatever. The construction is broken in the following clause, but NIV is surely right in supplying the words that day will not come. While the coming of 'the day of the Lord' will be unexpected (1 Thes. 5:2-3), certain things will precede it. One is the rebellion. The definite article shows that the rebellion was well known to the readers; evidently it had formed part of Paul's previous teaching. Our difficulty is that we do not know what he had told them. In classical Greek apostasia meant a political or military rebellion, but in LXX it is used of rebellion against God (e.g. Jos. 22:22), and this became the accepted biblical usage. Paul is saying that in the last times there will be a great uprising of the powers of evil against God (cf. Mt. 24:10ff.; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 4:3-4). It is as though Satan were throwing all his forces into one last despairing effort." (Morris, L.L., 1984, "The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians: An Introduction and Commentary," [1956], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second edition, p.127).

"In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Paul indicates that the reason people are not to be startled is that two signs must be fulfilled before the Lord returns. `Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.' Paul is crystal clear. Two things must occur before the Lord returns. First, there must be a rebellion (apostasy). Second, there must be a revelation of the Man of Lawlessness. ... As for the rebellion (apostasia), the word Paul uses here is used throughout the Septuagint (LXX) and elsewhere in the New Testament to speak of a religious crisis of some sort facing God's people-a falling away from the faith in some sense. As Beale points out, `Such a meaning is apparent because of the immediate context of false teaching (vv. 1-2 and vv. 9-12) and the clear allusions to Daniel's prediction of an end-time opponent who will bring about a large-scale compromise of faith among God's people. ' [Beale, G.K., "The Temple and the Church's Mission," IVP: Downers Grove IL, 2004, pp.271-272] This seems to connect Paul's comments to both John's and our Lord's warnings about false teachers and people who claim to be believers but who fall away and take a number of followers with them (see Matt. 24:10-12, 23-24; 1 John 2:18-19). ... The word means a rebellion against God; specifically an apostasy (a falling away from the truth) on the part of God's people. Thus professing Christians ... must be the ones who fall away. [Beale, G. K., "1-2 Thessalonians," IVP: Downers Grove IL, 2003, pp.207-209] While there were some apostates in the apostolic church just as there are in ours, God restrains false teachers and antichrists from gaining the upper hand until the appointed time. Because the final apostasy has not yet taken place, the Thessalonians can be assured that the Lord has not yet returned, nor has the day of the Lord already occurred." (Riddlebarger, K. , 2006, "The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.124-125).

Re: Anthony Flew leaving Atheism ... more accurate to state "Victory of Deism"

AN

Continuing from my Re: what would happen if I lived to 2037 and Jesus has not come? with your next question:

[Left: Former atheist philosopher Antony Flew's book, "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" (2007).]

2. Regarding Anthony Flew leaving Atheism. You stated : "Victory of Theism". I think it's more accurate to state "Victory of Deism", since Flew didn't subscribe to any particular religion.

I never claimed that Flew did subscribe to any particular religion. And I maintain an up-to-date copy of every blog post I have made, and a search of those does not find where I stated that Antony Flew's conversion from atheism to deism was a "victory of theism."

Although since atheism, "the belief that God does not exist," is the negation of theism:"

atheism ... noun the belief that God does not exist. - DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective. - ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos `god'." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008),

then "leaving Atheism" by Flew, who was one of the world's leading atheists, was in that sense a "victory of theism."

And even if I had stated that Flew's leaving atheism was a "victory of theism," since deism is a form of theism, because theism in the broadest sense is the view that there is a God:

"theism Belief in the existence of God." (Blackburn, 1994, "The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy," p.375).

"theism ... is the view that there is such a thing as GOD." (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, "Collins Dictionary of Philosophy," p.283).

"theism ... the belief that there is one God, a personal being with every perfection ... existing entirely separately from the world ... the view that God interacts with the world is rejected by deism, which ascribes to God a decisive role in originating the world, but none in keeping the world going ..." (Mautner, 2000, "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy," p.561).

and deism also affirms there is a God, but denies that God is concerned with human affairs and/or intervenes in His creation, including in giving special revelation like the Bible:

"deism Historically, a term referring to the doctrine of `natural religion' ... according to which while reason ... assures us that there is a God, additional revelation, dogma, or supernatural commerce with the deity are all excluded. ... God may only be thought of as an 'absentee landlord'." (Blackburn, 1994, Ibid., p.110).

"deism ... belief in God as a perfect personal being; differs from THEISM by not accepting doctrines that require belief in revelation. ... there is one supreme God; .... True religion is identified with Christianity-but a reinterpreted `rational' Christianity which has no place for any special revelation." (Mautner, 2000, Ibid., pp.126-127).

"deism ... a line of rationalistic religious thought that affirms that there is a GOD but denies that he should be understood in any mystical way. The antecedents of deism go back to ARISTOTLE'S First Mover, who ...is otherwise unconcerned with human affairs." (Vesey & Foulkes, Ibid., 1990, p.76).

But even if theism is defined in a narrower sense of "belief in the existence of ... a creator who intervenes in the universe":

"theism ... noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. Compare with DEISM. - DERIVATIVES theist noun theistic ... adjective. - ORIGIN from Greek theos `god'." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," 2008).

and deism is then defined in the sense of "belief in the existence of ... a creator who does not intervene in the universe":

"deism ... noun belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Compare with THEISM. - DERIVATIVES deist noun deistic adjective" ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," 2008)

then Flew's position is not deism but theism, because he believes that there is a God who intervened in the Universe to create the first living organism (see below).

Flew had claimed his version of deism affirmed that "God was not actively involved in people's lives":

"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century ... now believes in God ... Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives." (Ostling, 2004, "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," Livescience).

and he later defined his God as "not the God of revelation":

"... Deists believe in the existence of a God but not the God of revelation." (Flew, 2008, "The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins," pp.48-49).

But Flew also affirms that God intervened supernaturally in the already existing Universe to create the first life:

"Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said ... biologists' investigation of DNA `has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,' Flew says ... `It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,' he wrote." (Ostling, 2004, Ibid.)

"... when asked if recent work on the origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence, I said: `Yes ... because ... the DNA material has ... shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.'" (Flew, 2007, "There Is a God," pp.74-75).

Therefore, according to the Oxford Dictionary above, Flew's position is actually "theism ... belief in the existence of ... a creator who intervenes in the universe".

Moreover, Flew's version of deism (which is actually theism) cannot logically deny that God could also intervene in the Universe at strategic points in life's history, as my Progressive Creation position maintains:

"Progressive creationism accepts much of the scientific picture of the development of the universe, assuming that for the most part it developed according to natural laws. However, especially with regard to life on earth, PCs hold that God intervened supernaturally at strategic points along the way. On their view, Creation was not a single six-day event but occurred in stages over millions of years..." (Pennock, R.T. , 1999, "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Fourth printing, pp.26-27).

And therefore neither could Flew logically claim that "God was not actively involved in people's lives", because a God who can and did intervene supernaturally in the Universe to produce "that first reproducing organism," could also be "actively involved in people's lives" (as uncountable millions of people - including me - have claimed down through the ages and still claim today).

And in fact Flew's position is that the God he believes in is "a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being":

"I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." (Flew, Ibid., 2007, p.155).

who he admits is God:

"The last of my public debates, a symposium at New York University, occurred in May 2004. .... To the surprise of all concerned, I announced at the start that I now accepted the existence of a God." (Flew, 2007, "There Is a God," pp.74-75).

But "self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient" are attributes of the Christian God who "intervenes in the universe" and is "the God of revelation." And Flew admits that "You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence ... Everything else is open to omnipotence":

"... the question of whether the Divine has revealed itself in human history remains a valid topic of discussion. You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.157).

Is it possible that there has been or can be divine revelation? As I said, you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (Flew, 2007, Ibid., p.213).

which means that the "omnipotent, and omniscient" God that Flew believes in, could have supernaturally intervened in His Universe, in progressive creation, special revelation and "in people's lives."

In fact, while Flew has in the past has "taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention" his "current position ... is more open to at least certain of these claims."

"In both my antitheological books and various debates, I have taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention. My current position, however, is more open to at least certain of these claims." (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.185).

Moreover, Flew regards Christianity, among all "other religions" as "the one to beat":

"As I have said more than once, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!" (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.157)

"... I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. ... If you're wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat." (Flew, 2007, Ibid., pp.185-186)

In particular, Flew admits that, "the claim concerning the resurrection [of Christ] is more impressive than any by the religious competition":

"... I addressed the claims of Christianity to some extent. ... Today, I would say the claim concerning the resurrection is more impressive than any by the religious competition." (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.187).

Indeed, Flew has not ruled out the possibility of him becoming a Christian, and he even suggests the problem of unbelief in Christianity is on his side, i.e. he has not "made contact with this Mind. ...yet" but "Someday I might hear a Voice that says, `Can you hear me now?'":

"The discovery of phenomena like the [fine-tuned] laws of nature ... has led scientists, philosophers, and others to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind. Some claim to have made contact with this Mind. I have not-yet. But who knows what could happen next? Someday I might hear a Voice that says, `Can you hear me now?'" (Flew, 2007, Ibid, pp.157-158).

As I have previously pointed out, Flew is actually more theistic than most theistic evolutionists I have debated, because most of them, even though they claimed to be Christians, denied that God supernaturally intervened even to produce the first life:

I pointed out in my debates with atheists on my (now terminated) list CED that Antony Flew, although now he calls himself a "deist", is more theistic than most of the "theistic evolutionists" I have encountered, in that few of them would concede that God supernaturally intervened, even at the origin of life. ("Roman Catholic Church's `wedge'", July 15, 2005).

So although Flew claims he is a "deist" his position actually is already theism (in that he accepts that there is a God who has intervened supernaturally in the Universe to bring about the origin of life) and he is moving towards Christian theism!

Continued in "Re: Christianity has no future and is in decline."

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: , TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"deism Historically, a term referring to the doctrine of `natural religion' emerging in England and France in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, according to which while reason (particularly the argument to design) assures us that there is a God, additional revelation, dogma, or supernatural commerce with the deity are all excluded. Supplication and prayer in particular are fruitless: God may only be thought of as an 'absentee landlord'. Leading deists included Herbert, John Toland (1670-1722), whose Christianity not Mysterious (1696) was an influence on Berkeley, and Anthony Collins (1676-1729) as well as Shaftesbury and, arguably, Locke. The belief that remains is abstract to vanishing point, as witnessed in Diderot's remark that a deist is someone who has not lived long enough to become an atheist." (Blackburn, S., 1994, "The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Reprinted, 1996, p.110).

"theism Belief in the existence of God. Theism is also a morbid condition brought on by excessive tea-drinking, but this is a different sense of the word, or an instance of homonymy. See also deism, monotheism, polytheism, and different topics within the philosophy of religion." (Blackburn, 1994, p.375).

"The last of my public debates, a symposium at New York University, occurred in May 2004. The other participants were the Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder, author of best sellers on science and religion, notably The Science of God, and the Scottish philosopher John Haldane, whose Theism and Atheism was a debate on God's existence with my friend Jack Smart. To the surprise of all concerned, I announced at the start that I now accepted the existence of a God. What might have been an intense exchange of opposing views ended up as a joint exploration of the developments in modern science that seemed to point to a higher Intelligence. In the video of the symposium, the announcer suggested that of all the great discoveries of modern science, the greatest was God. In this symposium, when asked if recent work on the origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence, I said: `Yes, I now think it does ... almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.' This statement represented a major change of course for me, but it was nevertheless consistent with the principle I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life-of following the argument no matter where it leads." (Flew, A.G.N., 2007, "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, pp.74-75).

"Science qua science cannot furnish an argument for God's existence. But the three items of evidence we have considered in this volume-the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization, and the existence of the universe--can only be explained in the light of an Intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of the world. Such a discovery of the Divine does not come through experiments and equations, but through an understanding of the structures they unveil and map. Now, all this might sound abstract and impersonal. How, it might be asked, do I as a person respond to the discovery of an Ultimate Reality that is an omnipresent and omniscient Spirit? I must say again that the journey to my discovery of the Divine has thus far been a pilgrimage of reason. I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led meto accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." (Flew, 2007, p.155).

"Where do I go from here? In the first place, I am entirely open to learning more about the divine Reality, especially in the light of what we know about the history of nature. Second, the question of whether the Divine has revealed itself in human history remains a valid topic of discussion. You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence .... As I have said more than once, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!" (Flew, 2007, p.157).

"The discovery of phenomena like the [fine-tuned] laws of nature-the communications network of the parable-has led scientists, philosophers, and others to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind. Some claim to have made contact with this Mind. I have not-yet. But who knows what could happen next? Someday I might hear a Voice that says, `Can you hear me now?'" (Flew, 2007, p.158).

"Up to this point I have discussed the data that led me to accept the existence of a divine Mind. Those who hear these arguments almost inevitably ask what I think about the claims of divine revelation. In both my antitheological books and various debates, I have taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention. My current position, however, is more open to at least certain of these claims. In point of fact, I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. Virtually all the argument about the content of the religion was produced by St. Paul, who had a brilliant philosophical mind and could both speak and write-in all the relevant languages. If you're wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat." (Flew, 2007, pp.185-186).

"Today, I would say the claim concerning the resurrection is more impressive than any by the religious competition. I still believe that when historians professionally are looking at the evidence, they surely need much more than what is available. They need evidence of a different kind. I think the claim that God was incarnate in Jesus Christ is unique. It is difficult, I think, to realize how you are going to judge this other than by believing or not believing. I cannot quite see that there are general principles to guide you in this." (Flew, 2007, p.187).

"I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright's approach, which is absolutely fresh. He presents the case for Christianity as something new for the first time. This is enormously important, especially in the United Kingdom, where the Christian religion has virtually disappeared. It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful. Is it possible that there has been or can be divine revelation? As I said, you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (Flew, 2007, p.213).

"A less important point which needs to be made in this piece is that although the index of The God Delusion notes six references to Deism it provides no definition of the word deism. This enables Dawkins in his reference to Deism to suggest that Deists are a miscellany of believers in this and that. The truth, which Dawkins ought to have learnt before his book went to the printers, is that Deists believe in the existence of a God but not the God of revelation. In fact, the first notable public appearance of the notion of Deism was the American Revolution. The young man who drafted the Declaration of Independence and who later became President Jefferson was a Deist, as were several of the other founding fathers of that abidingly important institution, the United States." (Flew, A.G.N., 2008, "The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins," Quadrant, October, pp.48-49).

"deism... (Lat. deus god) n. belief in God as a perfect personal being; differs from THEISM by not accepting doctrines that require belief in revelation. Post-Reformation religious conflicts led many thinkers to attempt systems of NATURAL RELIGION which would be based on rational insight, independently of any revelation, and therefore universally acceptable. They were also driven in this direction by the difficulties arising from the attempts to reconcile reason and religion. The word deism, which can be traced back to French writings in the 1560s, was used for many of these systems. (So was the word theism: its modern sense is quite recent.) Herbert of Cherbury is commonly regarded as the first English thinker to have provided a formulation of deism, in the 1620s. He held that there are five basic tenets or common notions of natural religion: (1) there is one supreme God; (2) God ought to be worshipped; (3) worship consists in virtue and piety; (4) wrongdoing should be repented; (5) there are divine rewards and punishments in this life and the next. These tenets are rationally knowable and constitute the basis for a true universal religion. The main thrust of deism comes to expression in the titles of works like John Toland's (1670-1722) Christianity not mysterious: or a treatise showing that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason, nor above it: and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery 1696, and Mathew Tindal's (c. 1657-1733) Christianity as old as the creation: or, the Gospel the republication of the religion of nature 1730. True religion is identified with Christianity-but a reinterpreted `rational' Christianity which has no place for any special revelation. A classical formulation of a deistic view is Rousseau's `The profession of faith of the Savoyard vicar' in Book 4 of his Emile 1762." (Mautner, T., ed., 2000, "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy," [1996], Penguin: London, Revised, p.126-127).

"theism ... (Gr. theos god) n. the belief that there is one God, a personal being with every perfection (perfect power, perfect knowledge, perfect goodness, perfect justice, etc.); creator of the world, manifested in the world, interacting with the world, but nevertheless existing entirely separately from the world; a being that is the one and only proper object of worship and obedience. Theism is common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Theism can be contrasted with a variety of views: (1) the view that there is one God is rejected by polytheism, which claims that there are many gods; in contrast, traditional Western religions are also said to be monotheistic; (2) the view that God is a personal being is rejected as anthropomorphic in some philosophical systems, which rather conceive of God as an absolute, nonpersonal being; (3) the view that God is distinct from the world is rejected by pantheism, which identifies God and the world; (4) the view that God interacts with the world is rejected by deism, which ascribes to God a decisive role in originating the world, but none in keeping the world going; (5) the denial of the existence of any divine being is called atheism; (6) the suspension of judgement on the question whether theism is true is called agnosticism. Many of the teleological, cosmological, ontological, moral, etc. arguments for the existence of God are intended to establish theism." (Mautner, 2000, p.561).

"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God -more or less -- based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives. ... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife. Yet biologists' investigation of DNA `has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,' Flew says in the new video, `Has Science Discovered God? .... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. `It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,' he wrote." (Ostling, R.N., "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," Livescience/Associated Press, 10 December 2004).

"deism, n. (from Latin deus god) a line of rationalistic religious thought that affirms that there is a GOD but denies that he should be understood in any mystical way. The antecedents of deism go back to ARISTOTLE'S First Mover, who moved `the first heaven' at the circumference of the universe but is otherwise unconcerned with human affairs. Deism proper arose with the RENAISSANCE and particularly the ENLIGHTENMENT. It is not a school in any sense, but rather typifies a general approach to religion: individualistic, non-mystical, non-institutional and often anti-clerical. To mention only two great philosophical figures, both LOCKE and KANT took a deist position. As an anti-authoritarian way of thinking, deism in modern times is one of the results of the Protestant REFORMATION. Insofar as it implies a general spirit of tolerance (witness Frederick the Great's dictum that in his realm everyone could save his soul in his own fashion), deism remains in effect a living force today. Besides, toleration in religious matters tends to spread to other human concerns, particularly social and political." (Vesey, G. & Foulkes, P., 1990, "Collins Dictionary of Philosophy," HarperCollins: Glasgow, Reprinted, 1999, p.76).

"theism, n. (from Greek theos god) is the view that there is such a thing as GOD. Depending on how many of them one takes there to be, we have monotheism (one god), polytheism (many gods) and appropriate compound terms for numbers in between. Theistic views may be based either on simple faith, or on attempts at accounting for what happens in the world. For the latter case, a whole range of arguments for the existence of god has been considered by philosophers over the ages. All of these proofs have been rejected by some philosophers, but the question remains controversial in that some others may accept them. Much here depends on what the god in question is taken to be like, and what his existence must account for: some regard god as the creator of the universe, as a giver of moral laws, as a source of universal benevolence, as an ultimate judge, or as several of these at once. Whether the proofs carry weight depends on whether one accepts the premisses. Where the only ground for admitting the existence of a god is unexamined belief, argument is of course ineffective either way. Some arguments have been conclusively refuted. Thus, the notion that there could be no morality without a god has been quite undermined by PLATO in the Euthyphro. That the thought of a powerful being who can put things to right offers comfort to many, is indubitable. VOLTAIRE, with tongue in cheek, says that if God did not exist one would have to invent him." (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, p.283).

Re: what would happen if I lived to 2037 and Jesus has not come?

AN

Thanks for your message. As per my stated policy, I will respond

[Above (click to enlarge): "The Great Day of His Wrath," John Martin, 1851-1853, Tate Gallery, London: Wikipedia.

"For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" (Rev 6:17 KJV)]

to your questions about topics posted on my CED blog to that blog, minus your personally identifying information. Because of its length, I have split my response into three parts. Your words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:48 AM
Subject: From AN - remarks

>Hello Stephen,
1.Wow, your predictions about Jesus coming back before 2037 are bold one...

As I said in that post, it is not my "prediction" but my interpretation:

Although I have used your word "prediction" in the title of this post, I do not claim or agree that it is my prediction that Jesus will return before 2037, but rather it is my "interpretation" of Jesus' prediction in Lk 21:24b-31 ...

And I don't regard it as "bold," but a logical deduction from the Biblical data. Specifically, if the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 is a type of the Second Coming of Jesus:

"In the Olivet Discourse, therefore, Jesus is proclaiming events in the distant future in close connection with events in the near future'. The destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future is a type of the end of the world; hence the intermingling. The passage, therefore, deals neither exclusively with the destruction of Jerusalem nor exclusively with the end of the world; it deals with both-sometimes with the latter in terms of the former." (Hoekema, 1978, "The Bible and the Future," pp.148-149).

"`How much of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled by the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 ... How many of these events will be fulfilled in the future ...? ... double fulfillments may be in view here, with the events of A.D. 70 as shadows of a universal and final cataclysm at the end of the age... We must allow for a double reference, for a mingling of historical and eschatological.' .... In fact, the historical fulfillments may be types of future fulfillment." (Riddlebarger, 2003, "A Case for Amillennialism," pp.159-160).

"It must be said for this view that it is not easy in this great eschatological discourse to tell clearly when Jesus is discussing the destruction of Jerusalem and when the second coming. Plummer offers this solution: `The reference, therefore, is to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world.'" (Robertson, 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II: The Gospel According to Luke,"pp.261-262).

"The question of the disciples in verse 7 clearly refers to the date of the fall of Jerusalem, but it also seems to involve the date of the end of this age. The fall of Jerusalem becomes a type of the end times." (Shreiner, 1989, "Luke," in Elwell, "Evangelical Commentary on the Bible," pp.834-835).

then Jesus' warning that "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Mt 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32); has a double-fulfillment to the generation that saw "all these things," i.e. the generation that saw all the signs leading up to: 1) the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, which was the end of the "old covenant" (Old Testament) age; and 2) the generation that saw the all the signs leading up to the Second Coming of Jesus, the end of this New Testament age (which is "the end of time"):

"... the catastrophe in Jerusalem (A.D. 70) in a microcosmic view... a harbinger of the crisis which Jesus ... coming ... will bring to 'all who dwell upon the entire face of the earth' ... the first is the inevitable forerunner and prefiguration of the second. The destruction of Jerusalem marks the end of the old covenant ... Such a decisive intervention in the history of salvation will not occur again until the end of time when God will judge the whole human race ..." (Bloesch, 2004, "The Last Things," pp.81-82).

And one sign, found only in Luke 21:24:

"They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

was fulfilled in 1967 when Jerusalem came under Jewish control, for the first time since AD 70. This is the only sign pointing to "the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Lk 21:27) that now has a date.

Therefore, if my interpretation is correct, the generation that saw the sign of Jerusalem no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles," i.e. that was alive in 1967, will not pass away until Jesus comes again. And assuming that a generation is 70 years (see supporting quotes in my Re: about your prediction of Jesus' return by 2037), then I expect Jesus will return before 2037.

>Well, if Bertrand Russell ,"bleak atheist" managed to live up to the age of 98, so surely can you,"cheerful christian".

Sorry, but I fail to follow your reasoning. Even if "cheerful Christians," on average, tended to outlive "bleak atheists," and there is some evidence that they do:

"Here are some interesting data from a study by Hummer et al. (Demography, May 1999). They examined data from 21,000 individuals over an eight year period and observed death rates as a function of various personal characteristics, one of which was religious attendance. From that they estimated life expectancies for sample members, and they found a surprisingly big difference. So, a twenty year old who goes to church more than once a week can be expected to live 8 years longer than a twenty year old who doesn't go to church. (I.e., live to be 72.9 years old) What does this mean? Well, the data don't have measures of types of religion, so we can't disentangle Christian vs. Jew vs. Muslim, but we can assume that he great majority of church goers in the sample are Christians. Why does this occur? There's a big literature on "why" religion is associated with longer lives, which I may blog about some time, but for now it suffices to say that church going Christians live longer than people who don't go to church." (Wright, B., "Do Christians live longer?," Bradley Wright's Weblog, September 28, 2007).

presumably there still would be individual "bleak atheists" who outlive individual "cheerful Christians." I consider it unlikely that I will live till I am 98 (or 91 - see below), even though at 62, I am in excellent health. Nevertheless, one of my goals is to be in that unique group of Christians in all of history, "who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord":

1Th 4:15-17 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

>I wish you that. But what would happen if you live up to that date and Jesus ... has not come?Would that be the great source of your disappointment? Would you then reconsider your attitude to Christianity? If by 2037 Jesus will NOT come, should I wish you NOT to live up till then, for not to be disappointed? Sorry, I cannot wish you that...

Thanks for your concern. But I would be infinitely less disappointed if Jesus did not return by 2037, than you, an "agnostic-deist" (see part #3) would be if Jesus did return by 2037!

And since I am firmly convinced that Jesus will return before 2037, i.e. within the next 29 years, I see no reason to consider what will my response will be if He does not. Except to say, it is just my interpretation and I could be wrong. And as I would then be 91 in 2037, it is more likely than not that I will not be alive (at least not down here on Earth) to know that I was wrong.

Moreover, I could be wrong about the "by 2037" but right about Jesus returning before the generation that was alive in 1967 passes away. That is, if "generation" means more than 70 years and/or "passes away" means not most of that generation but the entire generation, as I pointed out in my post:

However, note that 70 is just the traditional "normal span of life" ballpark figure. It may be that the actual normal average lifespan of those born in 1967 is more like 80. And since the text says, "this generation will certainly not pass away," strictly literally it would mean that the entire generation that was alive in 1967 could almost pass away before Jesus returned:

Continued in Re: Anthony Flew leaving Atheism ... more accurate to state "Victory of Deism".

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: , TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"Commenting on Luke's rendition of Jesus' eschatological discourse ... Joseph Fitzmyer contends that the `Lucan discourse looks back at the catastrophe in Jerusalem (A.D. 70) in a microcosmic view; it sees the crisis that the earthly coming of Jesus brought into the lives of his own generation, but sees it now as a harbinger of the crisis which Jesus and his message, and above all his coming as the Son of Man, will bring to 'all who dwell upon the entire face of the earth' ([Lk] 21:35).' [Fitzmyer, J.A., "The Gospel According to Luke, X-XXIV," Anchor Bible, Doubleday: New York, 1985, p.1329] The notes on Matthew in The New Jerusalem Bible reflect a similar stance: `This eschatological discourse of Matthew combines the announcement of the destruction of Jerusalem with that of the end of the world.... Though separated in time, these two [events] are inseparable in the sense that the first is the inevitable forerunner and prefiguration of the second. The destruction of Jerusalem marks the end of the old covenant-Christ has thus manifestly returned to inaugurate his kingly rule. Such a decisive intervention in the history of salvation will not occur again until the end of time when God will judge the whole human race, now chosen in Christ, with the same judgment he pronounced (in A.D. 70) upon the first chosen people.' ["New Jerusalem Bible," Doubleday: New York, 1985, p.1649]" (Bloesch, D.G., 2004, "The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.81-82).

"When we ask what the New Testament teaches about the sign of tribulation, we must, look first of all at the so-called `Olivet Discourse' - Jesus' eschatological discourse found in Matthew 24:3-51, Mark 13:3-37, and Luke 21:5-36. This is, however, a very difficult passage to interpret. What makes it so difficult is that some parts of the discourse obviously refer to the destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future, whereas other parts of it refer to the events which will accompany the Parousia at the end of the age. The setting for the discourse is as follows: when the disciples pointed out to Jesus the buildings of the temple, Jesus replied, `I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down' (Matt. 24:2). When Jesus had seated himself on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him and said, `Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?' (v. 3). Note that ... the question of the disciples concerns two topics: (1) when will this be? (literally, these things; Greek, tauta)-an obvious reference to the destruction of the temple Jesus had just predicted; and (2) what will be the sign of your coming (Greek, parousia) and of the close of the age?-a reference to Christ's Second Coming. We may properly conclude, therefore, that the discourse will deal with both of these topics. As we read the discourse, however, we find that aspects of these two topics are intermingled; matters concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (epitomized by the destruction of the temple) are mingled together with matters which concern the end of the world-so much so that it is sometimes hard to determine whether Jesus is referring to the one or the other or perhaps to both. Obviously the method of teaching used here by Jesus is that of prophetic foreshortening, in which events far removed in time and events in the near future are spoken of as if they were very close together. The phenomenon has been compared to what happens when one looks at distant mountains; peaks which are many miles apart may be seen as if they are close together. ... In the Olivet Discourse, therefore, Jesus is proclaiming events in the distant future in close connection with events in the near future'. The destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future is a type of the end of the world; hence the intermingling. The passage, therefore, deals neither exclusively with the destruction of Jerusalem nor exclusively with the end of the world; it deals with both-sometimes with the latter in terms of the former. ... Though the, tribulation, persecution, suffering, and trials here predicted are described in terms which concern Palestine and the Jews, they must not be interpreted as having to do only with the Jews. Jesus was describing future events in terms which would be understandable to his hearers, in terms which had local ethnic and geographic color. We are not warranted, however, in applying these predictions only to the Jews, or in restricting their occurrence only to Palestine." (Hoekema, A.A., 1978, "The Bible and the Future," Paternoster Press: Exeter, Devon UK, Reprinted, 1979, pp.148-149).

"It is this immanent-future tension within the text itself which forces us to deal with the critical questions: `How much of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled by the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (the preterist view)? How many of these events will be fulfilled in the future (the futurist view)? The way one answers these questions is the source of the preterist-futurist debate. In another approach, some argue that this prophecy has both historical and future elements. Portions of the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled by the events of A.D. 70, while others remain to be fulfilled at the end of the age. Even double fulfillments may be in view here, with the events of A.D. 70 as shadows of a universal and final cataclysm at the end of the age. This is why C. E. B. Cranfield cautions that `neither an exclusively historical nor an exclusively eschatological interpretation is satisfactory ...We must allow for a double reference, for a mingling of historical and eschatological.' [Cranfield, C.E.B., "The Gospel According to St. Mark," Cambridge University Press: New York, 1983, pp.401-402] If Cranfield is correct, we should avoid reducing the Olivet Discourse to a prophecy of the events of A.D. 70 and a local judgment upon Israel, typical of preterism. We must also avoid treating the historical sections as though they are exclusively future, as is the case with many dispensational writers. In fact, the historical fulfillments may be types of future fulfillment. The difficulty in interpreting this text is to know which is which." (Riddlebarger, K., 2003, "A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.159-160).

"[Lk 21:]32 This generation (he genea haute). Naturally people then living. Shall not pass away (ou me parelthei). Second aorist active subjunctive of parerchomai. Strongest possible negative with ou me. Till all things be accomplished (heos an panta genetai). Second aorist middle subjunctive of ginomai with heos, common idiom. The words give a great deal of trouble to critics. Some apply them to the whole discourse including the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, the second coming and the end of the world. Some of these argue that Jesus was simply mistaken in his eschatology, some that he has not been properly reported in the Gospels. Others apply them only to the destruction of Jerusalem which did take place in A.D. 70 before that generation passed away. It must be said for this view that it is not easy in this great eschatological discourse to tell clearly when Jesus is discussing the destruction of Jerusalem and when the second coming. Plummer offers this solution: `The reference, therefore, is to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world.'" (Robertson, A.T., 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II: The Gospel According to Luke," Broadman Press, Nashville TN, pp.261-262).

"Apocalyptic discourse ([Lk ]21:5-38). The temple that elicited the admiration of his disciples was beautiful indeed. ... Jesus, however, predicts that the temple will be completely demolished (21:5-6). The Romans fulfilled this prophecy in A.D. 70. ... Jesus now warns his disciples against eschatological enthusiasm and braces them for future persecution (21:7-19). The question of the disciples in verse 7 clearly refers to the date of the fall of Jerusalem, but it also seems to involve the date of the end of this age. The fall of Jerusalem becomes a type of the end times. .... Jesus specifically answers the question about the destruction of Jerusalem (21:20-24). One will know that Jerusalem's time of destruction has arrived when foreign armies surround it. This encirclement is a signal, not of the need for heroism, but the need to flee. God's avenging wrath will be poured out on the city, bringing distress to the entire populace. `The times of the Gentiles' (v. 24) refers not to the Gentile mission but to Gentile authority over Jerusalem. Josephus's Jewish War contains a graphic commentary on the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. From the destruction of Jerusalem Luke moves to the coming of the Son of man (21:25-28). Luke does not specify the temporal relationship between these events, but the former clearly functions as a correspondence of the latter. ... The signs picture in dramatic terms the breakup of the natural world order, and the resulting terror and fear which seize the human race. The Son of man will return during these troubled times. The message for believers is: When the world begins to convulse, take hope! Your redemption is imminent." (Shreiner, T.R., 1989, "Luke," in Elwell, W.A., ed., "Evangelical Commentary on the Bible," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1990, pp.834-835).

Re: I am requesting your help involving Daniel 9:24-27

AN

Thanks for your message. As per my policy when I receive a

Above: An 18th century Russian icon of the prophet Daniel, Kizhi monastery, Russia: Wikipedia]

private message on one of my blog posts, in this case, Daniel's 70 `weeks': Proof that Naturalism is false and Christianity is true!, I will respond in due course via that blog, CED, minus your personal identifying information. Your words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:11 PM
Subject: For Mr. Jones

> ... I am requesting your help here if that's ok involving the famous Daniel 9:24-27 passage, Mr. Jones. ...
>
>If I understand this correctly, in order to effectively conclude that the "Weeks" described specifically in Daniel 9:24-25 can be assumed to mean "Years" here-thus, the seventy "Sevens" of YEARS specifically, the Hebrew term for "Weeks" here, "Shabuwa'," which I understand WOULD BE the masculine, or "Shabua'," would have to unmistakably appear as such in the ancient Hebrew scrolls.

As explained in footnote 19 of my Daniel's 70 `weeks': Proof that Naturalism is false and Christianity is true!, "The Heb. shebu`im here" in Dn 9:24-26 translated "weeks" (KJV) or more accurately "sevens" (NIV) "is masculine, whereas the normal gender of seven, as in a seven-day week, is feminine, thus indicating that time units other than ordinary seven-day weeks is here intended":

[19] The Heb. shebu`im here is literally "sevens." (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. & Waltke, B.K., eds, 1980, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," Moody Press: Chicago IL, 1992, Twelfth Printing, p.2:899). The Heb. here is masculine, whereas the normal gender of seven, as in a seven-day week, is feminine, thus indicating that time units other than ordinary seven-day weeks is here intended (Archer, G.L., 1982, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.289). Clearly ordinary weeks of seven days cannot be intended, because then after 70 weeks (i.e. about a year and four months) Daniel would have been discredited as a false prophet (Archer, G.L., "Daniel," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, Vol. 7, p.121).

Here are quotes to support that:

"Daniel 9:24 reads: `Seventy weeks have been determined for your people and your holy city ....' The word for `week' is sabuac, which is derived from seba` the word for `seven.' Its normal plural is feminine in form: sebu`ot. Only in this chapter of Daniel does it appear in the masculine plural sabu`im. (The only other occurrence is in the combination sebu`e sebu`ot ['heptads of weeks'] in Ezek. ... 21:23 ...). Therefore, it is strongly suggestive of the idea `heptad' (a series or combination of seven), rather than a `week' in the sense of a series of seven days. There is no doubt that in this case we are presented with seventy sevens of years rather than of days." (Archer, 1982, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," p.289).

"The `seventy `sevens' are usually understood to be `weeks' of years ... the usual feminine form for `week,' ... is not used here. ... what Daniel means by these seventy `heptads' is seventy units of seven years, or `seventy' times `seven' years (i.e., 490 years)." (Kaiser, 1995, "The Messiah in the Old Testament," p.202).

"[Dn 9:24]. ... Seventy sevens ... The word sevens here occurs in the m.pl. [masculine plural], whereas it generally has a f.pl. [feminine plural] ... What led Dan. to employ the m. [masculine] instead of the f. [feminine] however, is not clear unless it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word sevens is employed in an unusual sense. .... It seems obvious that ordinary weeks of 7 days are not intended." (Young, 1972, "A Commentary on Daniel," pp.195-196).

>Here again, I don't know anything about the Hebrew language or the ancient writings, and thus I am concerned about the fact that according to the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the amateur like myself cannot seem to determine whether the term appears in the masculine or feminine since Strong's also lists its feminine form of the Hebrew as a potential relation to the "Seventy weeks" term-"Shebu'ah."

It is not the "seventy" that is the key word but the "sevens". It is the latter "sevens" or "weeks" which are the time units. "Seventy" is just the normal 70 times whatever the "sevens" time units are, i.e. 70 x 7 years = 490 years.

>For the English "Seventy" translated from the Hebrew, however, I have noted that 7651 does seem to demand the masculine according to the Strong's-"Sheba'," or "Shib'ah."

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance numbers are only to the roots of Heb. and Gk. words, not to every variant grammatical form of those words:

"Not every distinct word is assigned a number, but only the root words. For example, agapeseis is assigned the same number as agapate - both are listed as Greek word #25 in Strong's `agapao'." ("Strong's Concordance," Wikipedia. My transliteration)

Also, you are looking up the Strong's number for the wrong word, "seventy." The Strong's number for "sevens" is 7620, i.e.:

"Strong's Number: 07620 ... Shabuwa ... Noun Masculine ... seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week period of seven days, a week Feast of Weeks heptad, seven (of years)" ("The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon," Crosswalk.com).

>Thus, according to the Hebrew language, is this a situation that because the "Seventy" can, beyond any doubt, be associated to the concept of "Years" that one is fully, unmistakably allowed to consider the conjoined "Seventy weeks" as a DIRECT association to YEARS? If so, why is this fundamentally true if in fact the actual "Weeks" cannot be determined to be masculine or feminine?

See above where you are confusing the "seventy" which just means literally seventy (i.e. 70 multiplied by whatever the "sevens" time units are), with the "sevens" which are the time units and in the context mean "sevens of years":

"shabua`. A period of seven ... in Dan 9:24,25,26,27 it denotes a period of seven years in each of its appearances in these four verses. This is proven by the context wherein Daniel recognizes that the seventy-year period of captivity is almost over. ...the angel Gabriel appears and informs him that Israel's restoration will not be complete until she goes through another seventy periods-of-seven, shabua' (Dan 9:24ff)!" (Harris, et al., eds, 1980, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," p.2:899).

>.... while I can see beyond any doubt that the city of Jerusalem could never have possibly been rebuilt over a period of 7x69 days, while such would seem just as unlikely, one would have to at least question the possibility that such could have been completed over a nine year period (69x7 actual weeks=9 years) depending specifically what God had in mind here.

See above. The city of Jerusalem was in fact to be rebuilt in the

[Above (click to enlarge): "The Traditional View" of Daniel 9:24-27 (Smith, 1993, "What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah," p.390).]

first "seven `sevens'" (Dn 9:25). If (as I maintain), the terminus a quo (starting point) is 457 BC, when Ezra returned to Jerusalem in the seventh regnal year of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 7:12-26) and the "sevens" time units are ordinary solar years, then that fits very well with "the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408, within which time the rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed":

"Verse 25 ...`From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One [massiah], the ruler, comes, there will be seven sevens,' and sixty-two `sevens.' ` It should be observed that only sixty-nine heptads are listed here, broken into two segments. The first segment of seven amounts to forty-nine years, during which the city of Jerusalem is to be `rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.' ... If, then, the terminus a quo for the decree in v.25 be reckoned as 457 B.C. (the date of Ezra's return to Jerusalem), then we may compute the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408, within which time the rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed." (Archer, 1985, "Daniel," pp.7:113-114).

>At that point, I suppose the final requirement would be to go to the history books regarding the rebuilding of the 2nd Temple itself and determine specifically when such had been completed as it would related to the decree to rebuild the city and Temple itself. Thus, if history would be able to prove the fact that the city's reconstruction was not complete by 400 BC via the highly liberal estimation here, this would in fact prove to me that the prophecy really was intended to be about Jesus Himself.

I don't know why you think that if "the city's reconstruction was not complete by 400 BC ... this would in fact prove ... that the prophecy really was intended to be about Jesus Himself." If the "issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" was the that of Artaxerxes I in 457 BC to Ezra, then Jerusalem and its temple would be "rebuilt with streets and a trench ... in times of trouble" in the period 457-408 BC:

"we may compute the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408, within which time the rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed." (Archer, 1985, "Daniel," pp.7:113-114).

which in fact is what happened:

"... A period of seven weeks or forty-nine years came to a close about 408 B.C., and the reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah was conducted during this period and characterized this period as a whole. ... Nehemiah's successor, who was a Persian ... was in office in 411 B.C., before the close of the seventh week." (Davis, 1924, "A Dictionary of the Bible," p.163).

"Finally, in 445 BC, Ezra was joined by a powerful contingent headed by a leading Jew and prominent Persian official called Nehemiah, who was given the governorship of Judah ... This fourth wave at last succeeded in stabilizing the settlement ... Nehemiah ... rebuilt with commendable speed the walls of Jerusalem ... The rebuilt city was smaller than Solomon's. ... The years 400-200 BC are the lost centuries of Jewish history. There were no great events or calamities they chose to record." (Johnson, 1987, "A History of the Jews," pp.86-87).

"... the whole period of 70 weeks is divided into three successive periods, 7, 62, 1 ... the division would be unmeaning, unless something were assigned to this first portion. The text does assign it. It says, the street shall be restored and be builded; and that, in troublous times. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah give the explanation. Ezra came to Jerusalem, B.C. 457 ... Nehemiah was sent by Artaxerxes, B.C. 444. ... Ezra and Nehemiah conjointly, a time somewhat exceeding 45 years; so that ... the restoration was completed in the latter part of the 7th week of years ...." (Pusey, 1885, "Daniel the Prophet, pp.189-191).

Note that in the first "seven `sevens'" during which "Jerusalem ... will be rebuilt with streets and a trench" would be "times of trouble" (Dn 9:25). But by 400 AD, the city was rebuilt and there were "no great events or calamities" recorded for the next 2 centuries. So the city's reconstruction was complete by 400 BC.

And also note that if the starting point is 457/458 BC and the time units ordinary solar years, then 7 + 62 = 69 "sevens" would be 69 x 7 = 483 years from 457/458, and after adding 1 since there is no year 0 between 1BC and AD 1, the ending point of the 69th "seven" is 26/27 AD. Which `just happens' to be the very year of Jesus' baptism and the beginning His public ministry! :

"If, then, the decree of 457 granted to Ezra himself is taken as the terminus a quo for the commencement of the 69 heptads ... we come out to the precise year of the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah ... 483 minus 457 comes out to A.D. 26. But since a year is gained in passing from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 ... it actually comes out to A.D. 27." (Archer, 1982, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," pp.290-291).

"Then from 408 we count off the sixty-two heptads also mentioned in v.25 and come out to ... A.D. 27, since a year is gained in our reckoning as we pass directly from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 (without any year zero in between)." (Archer, 1985, "Daniel," pp.7:113-114).

"Using the date of 457 B.C.E. as our starting point ... and putting the two sets of weeks together (7 x 7 + 7 x 62), we would arrive at a total of 483 years, ending in 27 C.E.-the very year that Jesus began his public ministry ... because there is no `zero year.' ... from 1 B.C.E.. to 1 C.E. ... What an incredibly accurate prophecy this would be!" (Brown, 2003, "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus," pp.102, 220).

"The decree to rebuild Jerusalem, as noted above, was 457 B.C. Adding 483 years to 457 B.C. brings us to A.D. 26, the very year that Jesus was baptized and began his public ministry. A most remarkable fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, even to the year." (Halley, 1965, "Halley's Bible Handbook," p.349).

"The terminus a quo for the commencement of these sixty nine weeks of years is stated to be from the going forth of the word (or decree) to restore and build Jerusalem (ver 25). This may refer to ... (2) the order of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 B.C. .... Only (2) comes out right according to regular solar years, for it yields the result as A.D. 27, or the commencement of Christ's ministry." (Lindsell, 1964, "Harper Study Bible," pp.1312-1313).

"The term also corresponds. Unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks [v.25 ... But 483 years from the beginning of B.C. 457 were completed at the beginning of 27 A.D. which ... would coincide with His Baptism, `being about 30 years of age,' when the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him manifested Him to be the Anointed with the Holy Ghost, the Christ." (Pusey, 1885, "Daniel the Prophet, p.189).

"... Ezra the Scribe .... issued the word to restore and to build Jerusalem in the spring of 457 B.C. ... from that date seven sevens and sixty two sevens of years would elapse before the appearance of Messiah-Prince. ... Subtracting 483 years from the starting point of 457 B.C. the year A.D. 27 is reached. ... there is no year zero. Hence the year A.D. 27 must be reduced by one .... According to Daniel, Messiah-Prince would appear in A.D. 26. It is surely more than a coincidence that the baptism of Jesus occurred in A.D. 26. ..." (Smith, 1993, "What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah," p.386).

Therefore Christianity is true and Naturalism is false!

>... if you can help me, here again I would appreciate that ever so much. ... thank you ....
>
AN

I hope this has helped, albeit belatedly.

The quotes below (emphasis italics original, emphasis bold mine) are hyperlinked to the inline references above.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
Blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign, TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"How can we make any sense out of Daniel's prophecy of Seventy Weeks? The prophecy of the Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9:24-27 is one of the most remarkable long-range predictions in the entire Bible. It is by all odds one of the most widely discussed by students and scholars of every persuasion within the spectrum of the Christian church. And yet when it is carefully examined in the light of all the relevant data of history and the information available from other parts of Scripture, it is quite clearly an accurate prediction of the time of Christ's coming advent and a preview of the thrilling final act of the drama of human history before that advent. Daniel 9:24 reads: `Seventy weeks have been determined for your people and your holy city [i.e., for the nation Israel and for Jerusalem].' The word for `week' is sabuac, which is derived from seba` the word for `seven.' Its normal plural is feminine in form: sebu`ot. Only in this chapter of Daniel does it appear in the masculine plural sabu`im. (The only other occurrence is in the combination sebu`e sebu`ot ['heptads of weeks'] in Ezek. 21:28 [21:23 English text]). Therefore, it is strongly suggestive of the idea `heptad' (a series or combination of seven), rather than a `week' in the sense of a series of seven days. There is no doubt that in this case we are presented with seventy sevens of years rather than of days. This leads to a total of 490 years." (Archer, G.L., 1982, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.289).

"If, then, the decree of 457 granted to Ezra himself is taken as the terminus a quo for the commencement of the 69 heptads, or 483 years, we come out to the precise year of the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah (or Christ): 483 minus 457 comes out to A.D. 26. But since a year is gained in passing from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 (there being no such year as zero), it actually comes out to A.D. 27. It is generally agreed that Christ was crucified in A.D. 30, after a ministry of a little more than three years. This means His baptism and initial ministry must have taken place in A.D. 27. A most remarkable exactitude in the fulfillment of such an ancient prophecy. Only God could have predicted the coming of His Son with such amazing precision; it defies all rationalistic explanation." (Archer, 1982, pp.290-291).

"[Dn 9:25-26] Verse 25 is crucial: `From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One [massiah], the ruler, comes, there will be seven sevens,' and sixty-two `sevens.' ` It should be observed that only sixty-nine heptads are listed here, broken into two segments. The first segment of seven amounts to forty-nine years, during which the city of Jerusalem is to be `rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.' ... we note that v.25 specifies the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem with streets and moats, which will be completed within forty-nine years of the terminus a quo. ...If, then, the terminus a quo for the decree in v.25 be reckoned as 457 B.C. (the date of Ezra's return to Jerusalem), then we may compute the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408, within which time the rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed. Then from 408 we count off the sixty-two heptads also mentioned in v.25 and come out to A.D. 26 (408 is 26 less than 434). But actually we come out to A.D. 27, since a year is gained in our reckoning as we pass directly from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 (without any year zero in between). If Christ was crucified on 14 Abib A.D. 30, as is generally believed ... this would come out to a remarkably exact fulfillment of the terms of v.25. Christ's public ministry, from the time of his baptism in the Jordan till his death and resurrection at Jerusalem, must have taken up about three years. The 483 years from the issuing of the decree of Artaxerxes came to an end in A.D. 27, the year of the `coming' of Messiah as Ruler (nasi'). It was indeed `after the sixty-two `sevens' `-three years after-that `the Anointed One' was `cut off.'" (Archer, G.L., 1985, "Daniel," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Vol. 7, pp.113-114).

"The KJV, however, rendered this verse [Dn 9:25], `Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.' Using the date of 457 B.C.E. as our starting point, as suggested by some scholars, and putting the two sets of weeks together (7 x 7 + 7 x 62), we would arrive at a total of 483 years, ending in 27 C.E.-the very year that Jesus began his public ministry.[The reason there are only 483 years from 457 B.C.E.. to 27 C.E. (instead of 484 years) is because there is no `zero year.' In other words, we count directly from 1 B.C.E.. to 1 C.E.] What an incredibly accurate prophecy this would be!" (Brown, M.L., 2003, "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections," Vol. 3, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 2006, p.102, 220).

"The one combination which coincides with known history throughout starts with the decree of Artaxerxes in his seventh year, 457 B.C. A period of seven weeks or forty-nine years came to a close about 408 B.C., and the reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah was conducted during this period and characterized this period as a whole. When this reform ceased to be the dominating feature of God's kingdom is unknown, but Nehemiah's successor [Bagoas], who was a Persian and naturally not a maintainer of the exclusiveness of Jehovah's religion, was in office in 411 B.C., before the close of the seventh week." (Davis, J.D., 1924, "A Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth Edition, Fifteenth Printing, 1966, p.163).

"The Seventy Weeks The Captivity, which was then drawing to a closes had lasted 70 years. Daniel is here told by the angel that it would yet be `70 weeks' till the coming of the Messiah (24). The `70 weeks' is generally understood to mean 70 weeks of years, that is as 70 sevens of years, or seven times 70 years, that is 490 years. As if the angel were saying, The Captivity has been 70 years; the period between the Captivity and the Coming of the Messiah will be seven times that long. Seven, and cycles of seven, sometimes have symbolic meanings; yet the actual facts of this prophecy are most amazing, as follows: The date from which the 70 weeks was to be counted was the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (25). There were three decrees issued by Persian kings for this purpose (536 B.C., 457 B.C., 444 B.C., see under Ezra). The principal one of these was 457 B.C. The 70 weeks is subdivided into 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week (25, 27). It is difficult to see the application of the `7 weeks'; but the 69 weeks (including the 7) equal 483 days, that is, on the year-day theory (Ezekiel 4:6), which is the commonly accepted interpretation, 483 years. This 483 years is the period between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the `Anointed One' (25). The decree to rebuild Jerusalem, as noted above, was 457 B.C. Adding 483 years to 457 B.C. brings us to A.D. 26, the very year that Jesus was baptized and began his public ministry. A most remarkable fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, even to the year. Further, within 3 ½ years Jesus was crucified, that is, `in the midst of the one week' `the Anointed One' was `cut off,' `purged away sin and brought in everlasting righteousness' (24, 26, 27). Thus Daniel foretold not only the Time at which the Messiah would appear, but also the Duration of his Public Ministry, and his Atoning Death for Human Sin. Some think that God's chronology was suspended at the death of Christ, to remain so while Israel is scattered, and that the last half of the `one week' belongs to the time of the End." (Halley, H.H., 1965, "Halley's Bible Handbook: An Abbreviated Bible Commentary," [1927], Oliphants: London, Twenty-fourth edition, p.349).

"shabua`. A period of seven, a week, the Feast of Weeks. This term occurs twenty times in the or, always indicating a period of seven. Indeed, the word obviously comes to us from sheba' (q.v.) and could literally be translated always as `seven-period.' In Deut 16:9, shabu'a represents a period of seven days (literally `seven seven-periods you-shall-number-to-you'). The context in verses 9, 10, and 16 demands the time to be in terms of `days.' No serious expositor has ever argued for `years' here. It might be noted that in Deut 16:9 in the spelling of the plural, the central vowel letter-the waw-is omitted (shabu`ot), as it is also at times in the singular (e.g. Gen 29:27, shebua`) where in an unpointed text it would then be spelled identically to seven, sheba', in the feminine. While in Deut 16:9, discussed above, shabu'a represents a period of seven days, in Dan 9:24,25,26,27 it denotes a period of seven years in each of its appearances in these four verses. This is proven by the context wherein Daniel recognizes that the seventy-year period of captivity is almost over. The land had been fallow for seventy years and thus repaid the Lord the seventy sabbatical years owed to him for the prior seventy periods of seven years (Dan 9:2; Jer 25:12; cf. II Chr 36:21!). Just as Daniel is in prayer concerning this matter, the angel Gabriel appears and informs him that Israel's restoration will not be complete until she goes through another seventy periods-of-seven, shabua' (Dan 9:24ff)! Note also the apparent reference in Dan 12:11 to half of Daniel's last seventy (9:27); it is 1290 days, approximately three and a half years. Thus here it means years. shabua` is also used as a technical term in Deut 16:10,16 where it denotes the Feast of Weeks (hag shabu`ot), i.e. the Feast of Seven-Periods." (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. & Waltke, B.K., eds, "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," Moody Press: Chicago IL, 1980, Twelfth Printing, 1992, Vol. II, p.899. Emphasis original).

"Despite Cyrus' support and command, the first return in 538, under Shenazar, son of the former King Jehoiakim, was a failure, for the poor Jews who had been left behind, the am ha-arez, resisted it, and in conjunction with Samaritans, Edomites and Arabs, prevented the settlers building walls. A second effort, with the full backing of Cyrus' son Darius, was made in 520 BC, under an official leader Zeurubbabel, whose authority as a descendant of David was reinforced by his appointment as Persian Governor of Judah. ... Work on the Temple began immediately... . In 458 BC it was reinforced by a third wave, led by Ezra, a priest and scribe of great learning and authority, who tried and failed to sort out the legal problems caused by heterodoxy, intermarriage and disputed ownership of land. Finally, in 445 BC, Ezra was joined by a powerful contingent headed by a leading Jew and prominent Persian official called Nehemiah, who was given the governorship of Judah and the authority to build it into an independent political unit within the empire. This fourth wave at last succeeded in stabilizing the settlement, chiefly because Nehemiah, a man of action as well as a diplomat and statesman, rebuilt with commendable speed the walls of Jerusalem and so created a secure enclave from which the work of resettlement could be directed. .... The rebuilt city was smaller than Solomon's, it was poor and to begin with it was sparsely populated. ... The years 400-200 BC are the lost centuries of Jewish history. There were no great events or calamities they chose to record. Perhaps they were happy. The Jews certainly seem to have liked the Persians the best of all their rulers. They never revolted against them; on the contrary, Jewish mercenaries helped the Persians to put down Egyptian rebellion." (Johnson, P., 1987, "A History of the Jews," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, pp.86-87).

"The `seventy `sevens' are usually understood to be `weeks' of years (the word `seven' can also mean `week'; cf. NIV note), but the usual feminine form for `week,' which occurs elsewhere in the OT, is not used here. Moreover, in accordance with the use found elsewhere in this book, what Daniel means by these seventy `heptads' is seventy units of seven years, or `seventy' times `seven' years (i.e., 490 years). These years have been `decreed' by God's predetermined plan for the ages and are now being announced to Daniel in one of the most amazing disclosures into the future to be found in the OT. But note that the `heptads' are for Daniel's people of Israel and for their capital city, Jerusalem." (Kaiser, W.C., Jr., 1995, "The Messiah in the Old Testament," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.202).

"The terminus a quo for the commencement of these sixty nine weeks of years is stated to be from the going forth of the word (or decree) to restore and build Jerusalem (ver 25). This may refer to the divine decree, or one of three historical edicts: (1) decree of King Cyrus in 538 B.C. (Ezra -4); (2) the order of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 B.C. (which apparently involved authority to erect the walls of Jerusalem, cf. Ezra 7.6, 7; 9.9); (3) the order to Nehemiah in 445 B.C. to carry through the rebuilding of the walls (which Ezra had not been able to accomplish). Of these choices, (1) must be ruled out as coming nowhere to the time of Christ's ministry; (3) coming out too late, unless lunar years are used the computation. Only (2) comes out right according to regular solar years, for it yields the result as A.D. 27, or the commencement of Christ's ministry. Ezra and Nehemiah render an account of the rebuilding of Jerusalem in forty-nine years and troublous times. Then follow the sixty-two weeks, after which Messiah was cut off for sin." (Lindsell, H., ed., 1964, "Harper Study Bible," Revised Standard Version, Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Nineteenth printing, 1983, pp.1312-1313).

"The term also corresponds. Unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks [v.25], i. e. the first 483 years of the period, the last 7 being parted off. But 483 years from the beginning of B.C. 457 were completed at the beginning of 27 A.D. which (since the Nativity was 4 years earlier than our era) would coincide with His Baptism, `being about 30 years of age,' when the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him manifested Him to be the Anointed with the Holy Ghost, the Christ. Further still, the whole period of 70 weeks is divided into three successive periods, 7, 62, 1 ... But, in the prophecy of the 70 weeks, the portions also can be traced. The words are; From the going forth of a commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks; street and wall' shall be restored and builded; and in strait of times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off. [vv.25-26] Obviously, unless there had been a meaning in this division, it would have stood, ` shall be threescore and nine weeks,' `not, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.' For every word in this condensed prophecy has its place and meaning, and the division would be unmeaning, unless something were assigned to this first portion. The text does assign it. It says, the street shall be restored and be builded; and that, in troublous times. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah give the explanation. Ezra came to Jerusalem, B.C. 457; he labored in restoring the Jewish polity, within and without, for 13 years before Nehemiah was sent by Artaxerxes, B.C. 444. [Neh 2:1ff] ... We have any how for the period of the two great restorers of the Jewish polity, Ezra and Nehemiah conjointly, a time somewhat exceeding 45 years; so that we know that the restoration was completed in the latter part of the 7th week of years, and it is probable that it was not closed until the end of it. In regard to the strait of times, amid which this restoration was to take place, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are the commentary. Up to the completion of the walls, there was one succession of vexations on the part of the enemies of the Jews." (Pusey, E.B., 1885, "Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford. With Copious Notes." Funk & Wagnalls: New York NY, pp.189-191).

"Most likely it was Ezra the Scribe who issued the word to restore and to build Jerusalem in the spring of 457 B.C. .... This is the terminus a quo of the passage. Counting from that date seven sevens and sixty two sevens of years would elapse before the appearance of Messiah-Prince. Seven sevens of years are equal to 49 years; sixty-two sevens is equal to 434 years. ... Subtracting 483 years from the starting point of 457 B.C. the year A.D. 27 is reached. In the modern system of counting years there is no year zero. Hence the year A.D. 27 must be reduced by one for chronological accuracy. According to Daniel, Messiah-Prince would appear in A.D. 26. It is surely more than a coincidence that the baptism of Jesus occurred in A.D. 26.[Finegan (HBC, pp. 259-69) dates the baptism of Jesus to November, A.D. 26.] At that time John introduced him to the nation as their Messiah, the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world." (Smith, J.E. , 1993, "What the Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah: An In-depth Study of 73 Key Old Testament Prophesies About the Messiah," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.386).

"Traditional Interpretation. This view is represented by E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, an excellent commentary which has been reprinted in the Barnes Notes series. Pusey starts counting the seventy sevens from 458 B.C., the decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra. The first forty-nine years, which include the work of Nehemiah, terminate in 409 B.C. The anointed one is Christ who was baptized in A.D. 26 and immediately thereafter began his Messianic ministry. He was cut off by his death on the cross. The prince who is to come in judgment on Jerusalem is Christ or Titus who acts as an agent for Christ. The covenant to be made firm is Christ's new testament. The Old Testament sacrificial system ended in the midst of the seventieth week when Christ died on the cross (A.D. 30). The seventieth seven ends with the stoning of Stephen, Jewish rejection of the New Testament, and the call of Paul (A.D. 33)." (Smith, 1993, p.390).

"[Dn 9:24]. ... Seventy sevens]-lit., sevens seventy. the word sevens-usually translated weeks-is placed first for the sake of emphasis. It constitutes the great theme of the passage. For the same reason, the numeral here follows the noun, and does not precede it, as is usually the case. The thought of the author may then be paraphrased, `Sevens--and in fact seventy of them are decreed, etc.' The word sevens here occurs in the m.pl. [masculine plural], whereas it generally has a f.pl. [feminine plural] ... What led Dan. to employ the m. [masculine] instead of the f. [feminine] however, is not clear unless it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word sevens is employed in an unusual sense. .... It seems obvious that ordinary weeks of 7 days are not intended." (Young, E.J., 1972, "A Commentary on Daniel," [1949], Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, British edition, Reprinted, 1978, pp.195-196).