Hey, I think you're finally getting it. It musta boomeranged and smacked you in the back of the head. lol
His proof, that you accept as fact, is based on a written theory, no facts were ever involved yet you and he claim there is 'proof' that has been introduced.
So? Who cares how old it is.
One would think the Jews of the time of Jesus would have been celebrating all those verse being fulfilled rather than them still being part of the 70 weeks prophecy.
Logic is a concept, it is not concrete. Using only the words from Daniel is more logical when trying to piece together what the prophecies mean that Daniel was given. That 'understanding also has be in the same context as the other references to the same events. What you find to be 'logical' is subject to being in error. "even in troublous times" covers the whole period of the 69 weeks. Given the choice God is going to write about the bruise to Christ's heel over some skirmishes that have zero effect on anything that the Bible considers important.
I doesn't answer a lot of the time because your questions are ridiculous.
So asking two questions that are about the use of the same terms, 'end of sacrifice' and 'covenant', is a ridiculous question(s)? I would agree that the answer has 'dire consequences' for Dex't 'understanding' and to say 'No', flat-out would seem to be more than a little on the stupid side of life. There can only be one end to sacrifice when dealing with the Temple in Jerusalem.
And that's likely the result of you basing everything you know on a book whose only authority is itself.
I hope you are meaning 'everything I know about the Bible' or can we expand this topic to include every topic I have ever posted on as being in error because I believe in the Bible so I must be mentally deficient in all matters? That is a statement and a question.
Or is willing to waste his time explaining to you.
I read everything he presented more that 10 years ago. The article was much better than Dex's explanation that was down to the numbers that dies in each of the battles mentioned in Da:11. They couldn't fit it in without introducing a 'magical' time jump where none is indicated. Having those things in your theory means you should not give up looking for a better explanation.
Like I said, your version of the Bible which uses itself as its own reference. Freakin hilarious. Nah. Logic beats self-referencing bafflegab.
Why do you think they have a new reference number every 20 words or so, it is to help look things up because that is what you need to do to understand the prophecies. For OT family ties it should be a straight read.
2Tm:3:16:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:
Since you have never posted even one verse from the Bible you must be the highest authority on the Bible on this thread, using your logic that is. I'm going to stick with something a little closer to the words that can be found in the Bible.
Obviously. We'd at least be able to figure out how to get in. You'd be still looking for "physics lab" in the library to see what one is.
I would head for the theology dept when the Bible is the topic. Your whole argument revolves around physical proofs about God existing or not. The prophecy discussion do not involve that aspect, it is piecing together the actual word in print, to do that you have to open the book. That is where we part company, if Dex won't answer those two little question the why don't you clear up the matters? Both can be as simple as a 'yes or no', how hard is that really?
Well, at least according to you and your interpretation, maybe. All I have to say to that is that it'd have been a lot more sensible to have just stated things so people could easily understand them if you wanted to get a message across. Nostradamus disguised his prophecies in poetry, but he had a reason. He didn't want to be tormented and persecuted. What's your god's excuse?
God told one story (prophecies) but the dictation took centuries. That is why it is broken up into 'pieces'. That part is explained by God also so all I am doing is reading,
Isa:28:9:
Whom shall he teach knowledge?
and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?
them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isa:28:10:
For precept must be upon precept,
precept upon precept;
line upon line, line upon line;
here a little,
and there a little:
If you don't like the fact that God referenced the term 'day of the Lord' some 20 times in the OT Prophecies and they are all for one event that will unfold as being the day the 7th trump sound in Revelation 11 then you are not paying attention to all the words in those references, I doubt you or Dex have even read them or you would be able to state which time is the most 'questionable' when context is the issue.
The same person who wrote that verse was also in the verse below so it was an eye-witness account from start to finish. How can you misunderstand what the verse says? Is every writer of Scripture a liar also?
Joh:1:35:
Again the next day after John stood,
and two of his disciples;
Joh:1:36:
And looking upon Jesus as he walked,
he saith,
Behold the Lamb of God!
Joh:1:37:
And the two disciples heard him speak,
and they followed Jesus.
1Jo:1:1:
That which was from the beginning,
which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon,
and our hands have handled,
of the Word of life;
Was that a question or something?
Obviously
Can you say that in English please?
The 3 times cover the brusie to the seed of Eve and the bruise to Satan's head and the aftermath when both bruises are complete. That helps you sort out the various prophecies as they all pertain to one of those 3 events.
Ah, the self-referencing bit again.
Here is another example.
Lu:3:6:
And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
1Co:15:39:
All flesh is not the same flesh:
but there is one kind of flesh of men,
another flesh of beasts,
another of fishes,
and another of birds.
And Dawkins (I figure that's who you meant by "Hawkins") is clear when he writes and speaks. He doesn't write his books so that you see a comment and then have to skip here hither and yon throughout the book to find similar comments. It's called "coherency" in writing skills. Similar issues are all in one chapter. Other similar issues have their own chapter and so on. There's a lot more topics to write about nowadays than 2 or 3 thousand years ago.
So does Daniel and Revelation and you are talking about a book that one author wrote over the space of a year or so compared to 100's of years. Hebrews 12 and Isaiah 65 are one passage, I doubt you understand the full meaning of the words. This is a prophecy given that has yet to run it entire course.
De:4:30:
When thou art in tribulation,
and all these things are come upon thee,
even in the latter days,
if thou turn to the LORD thy God,
and shalt be obedient unto his voice;
I don't need a book to use reason against folly.
You need to open it and read if you are going to have an 'opinion' or like Dex you can borrow one with no questions asked or left hanging.
I know what it said. I'm still not impressed. Like I said before I went to get my tea, "I am going to get a cuppa tea". Are you impressed?
About your short term memory, very impressed but you have some distance to go before you can get a prescription.
Funny. I was staying on concept and you just veered right off the road. I meant that you are selective in which posts you read here. Especially if they can disprove yours.
I read then all, yours and Dex's are pure disapproval yet I reply to the questions so your post is a lie basically.
You didn't. So it was a nonsense post you made?
I thought is was your trip for the tea that made you lose your train of thought.
roflmao Bad attempt at spin. Your Bible can hardly be called a wheel.
It would be a bit more complicated than that, perhaps a whole vehicle would be more apt.
So why can't you figure it out yourself? Dex relies on somebody else to explain it to him, yet it is an incomplete explanation that for Dex is 'close enough' the Bible is not worth my own time and energy. lol
Below 0 it is ice, not -200.
Once it evaporated and once it was past Neptune you can rest assured that all earth's water will be found only in the form of ice. Are you suggesting that those small crystals have enough mass to make the collect into a series of large ice balls before the enter the next solar system that it becomes a part of.
Does it matter? The point behind revision is that it increasingly gets closer to the facts based on evidence. Religions simply base everything on an assumption and only revise when science makes it look foolish.
All the while claiming it already is based on 'all the facts' which would be a claim that no revisions will ever be needed. At the moment you believe the science to have the facts yet you hesitate to put a number on how many times those 'facts' are in error.
I don't have a doctrine.
I claim they are sillyass because the Bible is sillyass.
Keep it that way.
nevertheless, the idea of that saying should have been interpreted as an advice that expects humans should be simple and not forget the other "world" because of mortal life... 
