I would like to thank all who took time to look into this. And apologize in a way because as the dust clears I can see a few things from the content creators book. In generally I was asking our trusted forum if there might be something to this potential second countdown from the 1500s. Based on the level of confidence coming from the content creator in how he described it. But I have found some faulty reasoning which had I been aware of at the time I would have never troubled our dear forum. So thanks again for weighing in here guys. It is rare I run with some strange fire football (other than the mother load one on my 1st seal...which has problems...but is also not without solutions as well). So just saying thanks. And moving on. Thanks for so graciously helping me to move on here
Blessings in advance. Here is where I believe I am landing the plane on this one...
1. I searched to discover in commentators a concern that plaza and moat (should this even been the exact language used in the original) had not been included in the postexelic period. As I searched and searched I never found a hint of discrepancy. So went to see if the content creator had a list or notes included in his show notes. He did not. But did have his book. According to his own words in his book...
"Artaxerxes’ decree restored the rule of law and administration,and it recognized Jerusalem as the city of God (Ezra 7:15-19).That’s not far off, but what of the specific mention of “plaza” and“moat?” Well, those two words, plaza (rechob – Strong’s h7339)and moat (charuwts – Strong’s h2742) are not mentioned in eitherdecree by Artaxerxes. However, the rechob of the House of God ismentioned in Ezra 10:9, when all the tribes of Judah and Benjaminassembled there to discuss their intermarrying with foreign wives.I think the case can be made that a plaza (rechob) was indeedrestored under the first decree of Artaxerxes because they were allable to meet there—since it was at that time already usable as a128 J. Paul Tanner. "Is Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy messianic? Part 1."Bibliotheca Sacra 166, no. 662 (2009): 181-200. SEVENTY WEEKS HAVE BEEN DECREED || 135meeting place. In this case, it is reasonable to conclude that whenArtaxerxes decreed that they could also do whatever else theythought best with the rest of the gold and silver, “according to thewill of your God,” a wide door was opened by this first decree.As a result, we have a solid base for inferring that the initialrebuilding of the temple by Ezra also included improvements tothe plaza (rechob) of the Temple."
So like right there he admits in his book what he concludes the opposite of in his video...lol. Sensationalizing.
2. Gap Theory -- The content creator states that there is not necessarily a gap between week 69 and 70. And although this could be thought of as a reasonable concern, the content creator inadvertently has his own creation of a gap theory too without explanation in stating his adversity to gap theories. Now he may explain this somewhere, I forget. But if according to the content creator Jesus fulfilled a sense of the 70th week...what do we have from AD 33 to the 1500s? How is over 1400 years to the next "decree" according to the content creator not a gap itself?
3. I then found in his book that he is in support of seeing the 6 seals in Matthew 24. Someone who considers that to be exegesis, to me, is not being honest with themselves. Or at least realizing that if the term "exegesis" is applied to some form of method by which to see the 6 seals in Matthew 24, there are equally (and in my observation) far greater more robust exegetical models challenging the 6 seal Matt 24 "theory." At best it is a hypothetical "theory." And typically, to me, a way for learned men to point to a "look what I found" theological parlor room trick.
4. Is alot like 1. If the content creator explained in his book alternative to what he sensationalizes in his video...there is something deeply wrong with that. That social artifact is evidence of knocking many legs out from underneath the ideology because at best all it is doing is trying to grab for land when drowning.
. . . . .
The difference I would see with something like this and 9-23-17 as a potential Rev 12 sign and Scotty Clark changing his own mind about it (which is similar to writing a book seeing clearly that moat had originally been built and then saying there was great question about it in scholarship) is that I don't see anything to hang the 2nd decree on other than "maybe it mirrors the 2 comings of Christ." Which is, to me, a similar approach to the 24 elders in heaven insistence of rapture prior to the first seal. For it does look like Rev 4 does mirror a rapture. How far can we extenuate the concept of "mirror" can be a great exegetical question. The 24 elders are not without other epxlanation, but admittedly, they are a weak spot in my 1st seal notion (unless we rapture very soon). But the Rev 12 potential in 2017, for me, seems to fit a category in time when prophesy did get fulfilled (along the way) with the same year affirming Jersusalem as Israeli capital in 2017. And the category in time where we have seen for years a slew of events amplifying "something very strange is goin' on ya'll." For me Rev 12 sign a links well with Rev 12 sign b (red dragon) as they both seem to relate to a c celestial sign in Rev 15. So to me, the strength of a Rev 12 sign 2017 potential rests more so in its potential continuity with scripture itself (if my Rev 12/15 views holds water). But I don't see anything substantial to hang a 2nd degree on biblically. So all we have is an historical event with weird events occuring near 2027. That is not really enough to move my interest. But I thank you guys for being open and caring to help sort out this issue with me.
Again, blessings.
www.youtube.com
I do the same thing and sometimes like to watch certain encouraging (and not scripturally “out there”) date-framers….
