|
|
Post by witness1 on Nov 29, 2017 11:27:23 GMT -6
I do think there is enough merit to this theory to investigate it with Dennis. I agree that the doctrine posted above is off, but this is a matter of a Hebrew word being interpreted one way or another... not a theological issue of who will be saved, etc. So I don't think we can throw their testimony out completely. And the Lexicon they quote is reputable: "If you check Koehler and Baumgartner's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament you will find that AD can be a conjunction. The Hebrew word AD can have meanings that support a 50-day count after seven weeks. The following expressions in all capital letters come from their lexicon: LATER IN THE FUTURE, count fifty days (AD has a future tense.)
"AND then count fifty days (AD can be a conjunction.)
"JUST BEFORE counting fifty days, count seven weeks.”
It seems the above scholars (along with Bullinger, whom I will quote shortly) understood that Leviticus 23:16 could be understood as the children of Israel understood it in Exodus 32:5."It is an interesting proposition that the giving of the law took place in the 4th month and not the third, and that is something that we can study further. We may not ever be able to read the Hebrew in a way that interprets this verse correctly, but we can look at Acts and Exodus and see if there is any reason to interpret it at 99 days instead of 50. Dennis... I think that, in order for this to be valid, we would need to see that Pentecost in Acts actually took place at the 99 day count and not the 50 as we have always been taught. You initially proposed that Pentecost was initiated at the 50th day and will be fulfilled at the 99th (I think I'm understanding that correctly), but perhaps Acts was actually 99 days. Either that or the law taking place in the 4th month is the only way I see this theory holding water. We need other (clear) verses of scripture to interpret this verse that is quite ambiguous. For anyone interested in investigating this, here is a jumping off point: www.lunarsabbath.info/id4.htmlI don't know anything about this website, but they give a storyline in Acts (and elsewhere) to follow. Perhaps we can put our heads together and see where it goes. Either way, I am excited to have a new section of Scripture to dive into! |
|
|
|
Post by dennislwatson on Nov 29, 2017 11:59:09 GMT -6
I am with witness1 -- If you can give me some more support for the extra 50 days, then I'll consider it more. The website you linked has some wonky theology, and I am not willing to go by their interpretations alone. Have a look at their faith statements: www.hope-of-israel.org/articlesfaith.html If they are off on their core doctrine, then what else are they off on? And it's not just moderators who should test all things...All Christians are to test what we read and see against Scripture. If you are right, then a 99 day count makes sense. Either from the Eclipse with it's 33 significance or from the Great Sign on Sept 23. I just need more solid support before I am ready to agree with you. Hey I have an idea. I just did this a couple of days ago and it helped me. Some of you have already read Tramm's article DOES SCRIPTURE SUPPORT A PENTECOST RAPTURE. You can search for it with that title. The more I learned about Pentecost, the more this count just kind of made sense. The big picture includes both the start and termination of Pentecost. When I re-read it with this idea in mind I was even more encouraged to see what God is doing with Pentecost. May I suggest you prayerfully read that article again. Blessings |
|
|
|
Post by dennislwatson on Nov 29, 2017 12:00:16 GMT -6
I do think there is enough merit to this theory to investigate it with Dennis. I agree that the doctrine posted above is off, but this is a matter of a Hebrew word being interpreted one way or another... not a theological issue of who will be saved, etc. So I don't think we can throw their testimony out completely. And the Lexicon they quote is reputable: "If you check Koehler and Baumgartner's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament you will find that AD can be a conjunction. The Hebrew word AD can have meanings that support a 50-day count after seven weeks. The following expressions in all capital letters come from their lexicon: LATER IN THE FUTURE, count fifty days (AD has a future tense.)
"AND then count fifty days (AD can be a conjunction.)
"JUST BEFORE counting fifty days, count seven weeks.”
It seems the above scholars (along with Bullinger, whom I will quote shortly) understood that Leviticus 23:16 could be understood as the children of Israel understood it in Exodus 32:5."It is an interesting proposition that the giving of the law took place in the 4th month and not the third, and that is something that we can study further. We may not ever be able to read the Hebrew in a way that interprets this verse correctly, but we can look at Acts and Exodus and see if there is any reason to interpret it at 99 days instead of 50. Dennis... I think that, in order for this to be valid, we would need to see that Pentecost in Acts actually took place at the 99 day count and not the 50 as we have always been taught. You initially proposed that Pentecost was initiated at the 50th day and will be fulfilled at the 99th (I think I'm understanding that correctly), but perhaps Acts was actually 99 days. Either that or the law taking place in the 4th month is the only way I see this theory holding water. We need other (clear) verses of scripture to interpret this verse that is quite ambiguous. For anyone interested in investigating this, here is a jumping off point: www.lunarsabbath.info/id4.htmlI don't know anything about this website, but they give a storyline in Acts (and elsewhere) to follow. Perhaps we can put our heads together and see where it goes. Either way, I am excited to have a new section of Scripture to dive into! I did not post that article because I believed the theological position. I posted the article to show that this count is wobbly and has a couple of ways to do it. That's all. And witness1, your "in order for this to be valid" statement is not my position. It was about 20 days ago when I did in fact wait to day 50. That November 12 was a hard lesson and I am grateful for it because it is what led me to all this. It is my position that Pentecost in Acts was 50 days after the RESURRECTION SIGN. They waited 7 sabbaths and however long they were going to wait, God cut it off the next day. Why the truncated count? Because the Church was not Complete it was just beginning. When the next RESURRECTION SIGN occurs, apply the full count, 7 sabbaths, then on the next day start a count to 50 not 1. 50 is completion. I believe we are in that count now Saints. Should I start a thread on 50 being somehow a reference to completion? It stops a count. Like a jubilee. It stops a count. I like that Genesis has 50 chapters. I like that the end of this "completion" chapter has Joseph's bones being raised and taken to the Promised Land. I am 65 years old. I grew up a preachers kid and my mom was a brilliant gospel piano player. I am so sorry that most now do not have the church background I have. BUT, when I hear "Promised Land" I think of many hymns, some by Fanny Crosby, that confirm this...PROMISED LAND that is where I am going when I am raptured. I know, that's just my opinion. But when you are raptured saints, you will be flesh and bone. Those bones are going to the throne room. When? At the count of 50. It is like a fractal, 50 years in the Jubilee and when you get to 50 the Jubilee is completed. Within that 50 years is another 50, the 50 count after the 7 sabbaths. 50 is completion. That is not my humble opinion. That is God's opinion. Now you need to work with it and apply it to what you know. Blessings all. Saints will rise and shine when their time on earth is completed. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Nov 29, 2017 12:06:34 GMT -6
Witness1 -- I see what you are saying about trusting their source, which is reputable. You have a good point...maybe there is clarity in Exodus somewhere. All I find looking at Acts is that Jewish men from every nation were gathered in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.
Dennis -- I would just like some more evidence from somewhere solid.
|
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Nov 29, 2017 12:16:12 GMT -6
I do not have anything against any particular Moderator. Thank you for responding. I did and will pray for them. My question for Gary is simply this, when the site has over 31 articles on the SIGN www.unsealed.org/p/the-sign.html Why is it that the moderators apparently do not agree with those articles about the event being a sign. This is what I thought the site stood for? Simple question. They don't have to agree with me... but I thought they represented the position of Unsealed. So even moderators are able to disagree with the purpose of the site? Seems counterproductive. Or, maybe I am wrong about the position of unsealed on the sign. That is probably where the rub is. But after reading all those articles. I don't know. Seems pretty clear if you want to associate with this site, you acknowledge that this Sign was downright amazing. I take exception to this statement... "Why is it that the moderators apparently do not agree with those articles about the event being a sign." Being a moderator, I can state without a doubt that I believe the Rev 12:1-2 did indeed take place on 9/23/17 (so this moderator specifically does not match the above statement, and though I have not recently polled them (other moderators) about the sign - I think the other moderators are on the same page of thought as myself.) I personally have not seen "the another sign" spoken of in 3 and 4 -- and of course in my mind verse 5 seems to speak directly to the rapture. I feel these verses will be "being" fulfilled in the near future.... All the moderators have their own opinions (but I have not heard one of them say the "sign" never occurred). So as far as I am concern -- verse 3, 4 and 5 simply have not taken place yet -- |
|
|
|
Post by witness1 on Nov 29, 2017 12:35:47 GMT -6
Natalie... If you have time to look at the link I posted, they suggest that adding up the days from the Resurrection to Pentecost is more than 50 days... the 40 days Jesus was with them plus others that can be pieced together here and there. I have not looked into the verses they give yet, but I am planning to see if I can confirm what they suggest- that there were more than 50 days. If there WERE more than 50 days, that means the 99 day count was used and it is only the modern church who has interpreted Pentecost at 50 days. I do think this is worth looking into, and I am hoping that people who have more time than I do (and more knowledge!) will join the search. What is the biblical precedent for this count? Dennis has given a good theory and needs discussion and collaboration to continue. Who wants to look with us?
Dennis... what do you think of the idea that we need a precedent in either Acts or Exodus for the 99 days? Also, perhaps we should forget the other points for now and focus on this one. If this doesn't pan out, the others don't mount to a hill of beans. If it does, the others are gravy.
|
|
|
|
Post by dennislwatson on Nov 29, 2017 13:09:20 GMT -6
Natalie... If you have time to look at the link I posted, they suggest that adding up the days from the Resurrection to Pentecost is more than 50 days... the 40 days Jesus was with them plus others that can be pieced together here and there. I have not looked into the verses they give yet, but I am planning to see if I can confirm what they suggest- that there were more than 50 days. If there WERE more than 50 days, that means the 99 day count was used and it is only the modern church who has interpreted Pentecost at 50 days. I do think this is worth looking into, and I am hoping that people who have more time than I do (and more knowledge!) will join the search. What is the biblical precedent for this count? Dennis has given a good theory and needs discussion and collaboration to continue. Who wants to look with us? Dennis... what do you think of the idea that we need a precedent in either Acts or Exodus for the 99 days? Also, perhaps we should forget the other points for now and focus on this one. If this doesn't pan out, the others don't mount to a hill of beans. If it does, the others are gravy. Do we need a precedent? No. The rapture is a quintessential one time event! Would I like a precedent? Yes. Thanks for working on this with me witness1. I will be so interested to see what you come up with. Blessings I suggested this somewhere else but I did this and it helped. I re read Tramm's article DOES SCRIPTURE SUPPORT A PENTECOST RAPTURE. The more I let the meaning of Pentecost wash over me the more comfortable I was with this idea. I continue to read Leviticus 23:15 and 16 and let God change what I am seeing. I am humbled by Scripture. What an honor it will be during the Kingdom to teach it and discuss it. www.theseasonofreturn.com/DOES_SCRIPTURE_SUPPORT_A_PENTECOST_RAPTURE_VER_1.docx.pdfBe blessed you all. |
|
|
|
Post by dennislwatson on Nov 29, 2017 13:15:43 GMT -6
I do not have anything against any particular Moderator. Thank you for responding. I did and will pray for them. My question for Gary is simply this, when the site has over 31 articles on the SIGN www.unsealed.org/p/the-sign.html Why is it that the moderators apparently do not agree with those articles about the event being a sign. This is what I thought the site stood for? Simple question. They don't have to agree with me... but I thought they represented the position of Unsealed. So even moderators are able to disagree with the purpose of the site? Seems counterproductive. Or, maybe I am wrong about the position of unsealed on the sign. That is probably where the rub is. But after reading all those articles. I don't know. Seems pretty clear if you want to associate with this site, you acknowledge that this Sign was downright amazing. I take exception to this statement... "Why is it that the moderators apparently do not agree with those articles about the event being a sign." Being a moderator, I can state without a doubt that I believe the Rev 12:1-2 did indeed take place on 9/23/17 (so this moderator specifically does not match the above statement, and though I have not recently polled them (other moderators) about the sign - I think the other moderators are on the same page of thought as myself.) I personally have not seen "the another sign" spoken of in 3 and 4 -- and of course in my mind verse 5 seems to speak directly to the rapture. I feel these verses will be "being" fulfilled in the near future.... All the moderators have their own opinions (but I have not heard one of them say the "sign" never occurred). So as far as I am concern -- verse 3, 4 and 5 simply have not taken place yet -- I am sorry you needed to take exception and I am comforted, a bit, that you did. But after reading your post there I have two questions... 1. Was September 23, 2017, the alignment in the sun, moon and stars, a sign from God? 2. What did the sign mean? I say yes to 1 and I actually now have an answer to 2. KJS. I am glad you admit it took place. But even the demons admit it took place. May I ask you in a few words to tell me your answer to question 1 & 2. Blessings Saints. We are all working through this so that soon we can be 1)gathered, 2) in an upper room, 3) joyous, 4) in one accord, 5) speaking one language, 6) lit up and shiny. That's what happens when Pentecost is involved. |
|
|
|
Post by sesquipedalian on Nov 29, 2017 13:19:48 GMT -6
Dennis... I think that, in order for this to be valid, we would need to see that Pentecost in Acts actually took place at the 99 day count and not the 50 as we have always been taught. You initially proposed that Pentecost was initiated at the 50th day and will be fulfilled at the 99th (I think I'm understanding that correctly), but perhaps Acts was actually 99 days. Either that or the law taking place in the 4th month is the only way I see this theory holding water. We need other (clear) verses of scripture to interpret this verse that is quite ambiguous. , I am glad to see this post. This is the core foundation on which dennislwatson 's theory hangs; everything else is circumstantial evidence. Briefly going down the 14 reasons listed in the document: 1) 365 days is interesting but circumstantial. And why would it necessarily be the 365th day of 2017? 2) There is absolutely no logical connection between "Jesus was resurrected" and "count 50 days after Pentecost". 3) "The last day" is commonly understood to be the Day of the Lord. The "last day of the year" is an interesting secondary meaning, but this is speculative. 4) Speculation. 5) Speculation. 6) Speculation again, and he even says "I am speculating." Day counts and numbers should be used to confirm other sources, they should not be used as sources themselves. 7) More numbers, and there is no logical connection between "the ending of year 5777" and "the beginning of a 99 day count". 8) Here we come to the crux of the document. This entire document hinges on a particular reading of Leviticus 23:15-16 that has very little support and is not confirmed anywhere else in Scripture. 9) The Strong's numbers are interesting, but why should we prefer the "826 - shine forth" over any other entry, such as "726 - harpazo" or "746 - beginning"? Or the 777 day count on the Jupiter-Venus conjunction? 10) YouTube videos are not evidence. If you want this document to stand on its own, then copy the relevant evidence from the videos to the document. 11) Speculation and storytelling. 12) Torah reading coincidences are not a strong basis for a prediction. Also, the Genesis 50 reading is far less relevant than the Vayera Sabbath in November or the Sabbath of Return in September, neither of which were the day of the Rapture. 13) This is not even a reason. This is an encouragement to "run the race". All well and good, but it doesn't prove anything. 14) The last major point summarizes the entire document: "It is ALL speculation". A) Sure, 12/31 was a day people normally wouldn't expect, but so was 10/31, and nothing happened then. B) This is talking about Pentecost, but not why Pentecost should be expanded by 50 days or why we should look at 12/31. This document is stuffed full of holes, and reminds me of the "88 Reasons the Rapture will be in 1988" book that unsealed.org refuted. Remember, we must not take anyone on their own authority but test their words and use Scripture to interpret Scripture. While we remember to be "gentle as doves", we must not forget to be "wise as serpents". |
|
|
|
Post by witness1 on Nov 29, 2017 13:59:48 GMT -6
I agree sesquipedalian. The only thing worth looking into is the Leviticus 23:15-16 interpretation. I initially wrote a long post against most of these other points, but I ended up deleting it after I saw evidence that it is possible to interpret Lev 23:15-16 in the manner suggested by Dennis. I plan to still address them at some point, but for now I am looking into the Pentecost count. If it is true that Pentecost should be counted at 99 days, then the 365 idea of Enoch is actually quite interesting. I also find it interesting that the Sept 23 sign happened on a Sabbath and Dec 31 is an 8th day (Sunday). I see that you were the one who initially began the Pentecost post with the article from ALittleStrength, whom I think has been spot on throughout most of this journey. Do you think that Pentecost should tie in? I really do, for all the reasons already mentioned and also because of the story of Ruth. Here is what I find interesting about Dennis' theory, assuming we can prove that Leviticus should be interpreted this way: 1) It connects Pentecost. I think this is a very interesting way to tie it in without actually being on the day. Especially since someone (can't remember who) posted that article about why weddings can't be on Feast Days. It seems like the consensus was that the rapture will not be on a feast day but will be connected to a feast day somehow. Well, this is a very interesting theory as to how that could happen. 2) It connects an 8th day. There was SO much there with Shemini Atzeret. Resurrection/new beginnings. Circumcision/removal of the flesh. A white stone. I love, love, love the beauty of the 8th day. 3) I don't think anyone balked at the idea of counting 50 days from Sept 23rd because it tied to Pentecost. Well, what if we were wrong to assume 50 days? Dennis is saying that we should count the true Pentecost count as told in Leviticus 23:15-16, which we will need to investigate to determine its accuracy. At least one reputable lexicon says it could be interpreted the way Dennis suggests. 4) I do think the Enoch thing is interesting. My spirit leapt every time I've read that, even years before I knew anything about the Rev 12 sign. Even as a child I realized the connection to the number of days in a solar year. Of course there are other ways this could be applied, but interpreting it as the 365th day of the year does make sense to me. 5) It is possible that this theory is supported by other scripture. It is possible that Exodus confirms a 4th month giving of the law, and it is possible that we can count days in John to see if more than 50 days passed between the Resurrection and Pentecost. I haven't had time to work through these yet, but there is some good information to start with here: www.lunarsabbath.info/id4.html, including suggestions on how long it would have taken to get from Egypt to Mt Sinai (click on the mathematical proof link). Let's not throw out this idea just yet. Let's just take off the points that aren't helpful and see if scripture says Pentecost happened in the 3rd or 4th month. |
|
|
|
Post by dennislwatson on Nov 29, 2017 14:13:04 GMT -6
I am with witness1 -- If you can give me some more support for the extra 50 days, then I'll consider it more. The website you linked has some wonky theology, and I am not willing to go by their interpretations alone. Have a look at their faith statements: www.hope-of-israel.org/articlesfaith.html If they are off on their core doctrine, then what else are they off on? And it's not just moderators who should test all things...All Christians are to test what we read and see against Scripture. If you are right, then a 99 day count makes sense. Either from the Eclipse with it's 33 significance or from the Great Sign on Sept 23. I just need more solid support before I am ready to agree with you. To be precise Natalie. It is not a 99 day count. It is a fifty day count, that's the PENTE starting after the seventh Sabbath. It actually works out to be 99 days, BUT THE COUNT TO 50, after the 7 Sabbaths is where I think, the raptured church will be completed. Apparently most here do not understand this 50/completion thing. "In his book, Numbers in Scripture, E. W. Bullinger explains the significance of the number fifty in the Bible: “Fifty is the number of jubilee or deliverance. It is the issue of 7 X 7 (72) and points to deliverance and rest following on as the result of the perfect consummation of time.”2 According to Bullinger, “fifty” denotes rest, completion, and deliverance, as in the Jubilee. In the Bible, the deliverance of Jubilee refers to freedom granted slaves, or release from a task or burden (Lev. 25:39- 41). With this in mind, a valid question for those who believe Pentecost was fulfilled in every respect by the birth of the Church is this: Does the birth of the Church, with its age-long and challenging task of spreading the Gospel still ahead of it, embody the themes of completion or release from a task or burden?" I quoted this from Tramm's article DOES SCRIPTURE SUPPORT A PENTECOST RAPTURE. Blessings. |
|
|
|
Post by dennislwatson on Nov 29, 2017 14:14:54 GMT -6
Dennis... I think that, in order for this to be valid, we would need to see that Pentecost in Acts actually took place at the 99 day count and not the 50 as we have always been taught. You initially proposed that Pentecost was initiated at the 50th day and will be fulfilled at the 99th (I think I'm understanding that correctly), but perhaps Acts was actually 99 days. Either that or the law taking place in the 4th month is the only way I see this theory holding water. We need other (clear) verses of scripture to interpret this verse that is quite ambiguous. , I am glad to see this post. This is the core foundation on which dennislwatson 's theory hangs; everything else is circumstantial evidence. Briefly going down the 14 reasons listed in the document: 1) 365 days is interesting but circumstantial. And why would it necessarily be the 365th day of 2017? 2) There is absolutely no logical connection between "Jesus was resurrected" and "count 50 days after Pentecost". 3) "The last day" is commonly understood to be the Day of the Lord. The "last day of the year" is an interesting secondary meaning, but this is speculative. 4) Speculation. 5) Speculation. 6) Speculation again, and he even says "I am speculating." Day counts and numbers should be used to confirm other sources, they should not be used as sources themselves. 7) More numbers, and there is no logical connection between "the ending of year 5777" and "the beginning of a 99 day count". 8) Here we come to the crux of the document. This entire document hinges on a particular reading of Leviticus 23:15-16 that has very little support and is not confirmed anywhere else in Scripture. 9) The Strong's numbers are interesting, but why should we prefer the "826 - shine forth" over any other entry, such as "726 - harpazo" or "746 - beginning"? Or the 777 day count on the Jupiter-Venus conjunction? 10) YouTube videos are not evidence. If you want this document to stand on its own, then copy the relevant evidence from the videos to the document. 11) Speculation and storytelling. 12) Torah reading coincidences are not a strong basis for a prediction. Also, the Genesis 50 reading is far less relevant than the Vayera Sabbath in November or the Sabbath of Return in September, neither of which were the day of the Rapture. 13) This is not even a reason. This is an encouragement to "run the race". All well and good, but it doesn't prove anything. 14) The last major point summarizes the entire document: "It is ALL speculation". A) Sure, 12/31 was a day people normally wouldn't expect, but so was 10/31, and nothing happened then. B) This is talking about Pentecost, but not why Pentecost should be expanded by 50 days or why we should look at 12/31. This document is stuffed full of holes, and reminds me of the "88 Reasons the Rapture will be in 1988" book that unsealed.org refuted. Remember, we must not take anyone on their own authority but test their words and use Scripture to interpret Scripture. While we remember to be "gentle as doves", we must not forget to be "wise as serpents". I see your view. I will not try to persuade you. Thank you for informing someone elsewhere that you believe the rapture will occur on a non-harvest feast day, that of feast of trumpets. That helps me understand why you would be so incredibly opposed to this. Also congratulations are in order because of an accomplished objective. Your obvious objective with your "analysis" (that was not an analysis. You just picked up garbage and threw it at every point) was to discredit it and you did everything you could to make sure that other people who visit this site WONT EVEN BOTHER to consider it. Congratulations there S, you probably accomplished what you wanted. You can be proud. Blessings. The first to plead his case seems just until another comes to examine him. You don't want people to read this. You want your post to prevent them from considering it. Is that what is supposed to happen here? For others who visit this site and are not members, (you can't download the article if you are not a member) and you want to know why S here wants to shut this whole thing down, please go to fivedoves.com and today there remains an earlier version of my article. Please read the article and if challenged or encouraged then come back, join unsealed and let S know if you agree with him whether or not the 14 Reason article should be wiped off the pages of Unsealed.org. www.fivedoves.com/letters/nov2017/dennisw1126-1.htm |
|
|
|
Post by witness1 on Nov 29, 2017 14:18:43 GMT -6
I do think there is enough merit to this theory to investigate it with Dennis. I agree that the doctrine posted above is off, but this is a matter of a Hebrew word being interpreted one way or another... not a theological issue of who will be saved, etc. So I don't think we can throw their testimony out completely. And the Lexicon they quote is reputable: "If you check Koehler and Baumgartner's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament you will find that AD can be a conjunction. The Hebrew word AD can have meanings that support a 50-day count after seven weeks. The following expressions in all capital letters come from their lexicon: LATER IN THE FUTURE, count fifty days (AD has a future tense.)
"AND then count fifty days (AD can be a conjunction.)
"JUST BEFORE counting fifty days, count seven weeks.”
It seems the above scholars (along with Bullinger, whom I will quote shortly) understood that Leviticus 23:16 could be understood as the children of Israel understood it in Exodus 32:5."It is an interesting proposition that the giving of the law took place in the 4th month and not the third, and that is something that we can study further. We may not ever be able to read the Hebrew in a way that interprets this verse correctly, but we can look at Acts and Exodus and see if there is any reason to interpret it at 99 days instead of 50. Dennis... I think that, in order for this to be valid, we would need to see that Pentecost in Acts actually took place at the 99 day count and not the 50 as we have always been taught. You initially proposed that Pentecost was initiated at the 50th day and will be fulfilled at the 99th (I think I'm understanding that correctly), but perhaps Acts was actually 99 days. Either that or the law taking place in the 4th month is the only way I see this theory holding water. We need other (clear) verses of scripture to interpret this verse that is quite ambiguous. For anyone interested in investigating this, here is a jumping off point: www.lunarsabbath.info/id4.htmlI don't know anything about this website, but they give a storyline in Acts (and elsewhere) to follow. Perhaps we can put our heads together and see where it goes. Either way, I am excited to have a new section of Scripture to dive into! I did not post that article because I believed the theological position. I posted the article to show that this count is wobbly and has a couple of ways to do it. That's all. And witness1, your "in order for this to be valid" statement is not my position. It was about 20 days ago when I did in fact wait to day 50. That November 12 was a hard lesson and I am grateful for it because it is what led me to all this. It is my position that Pentecost in Acts was 50 days after the RESURRECTION SIGN. They waited 7 sabbaths and however long they were going to wait, God cut it off the next day. Why the truncated count? Because the Church was not Complete it was just beginning. When the next RESURRECTION SIGN occurs, apply the full count, 7 sabbaths, then on the next day start a count to 50 not 1. 50 is completion. I believe we are in that count now Saints. Should I start a thread on 50 being somehow a reference to completion? It stops a count. Like a jubilee. It stops a count. I like that Genesis has 50 chapters. I like that the end of this "completion" chapter has Joseph's bones being raised and taken to the Promised Land. I am 65 years old. I grew up a preachers kid and my mom was a brilliant gospel piano player. I am so sorry that most now do not have the church background I have. BUT, when I hear "Promised Land" I think of many hymns, some by Fanny Crosby, that confirm this...PROMISED LAND that is where I am going when I am raptured. I know, that's just my opinion. But when you are raptured saints, you will be flesh and bone. Those bones are going to the throne room. When? At the count of 50. It is like a fractal, 50 years in the Jubilee and when you get to 50 the Jubilee is completed. Within that 50 years is another 50, the 50 count after the 7 sabbaths. 50 is completion. That is not my humble opinion. That is God's opinion. Now you need to work with it and apply it to what you know. Blessings all. Saints will rise and shine when their time on earth is completed. , I see what you're saying that God could have truncated the count. I can buy that. But I still think we should at least see a 4th month giving of the law in Exodus. Please be patient with those of us who are warming up to your idea... I think we need other scripture to go on before we interpret a verse differently than the church has interpreted it for 2000 years. I am not leaving you with the burden of proof... I like your idea and am looking at it with you. And I don't think you overposted... it is reasonable that you wanted to get your idea out there. Just give everyone some time to pray about it. |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Nov 29, 2017 14:22:47 GMT -6
Dennis, since you called me on a post and mentioned the moderators in several others I will chime in agreement with KJS on the Great Sign. In fact I just said to you yesterday that the 9/23 sign is in the bible! Maybe I did not elaborate as much as you'd like? John saw it, wrote it down, it happened two months ago. It was a sign from God, 100%. Problem is we (most of us) interpreted it incorrectly. So to answer part 2 of your question, we dont know what it means. Maybe it means 12/31, but as others have said most of what is pointing at 12/31 is circumstantial. Rev 12:1-2 Great Sign was both visible and written plainly. We still are looking for verse 3-4 to happen |
|
|
|
Post by dennislwatson on Nov 29, 2017 14:32:14 GMT -6
Dennis, since you called me on a post and mentioned the moderators in several others I will chime in agreement with KJS on the Great Sign. In fact I just said to you yesterday that the 9/23 sign is in the bible! Maybe I did not elaborate as much as you'd like? John saw it, wrote it down, it happened two months ago. It was a sign from God, 100%. Problem is we (most of us) interpreted it incorrectly. So to answer part 2 of your question, we dont know what it means. Maybe it means 12/31, but as others have said most of what is pointing at 12/31 is circumstantial. Rev 12:1-2 Great Sign was both visible and written plainly. We still are looking for verse 3-4 to happen As I have said, I could have written the article better. I wrote it in pieces. What has been discovered is true. If Point 2 and 8 are rejected. The rest is poof. However, I am interested that you all here don't do what I do. You look at a date because a count or sign is fulfilled. That is what I did with the September 23 sign I thought it was the rapture. THEN I looked for what I call GLORY POINTS that will circumstantially, spiritually, Biblically, support it. I found a lot for September 23, then I found some additional for November 12, but when I started looking at the end of the 50 day count, I found a lot of what I call Glory Points. So sorry that neither you, nor Gary, nor any other moderator have an answer to 2. I am laughing because now God gave an answer. I refused to stop considering that Sign. I waited for 3 years for that sign. Through pain God gave me an insight, supported by others I have found, I do understand it now and I am at peace. It was a RESURRECTION SIGN like Jesus's resurrection was a RESURRECTION SIGN. What do you do after a RESURRECTION SIGN. You count! P E R H A P S Some think the idea is SAND and want the moderators to shut this idea down or, oh my, people may be discouraged. There that is again. I think people are praying about it. Now. Let's see if God speaks to them. And really. I wish that when people would actually refute my points and not just say. "It doesn't mean that and I thought of something else it could mean...neener neener" I was expecting more from this community. |
|
