Dr. Greg Estep's Daniel's 70 Weeks
 

I recently came across a truly amazing sermon set by Dr. Greg Estep, who is a KJO Dispensationalist, about Daniel's 70 weeks and there seems to be a revelation discussed in there that I'd like to start a discussion on.

It covers the 70 weeks, end-times prophecy and the period of the tribulation with a rare viewpoint: That the 70'th week started already, and then got paused for the church age, to resume after the rapture and continue 6.38 years, instead of the commonly preached full 7 years. This seems to explain all the apostolic miracles, the cessation of the sign gifts, parts of the plan for Israel, and sheds light on more than a few false doctrines derived from falsely dividing the Word of Truth.
It also draws some correlations between the Jewish feasts, and the time of the rapture, among many other great expositions.

Frankly, I'm quite blown away with the sermons, and I've been listening to them over and over, and I'd like to get some more input on the things he presents from other solid Bible believers.

Link to Sermon Audio

I know its six hours to listen to them all, but I can pretty much guarantee that you won't regret it, and his delivery is much like Gipp's, so he's almost fun to listen to.
If there are errors, I'd like to see them pointed out, but if this guy is bang-on, then it could be of much benefit to share this incredible teaching. I'm not saying this teaching is perfect, but my discernment is giving me a bright green light on this one, and I'd like to know if its wrong before adopting it.

It will definately be food for thought for any workman who seeks to rightly divide.

I'll listen to them throughout the day, but I don't think it will be new to me. It seems to be the same opinion I hold. Its not new or rare, only because of today's pre-trib doctrine is it not taught much anymore, other than by a few.

I posted my view a while back elsewhere, and someone said that was never heard of the 70Th week being stopped, and restarted again. I told them, they had just not been listening. :)

It all hinges around a disputed interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27. Which was all fulfilled by Christ' first advent, and later the Roman army. Including the Abomination of Desolation. Now unless you want to call this a dualistic prophesy, and there is no evidence of it. As after this you will fine no mention, of more than 3-1/2 years in the Scripture. That's all that remains 3-1/2 years.

If you read all the prophesies in the Old Testament, about the day of the Lord, this does not leave the Church (body) going through tribulation. But as Paul stated the Son of Perdition must be revealed, before the coming Day of the Lord. And the Gathering (rapture) of the Church; begins that Day. So it is not pre-tribulation, but pre-wrath.

Hi Samuel, thanks for venturing to listen to the sermon and giving me your thoughts.

Perhaps I didn't explain it accurately, but it sounds like you are thinking of a mid-trib rapture, at the abomination of desolation, but I could be misreading you.

What I understand Estep to be demonstrating is that something like ~220 days elapsed into the 70th week (Calvary to Acts) , then stopped when the gospel went to the Gentiles, and there are still 6.38 years to go, once the stopwatch starts again when the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, also when the rapture hits.

This would give ~2.88 years of tribulation left, then the abomination of desolation, then the 3.5 years of wrath, then the second coming.
As Estep points out, the Jews already made their covenant with the antichrist, or at least a type of him when they said:

"Jhn 19:15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar."

Just some thoughts on it, would like some more discussion. Not looking to argue with anyone or prove this point, just to find out if it makes sense to others too.

I listened to the first hour, and will later listen to the rest. At this point, I don't think he is presenting it the way I had in mind.

I need to listen to some more, and then decide. But as of right now, this seems to be another angle, which I cannot say I have heard. :)

Its quite a good listen, and the first hour doesn't do the whole thing justice.
At one point he sort of breaks down and chuckles that its hard to teach the whole Bible in one sermon. Its like he's trying to pour a lake through a handheld funnel!

Nobody else interested ? :(

I might be the only guy who listens to preaching on my computer as a complete replacement for TV, movies, music and video games, hence I listen to preaching pretty much everyday.

This was the most revolutionary sermon I'd heard in a long time, thought others might enjoy too.

I just grabbed all 314 sermons by Dr. David Peacock, who is KJO, and seems really good.
Any comments on him?

Re: " Dr. Greg Estep's Daniel's 70 Weeks"
 

Aloha brother,

I'm not into recommending men, especially preachers that seem to have "new angle" on Bible doctrine. Ever since you mentioned Gregg Estepp, I have been biting my tongue (to the point where it is nearly bleeding :eek:).

There are some of us on this Forum that don't have a very high opinion of Gregg Estepp (and for very "sound Scriptural reasons"). If you want to know why, you can check out this Link:

http://www.freewebs.com/thywordis/DO...20Comments.htm

George I was quite shocked after only three paragraphs into your link. his salvation statement would have kept me from hearing this man any further.

How little does his teaching on submission have in resemblance to that which I shared in Doctrines of Christian living

I was waiting to see how this went before posting. I did listen to the complete series, and found several points I could not agree on.

But this was not my biggest problem, his complete arrogance, and overwhelming attitude, that you are too dumb to know anything I know it all, was a BIG turnoff for this man to me.

I recorded it for the purpose of displaying to others, that this is not the way we should teach the Bible.

Hi guys!

I'm glad people are responding to my sincere question about that sermon. Please remember, I was asking for people's opinions on it, not promoting the man per se. I don't know much about him, or anything else he taught, other than finding the Charity Baptist website, which seemed ok at first look.

I started reading that article commenting his submission teaching et al, and I fully agree, according to the article, it looks bad.
I re-iterate: in no way was I promoting Estep to you guys as being the gospel truth embodied in a teacher, I wanted to talk about the Daniel's 70th week (for lack of a better word) hypothesis. About how it started right after the resurection of Jesus Christ, but then got paused at Stephen's stoning / Paul's conversion, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in (rapture).

Oh, if its true his salvation doctrine is way off, then I am ashamed to have even brought it up at all, for it reflects badly on me, and could lead people astray, however in the particular sermon I was refering to, I didn't hear anything about salvation nor submission, so I wasn't aware...yet. The focus was on Daniels' 70th.

The "angle" I refered to was the pausing of Daniel's 70th week, leaving 6.38 years of tribulation to come after the rapture instead of the commonly taught full 7 yrs.
THAT's what I was seeking to discuss, because it seems like a nail in the coffin for alot of the signs and wonders heresies out there; healers, unknown tongues, prophets, etc.

I'll continue to read that long article on his other teachings throughout my work day, and I'll post again once I'm done (I get interrupted by my job duties).
I am NOT advocating his submission doctrine, but I did note that saying a word isn't found in the Bible makes a doctrine false, is a weak argument. Trinity? Rapture? I'm not saying his doctrine is correct, just pointing out that's a weak thing to say. The other points in your article on the submission thing are valid.. got to read the rest.


Thank you brothers, for responding, and please remember, I wasn't advocating the man per se, just the concept that the 70th week got paused.

Please continue to let me know what else was you all think about that "hypothesis", and Samuel, since apparently your the only one who listened to it so far, what else did you notice that you couldn't agree with?
I do agree he is a bit arrogant, but plenty of other, correct preachers are even more so (A certain favorite name probably pops into one's mind right about now :yell: ):p

Thanks once again, I'm only seeking corroborating or disproving evidence for the 70th week theory.

Re: "Dr. Greg Estep's Daniel's 70 Weeks"
 

Aloha brother Samuel,

And :amen: to all that you have said brother. This is a "brand" of Christianity, and the purveyors of it, that I personally avoid like the plague.

I didn't say anything - until brother BornAgainBibleBeliever514 asked: "Any comments on him?"

I have known Gregg Estepp since 1969 0r 70, when he was selling brother Ruckman's books out of his garage in Xenia, Ohio, and when he was the only reliable source for obtaining brother Ruckman's materials.

You can imagine my surprise, when 10 years later (1979 or 1980) he's a "full-on" DOCTOR, and a "Mover & Shaker" in certain Baptist circles.

Our "critique" of His heretical teaching on the so-called "Doctrine of Submission" should be enough to convince any genuine Bible believer that this man is "out of order"; and not only that, I have personally seen (on the Island of Kauai - 1984-1990) where his teaching on "The (FALSE) Doctrine of Submission" has split churches, divided Christian brethren (for over 25 years!), and even separated members of the same family (to this day!). :(

That's one of the problems with looking unto men to teach us spiritual knowledge, discernment, and understanding; and one of the "drawbacks" to the web: sometimes someone may "sound good" - but you never know until you have a chance to really get to know them! :confused:

There are far too many "jack boot", dictatorial, and authoritarian pastors out there in the world today, who "think" that God the Father has called them to REPLACE God the Son; and God the Holy Spirit; and God's Holy word; in God's own church - which He, God purchased with His Own Blood! :mad:

These men have offended more brethren (and lost people) than you and I will ever know (at least here on earth). And wherever they have taught their blasphemy, they have caused countless brethren to stumble and fall; they have split churches and divided brethren; and they have destroyed friendships, marriages, and families - all "in the name of the Lord" or course!

I have a hard time with men who are full of guile and deceit; and I have a difficult time with frauds and hypocrites; but the men that I cannot endure for even one minute, are "religious zealots" (Jackboot Dictators) who "think" they know more than anyone else, and who actually "believe" that God has "appointed" them to RULE OVER Christian brethren - as if God had "ANOINTED" them KINGS in Christ's stead! :eek:

The Holy Bible is real clear, as to what we are to do with such men:

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Re: "Dr. Greg Estep's Daniel's 70 Weeks"
 

Aloha brother BornAgainBibleBeliever51,

My wife just caught the fact that when you asked for "comments": you were actually asking for comments on Dr. David Peacock - my mistake for carelessly reading! It's not the first time that I have done this - ask Brother Tim! I want to apologize (ahead of time) if my comments offended you in any way. My Post #11 was NOT directed at you, per se, as much as it should be a warning to all, that we have to be especially careful (in this age of apostasy) as to who we quote or recommend.

From your Posts and comments, I, in no way, thought (or was intimating) that you were a "disciple" of Greg Estep, or a "follower" of his. It's just that I have seen the "fruit" of this man (and his doctrine) up close and personal - and it's not Scriptural, and it "ain't pretty"!

I am pleased that you are reading the article on the so-called "Doctrine of Submission". Brother Ed Burch and I spent weeks (actually months) transcribing Estep's false teaching from a 4 Cassette Tape Series (which I still have in my possession). The fact that you are willing to "check things out" tells me that you are nothing like Estep or any of his disciples.

Again, if there is anything that I have said in my Posts on this matter that has offended you brother, I am truly sorry - that was not my intent. I may be a crusty old curmudgeon, but I don't want to be guilty of the same things that I so strongly condemn in others. :(

Posted By - BornAgainBibleBeliever51.
At this point I don't quite remember, I would have to run the disk again. I think? it was in the third presentation though. I'll try to check it out, and let you know sometime today or tomorrow.

Hehe, Dear crusty old curmudgeon,

I've not taken any offence whatsoever. I did ask for comments on Peacock, but that was just a side-note.

I realize that I may be coming across as looking to men for revelation, and in a certain way I am, but only in that they show me whats in the Book that I havn't found before. My final authority is still and always will be God's pure and preserved Word. It is scriptural that we should take advantage of learned teachers, they are there for our benefit, but that we should be like the Bereans and search out their techings to see if they be true.
I continue to to read my Bible daily, and try to learn it as best I can, but expository teachers are valuable too.
I know, I know, I shoud just study more, the Holy Spirit can and will guide me, but then why do we go to church to listen to a preacher? To learn more on top of what God reveals to us personally.

As for Estep, He may have other wrong doctrines or not, but I am more curious about this teaching on the 70th week being paused, and about the rapture occuring on the Jewish feast of trumpets (no year or minute predicting, just times and seasons). Its this theory I'm interested in, not Estep. He looks a little creepy anyways :rant: :suspicious: But this particular theory might be right.
I've learned to chew the meat and spit out the bones as it were. :pray: :hungry: :pizza: :puke:

I will continue reading the article about submission etc. As I'm spot-reading it at work, I agree there could be some bent toward excessive pastoral authority, but some of the other comments seem like they might have been taken out of context, I dunno. I'll comment more on that once I've read it completely and thoroughly.

Re: "Dr. Greg Estep's Daniel's 70 Weeks"
 

Aloha brother BornAgainBibleBeliever514,

I appreciate your gracious reply and I am pleased that you weren’t offended. However I have some concern with some of the things that you said in your reply. And so at the risk of going from being a “crusty old curmudgeon”, (which I admit to being :)), to becoming a “crotchety” old curmudgeon :confused: (which I hope that I am not) I will expound.

Your quote:
Your statement is only partially true. God surely has called men to be teachers of His Holy word; and Christians can learn from teachers (however every Christian has an obligation to “study” on his own – 2Timothy 2:15). You said: “we should take advantage of learned teachers”, to which I shall add a “scriptural requirement”: - ONLY IF those teachers are FAITHFUL!

[2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be able to teach others also.]

Webster's 1828 Dictionary:
With this Scriptural admonition (command) [2Timothy 2:2] in mind then – the very FIRST thing that a Christian should do when seeking out the truth is to make sure that the person doing the teaching is FAITHFUL. And if they are NOT – it shouldn’t be: “I've learned to chew the meat and spit out the bones as it were”; according to the Scriptures it should be: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." [Galatians 5:9]

I can think of no Scriptural precept or principle which teaches that there is an EXCUSE for teaching FALSE DOCTRINE or HERESY! And I can not think of a single Scripture where we are encouraged “to chew the meat and spit out the bones as it were”. WHY is this premise accepted today? WHAT is so “hard” about teaching the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? :confused:

This is the “danger” in listening to men (who you don’t know) and trying to glean the truth from what they say; why bother, IF the truth is mixed in with error, false doctrine or heresy? (The Roman Catholics and ALL Cults have SOME truth, would you listen to them? Then WHY would you listen to a man (who you don’t know) simply because he claims to be a Baptist or a Fundamentalist, or an “Evangelical”? You would be far better off getting a set of CD’s of the Holy Bible (read by Alexander Scourby) and listen to the pure Scriptures, than having to constantly SIFT through the leaven that is being taught in so many so-called “Fundamentalist” circles today.

LEAVEN is LEAVEN – no matter WHO is teaching it. And the Bible clearly teaches that leaven CORRUPTS, there are NO IFS, ANDS or BUTS about it.

[Proverbs 19:27 Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.]

Your quote:
Can you give me the “Scripture” to support your statement? I scanned the entire Bible with Swordsearcher and could not find a single place in the entire Bible where the term “learned teachers” shows up. God is concerned with and requires FAITHFUL teachers, NOT just “learned” teachers. The modern day churches are FULL of “learned” teachers – the problem is that not many of them are FAITHFUL! :eek:

You said:
Brother I am not trying to “strain at gnats” here, but Christians shouldn’t be going to church to “listen to a preacher”. We should be going to church to worship God first and second to “listen” to the word of God – NOT “listen to the preacher”. There’s far too much emphasis on “the preacher” (men) today and far too little emphasis on The Lord and His Holy words.

In your Post #10 you said: For the record, here is what we said at the beginning of our critique of Estep’s “Doctrine of Submission”:

Our Quote:
For the record - You said: “saying a word isn't found in the Bible makes a doctrine false, is a weak argument.” If that is all we said, you would be correct. But we produced 50 (81/2” by 11”) type written pages proving our allegations! And the FACT remains – IF someone (a “Bible” teacher) is going to “claim” that the “doctrine” that they are teaching is “the most important doctrine in the Bible.” they should at least base that “doctrine” on words that can be found in the Holy Scriptures – or they might be guilty of ADDING to the Holy words of God. {I will deal with the words “Trinity” and “Rapture” in a little while}

You will note that I pointed out the same “problem” (ADDING to God’s word) in my Posts on Calvinism. In each of the “Five Points of Calvinism (T.U.L.I.P.) Calvinists USE WORDS that cannot be found in the Holy Bible to either “prove” their false doctrine or “prop” it up. WHY would the Lord Jesus Christ say: “. . . It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” [Matthew 4:4] IF it is appropriate for us to ADD to those words when we are teaching “doctrine” – especially IF it is “the most important doctrine in the Bible.”?

The following are my quotes from the beginning of each of the Posts that I made on Calvinism:
I never made the claim that Calvinism is “false” based solely on the fact that all or part of the doctrine uses words NOT found in the Holy Bible. I simply pointed out the fact of the ADDITIONAL words and said that the use of words that cannot be found in the Bible to “prove” a “Bible” doctrine raises “a Red Flag” for me, since the Roman Catholic Church and ALL Cults do exactly the same thing!

Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

Since the preceding verses are true {and there are lots more that I could use} - when teaching Scripture, “Bible teachers” should be using “Bible words” as much as possible in teaching “Bible doctrine”.

As for the word “Trinity” - I personally do not use it when teaching the Scriptures or witnessing. The Bible word that I use (instead of the Roman Catholic word “Trinity”) is the “GODHEAD” [Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9]. I learned this when I used the word “Trinity” in witnessing to A COUPLE OF Jehovahs Witnesses back in 1973, and they pointed out to me (quite correctly) that the word “Trinity” was NOT in the Bible, and that it was a “Roman Catholic word”. You should have seen the expression on the faces of the next pair of “Witnesses” that came to my door when THEY USED the word “Trinity”, and I pointed out to THEM that the word “Trinity” was NOT in the Bible, and that it was a “Roman Catholic word” - they were speechless! (Since they are pre-programmed to ask certain questions and answer according to the Watchtower Babble, they couldn’t deal with the “tables being turned”.)

And as for the word “rapture”, that Christians use to describe the translating of the saints, I try to avoid its use in teaching and witnessing also (although I may have to explain to people why I don’t use the term). The only place in the Bible where we have a clear “picture” (type) which describes what is going to happen to those saints that are alive at Christ’s gathering His body to Himself, is the example of Enoch:

Genesis 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was TRANSLATED that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had TRANSLATED him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

In teaching and witnessing about those Christians that are alive at the time The Lord comes for His saints, I always use the word “TRANSLATED” - Why not use “Bible words” to describe a “Bible doctrine”? Personally, I don’t understand why it is so difficult for Bible teachers to refrain from ADDING to; or SUBTRACTING from; or CHANGING God’s Holy words. If a person is a genuine Bible believer, then he ought to have a natural love for God’s word and a high enough regard for it, NOT to MESS with it!

Also in your Post #10 you said: Without going into any of the dirty details, there is no comparison between Gregg Estep’s mean spirited “style” of preaching and teaching and “someone” who shall go unnamed. I read over 80 books by “someone” and listened to hundreds of hours of his preaching and teaching between 1968 through 1988, and I can tell you that, with the exception of Bible CORRECTORS, I have never heard the kind of malicious, hostile, hateful, and malevolent remarks that come out of Mr. Estep’s lips, ever spoken by “someone”. “Someone” saves his vitriol, sarcasms, and harsh remarks for Bible CORRECTORS – NOT ordinary Christians. Why some where’s in the four tape series Estep brags about KICKING OUT HIS OWN DAD OUT OF “HIS” (ESTEP’S) CHURCH!!! :eek:

We live in the age of apostasy; where there is so much FALSE TEACHING and so many FALSE TEACHERS in the churches that the only way for a Christian to have pure and “sound doctrine” is to keep their eyes and ears on God’s word and stop sifting through the chaff looking for diamonds.

Like I told brother Tonybones recently: At my age, I don’t have time to speculate about just exactly HOW God created the world (“Gap” or no “Gap”); and while prophecy is of interest to me, I don’t have time to try to figure out all of the details about the Great Tribulation, The Millennium, Eternity, etc.; and I don’t have time to work out all of the details about Hell or Heaven.

I just BELIEVE ALL of what I read, and accept it ALL as being TRUE; AND IF I DON’T UNDERSTAND IT ALL, OR IF God isn’t showing me something, I just let it be – there’s too much to do about those four concerns (the WEIGHTIER MATTERS) to spend time on things that God will surely straighten out for me when I meet Him face to face. :)

Daniel 9
26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27. And he (the prince that shall come) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Daniel 9:27 says 'the prince that shall come" shall confirm the covenant for one week but there's no record that this event has ever taken place so the full one week is still future.

Hi George and CKG!

My power supply blew up last week, and I've been totally busy this entire weekend, my church had a three-day revival, six sessions, which just wrapped up ( but not the revival itself, AMEN ! ). So I haven't been on the forum much this weekend.

First, Thanks for continuing on with my questions. George, apparently, your computer was working fine and either it or you is overclocked to put out such a long response :typing:
Frankly, I need some time to digest it before I can respond to it.
But gracefully, CKG's was shorter, and I can respond, not to imply George isn't graceful, but I'll have to muster up some crochety to talk to the old curmudgeon. :ranger:


CKG, your point about the prince that shall come is indeed pointing to the future, but the chief priests accepting the Caesar as their king in John 19:15 happened hundreds of hears after the book of Daniel, so it doesn't really contradict, the time line is still intact.

John 19:15 could be the record of the covenant taking place.
Might I add, on the topic of time lines, When the 70 weeks started rolling, it transitioned from the 7 weeks for the rebuilding of the city into the threescore and two weeks until the Messiah should be cut off, without so much as a pause. Why shouldn't the 69th roll into the 70th without a pause?
After the resurrection and the ascension, the gospel being preached was the kingdom of heaven to the Jews.
The Body of Christ started with the resurrection, but only included Jews being added through apostolic signs and wonders, until the nation of Israel rejected God the Holy Spirit, and then the gospel changed to include the gentiles by grace through faith alone: the kingdom of God.
<<< Insert a big PRAISE GOD! here >>>

Seems logical to me that that's a big change, and the 70 weeks got paused there.
Remember that the Lord Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of God's throne?

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

And we always think He's been that way ever since the ascension, however:

Isa 3:13 The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people.

Since the gospel was still to the nation of Israel alone in those first 220 days of Acts (as this theory we're discussing suggests), then this makes sense with Stephen's stoning, where he:

Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Jesus stood up to plead and judge the nation of Israel at that moment, because their offer of the kingdom of heaven was still valid, God was still dealing with the Jews. This is evidenced by the working of apostolic signs and wonders, the early Acts doctrines of Baptismal regeneration, and the fact that right in Acts chapter 1, they needed to appoint a replacement, twelfth apostle, in order that the nation of Israel could legally be judged.

But right after Israel's "last chance" at Stephen's sermon to the Jews, (NOT in a replacement theology way, just their last chance to receive their Messiah by faith), then things really started changing. An Etheopian gets saved; Saul, of all people, gets converted (in a remarkable type of how the unbelieving Jew will be converted at the second coming); the apostolic signs and wonders begin to cease; and Peter receives the vision concerning unclean things.
The signs and wonders ceased in Jerusalem right then, and only happened a little bit since to convince unbelieving Jews that the gospel was now open to the gentiles.



Anyways, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, or debate, I just want to discuss the theory that Greg Estep put forward in those sermons I linked to.
George, I know you are concerned about Estep as well, and so am I.
But the purpose of this thread is to discuss the theory, not Estep.
I'll answer your other post soon, and in no way am I mad at anyone over this, even if they don't agree. In fact, I want a discussion, so that together we can test the theory. I'm not dead set on it, if I'm wrong, I can change.
My interest is in the Truth, and I thank the Lord that you guys are here on this forum to give me someone to talk to about it.
I've asked the Lord about this theory, or revelation, whichever it turns out to be, that He show me the truth of it. My eyes and heart are towards Jesus, with a sincere desire to know what He wants me to know.

George, I appreciate your concerns, and I will answer you, but trust that my final authority isn't Estep or any other man, but rather its God's Holy Word.

Preliminary comment, George: Show me one human teacher/preacher that actually has 100% truth that I can learn from without having to chew the meat and spit out the bones...
If something is a heresy, I will spit it out and won't condone it. For example, I don't believe in the gap theory, but am I then to throw out everything God gave brother Ruckman because he also teaches the gap? That would be a waste!

Once more, this thread really really isn't about Estep, but about the theory he advanced in that particular sermon. I only reference him, because I haven't heard anyone else say it before. If he has other doctrines, or teachings done before or after this that are incorrect (that I never heard yet), then I will reject them. But if the 70 weeks time line theory is correct, I'm not going to throw it out.
Billy Graham used to preach some sound stuff (wayyyy back), but then he became a Romanist. Does that invalidate something truthful he said that a long time ago?

Thanks once again, brethren, for taking the time to talk with me about this theory (Daniel's 70 week time line). I'm not terribly interested in discussing Estep, but by proxy I guess we must, but I'd rather focus on the Bible and what it says about this prophecy.
I appreciate any and all concern anyone has for me, and I thank you for your efforts to talk about it. I'm sure that as long as we all seek Christ on every page, the body will be strengthened and edified.

Aloha brother George! :high5:

I fully agree with you, as well as with the additional scriptural requirement that the teacher be faithful. To that I will add that the faithfulness I demand is in what is being taught. Find me a single pastor who is 100% correct, and lives it 100% correctly, so that I can trust their teaching implicitly. Might be hard to find. Rather, like the Bereans, I will receive the word with all readiness of mind, and then search the scriptures daily to see if those things are so. Those Bereans were checking out what Paul taught them then. Had they gone back and dug up what he had been teaching as Saul, they would have been foolish to reject what he was teaching as Paul.

I know you posted some stuff about another tape Estep had done much earlier, and I'll be honest with you, I didn't get all the way through it yet. That day at work got really busy, and then that night by PC blew up, so I haven't been able to check it out thoroughly, but how do you know that God didn't deal with Estep over that submission thing before he did the 70 weeks sermon?
Some people think that Kent Hovind shouldn't be listened to because of the tax scandal, but does that change anything he taught about evolution, creation, salvation or the Truth of the Book?


:boink: Touche, Galatians 5:9 is a very good point, and I've oft noted the leaven effect with the blatantly heretical folks out there.
However, I honestly don't detect any heresy in the 70 week time line theory (yet?)
Your point is well taken, and I am watching for it whenever I listen to that sermon again. It still doesn't disprove the theory though. Even used car salesmen can clean up their act and tell the truth once in a while.


I agree fully, there is no excuse for teaching heresy, but there is scriptural precedent of God taking an heretick and converting him to the truth, then being used by God to preach that truth. Find me a modern-times KJO person who didn't have to arrive at that conviction of truth by the hand of God, who didn't at first believe otherwise. On that note, it IS hard to teach the whole truth, 100%. We are fortunate to have men of God who come real close, but we will never have one at 100% on everything. There isn't a preacher living in the world that God is done dealing with on some area or another.
Fortunately, we have the ability and requirement to test a teaching against the Word of God.


This is very good advice, thank you. I agree, I went out on a limb with Estep, whom I don't know. It came recommended by a good Christian KJO friend, so I gave it a listen.
As a rule, I don't go around listening to everything and anything, trying to glean. I read the label, then try it out. Just like a grocery store, if the label agrees with what you are generally looking for, you give it a shot, but once you open it up and test it, if its not good, you don't buy it again.
I also don't personally know much about Ruckman, Gipp, Grady, Hovind, Cloud, Spurgeon, or any other. But I tried them based on the label, and upon having tested what I heard from them, decided to benefit from what they expounded. None of us would be able to pick a local church, or listen to any preacher at all if we weren't able and willing to do a bit of sifting along the way.

And NO, I wouldn't listen to a cultist, because their heresy is proven. But if a JW shows up at my door and says it a beautiful day outside, I can agree. Or if he says that God created the universe, I can agree until he says God first created Jesus in order to create the world, THEN my sift-o-meter starts beeping and I disagree.

But I appreciate the admonition to 'Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees'.
What I want to know is: Is the Daniel's 70 week time line theory leaven or not?

I agree fully. My choice of words for learned teachers wasn't accurate, even misleading. Makes you think of a dusty old scholarly Bible-corrector, doesn't it? :doh:
I guess I meant capable, faithful preachers.


I agree fully: Worship and the Word of God are the exact reasons I go to church.
A good preacher will always point the hearer TO Worship and the Word of God. That's kind of why I'm more interested in what the Word of God says about the 70 weeks, rather than who or when I heard about it from. Just like countless other subjects I hadn't yet clued into until a preacher talked about it, then my spurred curiosity sends me to the Word to search out the matter.


George, I LOVE your answers on Bible words versus words not found in the Bible. I especially loved the anecdote about the JWs and 'Trinity'. I will SO use that the next chance I get. Your points are well taken on this matter, but for goodness' sake, let's not get off onto calvinism in this thread too, hehe. Please, nobody hijack this thread onto the calvinism debate :P
I think your practice of using actual Bible words is terrific, and I will try to employ that myself.


As for the comparisons between a certain 'someone' and Estep:
I love that certain 'someone' and in no way am I against him. When he calls 'em like he sees 'em, one can't really argue, if he's right about the topic. I haven't had the privilege of covering as much of his material as you have, but I have covered some, and my impression is that the vitriol is aimed at anyone who is against the Word of God as he understands it. That includes Bible-correctors, unsaved sinners needing to repent, saved Christians who are still sinning, and anyone who doesn't agree with his stances. That last one isn't necessarily a consistent rule of thumb, but I did hear Kent Hovind's account of meeting him and how he started attacking Hovind over the gap theory, without proving it. I wasn't there, I don't know what really happened, but I know at least one good Christian who Ruckman was mean to over a non-doctrinal, non-Bible-correcting topic. Anyways, in the particular sermon I linked to for this thread, I didn't detect anything at all like the stuff you objected to in the submission doctrine tapes.

If the thing about Estep kicking his dad out of his church is true, and done without just cause, then that's pretty bad. But since I don't know the scenario, I will have to reserve judgment on it until I know more about the situation. Perhaps its in that other post you gave about the tapes you reviewed, I apologize that I didn't get through it all yet. From my current standpoint on that, not knowing WHY he got kicked out, I must give benefit of the doubt that there was a good reason, until proven otherwise. Like, maybe the dad was arguing for a heresy, or causing a disruption, or having an affair or something, I just don't know. But whatever the reason was, good or bad, I don't think its something to be bragged about, if indeed it was bragging.
Look, I'm not defending Estep, how can I? I'm just being neutral until given just cause to move either way.
I understand that Estep is a hot button for you, given your past experiences with him, but please remember, I'm really more interested in the 70 weeks, and I sincerely hope this thread can get back to discussing that.
For any other discussions about Estep, 'certain someone', or others mentioned in this thread so far, I'm open to having private emails on that, but I don't want this thread to be all about Estep, but rather the 70 weeks.

I agree with your statements about not having the time to try to figure out all the details, its logical. But I had been in prayer to learn how to counter the tongues and healing movement in order to help get some people close to me out of that nonsense, and a few months later, this 70 weeks theory comes along my path, so I'm looking into it, since they are very much related, and the people in my life I'm concerned about, didn't respond to the usual proofs against that movement...yet.

I owe you a thoughtful response on your voiced concerns, since I know you are doing it out of a sincere loving care for me, your brother, desiring that I not be deceived. Thanks, George. I'll let you stand in front of me in the lineup for the tree of life, and you can hang out in my mansion whenever you like - unless your mansion is even cooler, or unless we'd both rather spend all our 'time'? worshiping our Saviour, for it is Him we are worshiping in our efforts to seek truth here on earth.


Thanks once again, and sorry for the ridiculously long post.
Time for bed!

In Christ,
Brian

Daniel 9
26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27. And he (the prince that shall come) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The Bible says HE (the prince that shall come) is the one confirming the covenant (Daniel 9:27) for one week. That has not happened yet. The one week doesn't start until HE (the prince that shall come) confirms the covenant. John 19:15 isn't a covenant. It takes two to make a covenant and John 19 says nothing about anyone confirming a covenant especially the Roman ruler. If the Jews were making a covenant in John 19, it was broken by Titus in 70 AD. Daniel 9 is very specific about how the 70 weeks are broken out. It says nothing about a starting of, stopping, and then restarting of the 70th week. It does tell us that "in the midst of the week he (the prince that shall come) shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate". Daniel 9:26 says the 69th week ends with Messiah being cut off and the last week doesn't start until he (the prince that shall come) confirms the covenant for one week. That's what the Bible says.

"..confirm the covenant..."

What exactly is "the covenant?"

If you don't mind, I'm interested in comments from everyone here to see what the general understanding might be.

Great idea, Brother George! In dealing with the cults, this will work.

While theologically-coined words may be necessary to describe Bible doctrines, periods, or events, there are times that some doctrinal issue
can easily be settled by using "Bible words". People who believe the same thing may think they differ when actually the issue is not with "Bible doctrine" but with terminology.

I remember some of my school mates in Bible school being confused when one Bible teacher said "Rapture" is the first stage of the "Second Coming", while the other Bible teacher said "Rapture" is not the same as "Second Coming".
View #1: Rapture is the first stage of the second coming. Rapture is Christ's second coming for the church. (The second stage of the second coming is "Revelation".)
View #2: Rapture is NOT second coming. The Rapture is Christ's coming in the air, while the Second Coming is on earth. The first coming of Christ was on earth; therefore, the second coming has to be on earth.

My reply was: well, what is called "Rapture" or "First Stage of the Second Coming" refers to Christ's COMING in the air when he catches the earth up, and what is called "Revelation", "Second Coming", or "Second Stage of the Second Coming" refers to Christ's COMING on earth to set up His kingdom. Both "rapture" and "second coming" are words not found in the Bible, but used to describe two different events. "Coming" is the Bible word.

Both View #1 and View #2 believe the same thing but call them a different way! I see their dispute as an issue of terminology rather than doctrine.

It looks like somebody arguing whether or not a certain four-legged animal is a pig or a swine.:boxing:

It seems plausible to me that the covenant could be:

The unity between the Roman Empire (out of which the Antichrist shall arise) and the Jewish leaders to reject, silence, kill that 'rabble-rouser' who claims to be the King of the Jews, thereby allowing the Jewish religion to cohabitate in 'peace' with the world governing body.
The Jews are responsible for rejecting and having their Messiah killed, but they needed Rome's authority, power and custom to do so.

To this very day ALL the world's false religions exist and grow under authority and sanction (openly or secretively) of that mother of all harlots, Rome, including Judaism.

The conventional view of the covenant is some kind of world-publicized political agreement, something utterly new, whereby the nation of Israel gets exclusive rights to rebuilt and resume their temple practices on the temple mount. We picture a CNN exclusive where Mr. Antichrist and Mr. Top Rabbi shake hands over the cornerstone ceremony. I imagine there will be a fanfare, but I think the legal grounds for it might already have been laid.
I propose that if the alliance happened back in John 19, they may just get their temple rolling right after the translation of the church, or even slightly before. Its a bit of a mystery what exactly will take place immediately following or preceding the translation, in regards to the building of the temple.
Many sources say that they have all the furniture, implements, instruments etc ready to go already. It could go up very quickly, especially if the richest people in the world are behind its construction.

CKG: Thanks for your ideas.
About a covenant needing two parties to make it, they were very much indeed present in Jerusalem during Christ's 'trial'. Rome always wanted their version of peace and control over the Jews. The Roman ruler obviously consented to the desire of the Jewish chief priests to have but one king, Caesar, or else the crucifixion would not have happened by Roman soldier's hands. Granted, Pontius Pilate attempted to sway them and resist it, but was ultimately subject to the rule of his Caesar too.
The spirit of Antichrist was surely present back then, as it is to this day, in fact there are many: 1Jn 2:18, 1Jn 4:3.
As to Titus breaking a covenant in 70 AD, note that 70 AD is after the age of grace had started. (ie: the stopwatch had already paused on the 70th week) What's to say it doesn't get renewed after the translation of the church? No other group has been persecuted more by Rome's influence than the Jews during the last 1900 years, can't argue that, but that's all during the time when the 70th week is paused. Satan has plenty of reasons to persecute the Jew, but I won't get off onto that...

The passage in Daniel is clear when the city would be rebuilt, the messiah cut off, and the covenant being struck. The passage is entirely focused on God dealing with the Jews. There are no pauses in there, I agree, and that is why there was no pause between the end of week 69 and the beginning of week 70. That's what the Bible says.

Now, its generally known that the Old Testament prophets did not really forsee the age of grace. I think Larkin's drawing titled "the Perspective of Prophecy" illustrates that quite well. So, as Daniel was given a prophecy of the 70 weeks as concerning the Jews, and God stopped dealing with the Jews when he converted Paul and sent the gospel to the gentiles, then its entirely plausible that the 70 weeks would have a pause in them that an OT prophet couldn't see.
The only difference of ideas here is did the pause come smack on the line between 69 and 70, or 220 days into the 70th week?
There is a lot of corroborating evidence in the early chapters of Acts to support that the age of grace to the gentile had not yet come about, and that means God was still dealing with the Jews, hence the 70 weeks was still ticking away.
Things like, the message of the gospel being preached (it wasn't by grace through faith alone as it is today). The fact they were only preaching to Jews. The fact that the apostolic signs and wonders were in effect to convince that unbelieving Jew. Paul's rebuking of Peter and the signs to prove to the Jewish apostles that the Holy Spirit had gone to the gentile as well. The dramatic changes that occurred when God stopped dealing with the Jew and went to the gentile.


Well, thanks again CKG for your input, I really appreciate any discussions we can have, and please know, all of you out there, I'm not in this for a debate, but to toss it around enough so that I can know if its true or not. If I counter something someone says, its to try to weigh the evidence, not to argue with the person gracious enough to discuss it with me.

I agree that the matter of the covenant is crucial to this theory, so I'm open to more conversation on that.

In Christ,
~Brian

What the Bible says is:

- from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem shall be seven weeks: : the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
- from the building of Jerusalem to Messiah the Prince shall be threescore and two weeks. After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off
- And he (the prince that shall come) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate

This is not speculation. This is not my interpretation. This what the Bible says. Messiah is cut off after week 69 (seven weeks + threescore and two weeks). Based on what the Bible says week 70 does not begin until he (the prince that shall come) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. Any attempts to fit the confirming of the covenant into John 19 is speculation and pretty wild speculation at that!

Re: "Dr. Greg Estep's Daniel's 70 Weeks"
 

Aloha BornAgainBibleBeliever514,

I appreciate your answer to my Post, and there is no need to apologize for its length. {My Posts tend to get long – I don’t know why!}

I know that this Post is not on the subject of Daniel's “70th week” (and I don't mean to "hijack" the Thread), but my comments are in regards to speculations put forth by Greg Estep. Mr. Estep is full of speculations and “new” doctrines, and it is to these matters I am making my comments.

You stated:
IF God requires that teachers of His word be faithful in teaching it, then there is NO EXCUSE if they teach error, false doctrine, or heresy. Your “100% RULE” Is not only unscriptural, it is also unobtainable! In other words you have set up a “Straw Man” that no one can measure up to, in order to continue to accept some leaven and men who are clearly FALSE TEACHERS or HERETICKS.

“Christians” today may EXCUSE these things, but I will guarantee you that God WILL NOT! [2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.] Any “Christian” teaching error, false doctrine, or heresy will - “be ashamed” and will have to “answer” to God for any false teaching that they have taught.

I have a test for you: I have 640 Posts on this Forum (about 1.60 Posts per day). I figure that, due to the fact that my Posts tend to be looong, there must be somewhere between 1,200 – 2,000 type written pages (8 ½” X 11”) of comments by yours truly. I challenge you to find one false doctrine or heresy in amongst all of those Posts. I am not talking about some thing that I have written that you might personally disagree with – I’m talking about something that I wrote that you can PROVE (by the Holy Scriptures) that it is “FALSE”. You can start with this link: http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3227&postcount=5, - where I list “25 basic Bible precepts” or doctrines, and you can go from there.

The point is simply this – If a man loves God, and if he cherishes God’s word, and if he fears God, and doesn’t want to be “ashamed” at the Judgment Seat Of Christ, he will be “circumspect” about what he teaches, and will strive to teach “pure”, unadulterated Bible “DOCTRINE” {i.e. THE TRUTH}. He will be extremely careful to separate and distinguish between what he “thinks” (theorizes, surmises, speculates, conjectures, or hypothesizes) may “possibly” be true, and what he KNOWS and can PROVE by Scripture to be true!

I learned this “principle” about teaching Scripture back in 1969, and have tried to adhere to it ever since. It’s not that hard to teach pure, unadulterated Bible truth – IF you are concerned with God’s “approval”.

On the other hand, if a man is looking for “a following”; or if he’s trying to dazzle and impress people with some far out religious “speculation” or “conjecture” such as: a “New” Doctrine; an “Exclusive” Revelation; a “Mystery” Religion; or a “Mystical” Approach; then he will not hesitate to “TWIST” and “WREST” the Scriptures and make them say things that they do NOT say (The “modus operandi” of a CULT).

Or if a “preacher” is like most modern day “learned” “bible-schooled” teachers or preachers: who have no fear of God; who manifest a “Superior Attitude” over the “laity”; who exhibit an “Intellectual Approach” in teaching the Bible; who possess a “Pharisaical Character” and/or a “Jealous” and “Envious” Spirit – he will not hesitate to ADD to, SUBTRACT from, and CHANGE the Holy words of God to suit his preconceived notions as to what God’s word REALLY MEANS!

There is no comparison between a genuine “False Teacher” (a “Heretick”), and a “faithful” man, who is called of God, who might be mistaken in his judgment (like Peter or Apollos). And to make a False Teacher “equivalent” or “identical” to a “faithful” man of God is tantamount to saying that there is no difference between “evil” men and “good” men; and placing those men, who are called of God, and who are “faithful” men (“faithful”, as David was in God’s eyes: Acts 13:22; 1 Kings 9:4, 14:7, 15:1-5– NOT without “faults”, as in men’s eyes! ) in the SAME CATEGORY as FALSE TEACHERS and HERETICKS is not only incomprehensible, but demonstrates that there is a lack of “Biblical Discernment” on the part of the person who judges these things to be so.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

“FAITHFUL”, according to the Scriptures does NOT mean: without sin or without faults, i.e. 100% “perfect”, as some Christians “judge” today. (Moses [Numbers 12:7; Hebrews 3:5] and Abraham [Nehemiah 9:8, Galatians 3:9] are said to be “faithful” according to God’s Holy word. Did either one of them “measure up” to the private interpretation of the word “faithful”, held by some Christians today?

Christians are commanded to: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” [John 7:24]. Is it “righteous” to place “faithful” men in the SAME CATEGORY as “False Teachers” and “Hereticks”? I trow not!

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Instead of commenting on each and every one of your points in your post (as is my habit), I will just make a few observations:

#1. I am amazed at the lengths that you will go to either EXCUSE heresy or hereticks, and JUSTIFY their “False Teaching”.

Your statement:
So then, according to your “reasoning”, since you cannot find a “pastor” who is “100% correct”, you will continue to go to men who are clearly false teachers and hereticks for “biblical instruction”; since NO MAN IS 100% CORRECT, and a false teacher or heretick “might have” SOME TRUTH? “A little leaven” DOESN’T REALLY “leaven the whole lump” - is that how it really goes?

Just because a man is NOT 100% “”correct” (WHO IS?), or just because he “doesn’t live it 100%” (WHO DOES?) - That’s NO EXCUSE for HERESY or HERETICKS! Only ONE MAN was ever 100% PERFECT, and the world CRUCIFIED HIM! Your “100% requirement” is both unrealistic and unscriptural. And I might add – sophistical i.e. fallacious!

Your quote:
If you are receiving “the word” from false teachers and hereticks – you aren’t receiving God’s Holy words! The Bereans weren’t dealing with a heretick; they were dealing with an Apostle of God; called of God to preach and teach God’s word – NOT the false teachings of hereticks. Paul wasn’t recommending that Christians get their instruction from just any old false teacher, and then “sift” through the garbage and leaven looking for a “nugget” of truth! Your point about the Bereans going back before Paul was converted and digging up what he believed before hand is both “speculative” and “fallacious”, because Paul PUBLICALLY REPUDIATED EVERYTHING he was, and EVERYTHING that he believed before he was saved [Philippians 3:7-8; ] – has Greg Estep done the SAME for his false doctrines and heresies? I trow not!

1 Timothy 1:12And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Philippians 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

The situation between the Apostle Paul and Greg Estep is so obviously different that it is hardly worth pointing out. However, since you chose to make the comparison between the two men, (as if a false teacher like Estep is worthy to be compared to the FAITHFUL Apostle!) – Let’s compare them, shall we?

The Apostle Paul admitted to being “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious” BEFORE he was converted (i.e. saved) - Greg Estep (by his own mouth i.e. testimony) is “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious” AFTER he has confessed to being saved! The Apostle Paul did those terrible things “in ignorance” Greg Estep has CHOSEN to do many of those same things, despite the fact that he has the Holy Bible for his guide and the Apostle Paul as his example to follow. The Apostle Paul counted everything that he valued before he was saved as “DUNG” – Greg Estep has gone back to the “DUNG” HILL (and has become a Pharisee – the very thing that Paul considered “DUNG”!) {Do I need to repeat the word in the modern vernacular?}

The Apostle Paul did not seek to RULE over the brethren (he was a “helper” to their faith) – Greg Estep has not only CHOSEN to RULE OVER Christians, but his RULE IS DESPOTIC and INJURIOUS to all who have had the misfortune to have attended HIS CHURCH, and also to all those unfortunate Christians who have been UNDER THE RULE of those “pastors” who have chosen to follow him and his pernicious doctrines! There is no comparison between these two men at all. If you had to make a Scriptural comparison between Greg Estep and some famous (or more properly – “infamous”) men in the Bible – he would be much closer to the False Prophet Balaam or King Saul, than he would be to the Apostle Paul - or King David!

Your quote:
Your comparison of Estep to brother Kent Hovind fails, once again, to make the distinction between a man, like brother Hovind, who, I believe, is mistaken in his judgment about how a Christian should obey the laws of mankind; and Greg Estep, who believes that He has REPLACED the Lord Jesus Christ as HEAD of the church of God – there is NO COMPARISON! There’s a whole lot of difference between a brother in Christ who has made a mistake in judgment (We all have been guilty of that, at one time or another.), and a man who is clearly a “false teacher”, i.e. a heretick! {We all are NOT GUILTY of that!} This is called: having "spiritual discernment".

Your quote:
Because, UNLIKE Paul, Greg Estep has never publicly repudiated his false doctrines (and neither have the “pastors” who have chosen to follow him). It’s much easier to “convert” a zealot who sins in “ignorance’, than it is to convert a false teacher or heretick who sins “willfully”!

Because - “That submission thing” is much more than just Christians being in submission to a “pastor” (a mere man), “that submission thing” is claiming that Jesus Christ is NOT THE HEAD of His Own church here on earth – BUT that a man is “THE HEAD” in Christ’s stead! I quote Greg Estep:

Estep states: Do you agree with Estep’s preceding statement? Is this a true or false doctrinal position?

Estep states: Does the Lord Jesus Christ have TWO CHURCHES - ONE in Heaven, of which HE IS THE HEAD; and ONE on earth, of which a “PASTOR” IS THE HEAD? Is this a true or false doctrine?

Estep states: And I contend that the Lord Jesus Christ is THE HEAD OF HIS CHURCH and the ONLY HEAD, because, CONTRARY to Estep’s “extra-biblical” pronouncements, the Holy Bible declares that the Lord Jesus Christ is THE HEAD OF HIS CHURCH despite Greg Estep’s feeble attempts to say otherwise. {Please check out the verses further down in the Post}

Estep states: So, according to Estep, there are not only two churches, but also the so-called “Local church” (of which the “pastor” is THE HEAD) is NOT REALLY a church at all – “IT’S A TYPE!”; It’s a picture of the, of the spiritual body of Jesus Christ, the spiritual church”! So what does that make a “pastor”- “A TYPE OF CHRIST”? You see the mess you get into when you MESS with God’s Holy words? Once you start down the road to apostasy – there’s no turning back. You have to continually ADD false teaching upon false teaching; heresy upon heresy – it's “leaven” without end.

Estep states: Have you ever, in your whole life (as a Christian), heard such “tripe”; such “garbage”; such perverse “trash”; such blasphemous “gobildy gook”; such “convoluted reasoning” in all of you life? (It’s kind of like Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is”) This teaching is pure BLASPHEMY! Why would anyone go to this man for ANY Bible instruction?

Estep states: According to the Holy Scriptures The Lord Jesus Christ IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH (“Local” or otherwise):

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Mark 12:10And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

Luke 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?

Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Ephesians 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Colossians 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

1Peter 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

Estep isn’t promoting just one single heresy (although “one” would be enough for genuine Bible believers to reject him and his heresy). Greg Estep is promoting MULTIPLE HERESIES - And we have 50 type written pages proving it, and you make a general comment like: “I agree there could be some bent toward excessive pastoral authority,” {Are you kidding? Can you name just ONE HERESY that is more egregious or more perverse than claiming that The Lord Jesus Christ: “IS NOT THE HEAD OF THE LOCALCHURCH.”? Or that a “Christian” (a mere man) can say without conscience: “I AM THE CHIEF SHEPHERD HERE!”

IF you can think of ANY HERESY that EXCEEDS in offending the Lord Jesus Christ, or SUCCEEDS in ABROGATING His relationship with an individual believer, I’d like to here it! IF you can come up with ANY HERESY that is as successful in URSUPING the Lord Jesus Christ’s rightful place in HIS CHURCH (which He purchased with His blood), please let me know. {Remember what “Lucifer’s “original SIN was? He wanted to USURP God’s rightful place in God’s Kingdom!}

This is what happens when men look to other men (who they don’t know) for their spiritual teaching, knowledge, discernment, and understanding. If you hadn’t referred to Greg Estep (Excuse me: “DR.” Greg Estep – I wonder WHERE he got his “doctorate” from? Hmmm?), as if he were some kind of “learned” Bible teacher, I wouldn’t be exposing him (again) for the False Teacher and Heretick that he is. However, I cannot sit idly by while someone on this Forum recommends a man, whom I know to be teaching false doctrine, and whom I have had to deal with the “FRUIT’ of that pernicious doctrine for over 25 years,

Your comment:
{Well I do "know"! Why don’t you point out some of the specific “comments” that “might have been taken out of context”? Generalizations are for Politicians – like our current President.}

If you are “suggesting” that “maybe” Estep has had a “change of mind” and has repudiated his heresies, then it would behoove you to “check it out” (like a good Berean), and not just “postulate a possibility” that “maybe” he changed his mind!

Out of the 640 Posts I have made on this Forum only 10 have been in regards to Greg Estep and/or his pernicious doctrines. Each time I have mentioned him has been in reply to someone on the Forum recommending him or his doctrine, that amounts to just a little over 1% of my total Posts. The following links are all of the Posts that I have made in regards to Estep:

11-03-2008 - In reply to Atlas:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...3&postcount=35

11-04-2008 - In reply to aussiemama:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...5&postcount=52

11-05-2008 - In reply to aussiemama:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...0&postcount=55

11-07-2008 - In reply to brother Tim:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...0&postcount=67

11-09-2008 - In reply to Atlas:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...9&postcount=82

11-09-2008 - In reply to Atlas:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...4&postcount=91

11-10-2008 - In reply to Atlas:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...9&postcount=97

In reply to MC1171611 & Atlas:
11-10-2008,
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...&postcount=113

If you will notice, all of those Posts were made in about one week’s time; and I haven’t said anything for nearly four months until your comments about “Dr.” Greg Estep. The following two links are the Posts that I made in regards to those comments, etc.:

04-02-2009 - In reply to your recommending Estep’s 70 Week “Theory”:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...0&postcount=12

04-03-2009 – In reply to your recommending Estep’s 70 Week “Theory”:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...1&postcount=15

Please take note: Each time, I haven’t been the one, who has brought up Greg Estep’s name or his heresies (not once!). What I have done is when his name has come up (either in the context of someone recommending him, or one of his doctrines); I have warned people that they are recommending a man who is a proven false teacher and a heretick. I have a duty to warn the brethren about such men for God will hold me responsible if I don’t!

Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

This is HOW every church (from the Apostles time up to the present) has become corrupted and gone apostate, and become reprobate. It always starts in the “leadership”, and it’s always a willingness (on the part of Christians) to tolerate just a “little” leaven, There have been no exceptions! What would you have me to do – knowing what I do? Should I let the mention of a false teacher and heretick, and the recommendation of “some” of his doctrine go unchallenged? I trow not!

Where you took the time to answer many of my points, I find a very curious thing. I don’t know if I ever have had someone agree so much with me – and yet in the end - disagree! Personally, I don’t know how you do it?

Some of your quotes:
I’m sorry, but I won't "need" the tree of life - I ALREADY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, I have already partaken of “THE BREAD OF LIFE”!

Brother BABB514, you seem to be a pleasant fellow, but by your own admission, you have been duped in the past (i.e. as a member of a “Christian Rock Band” only 12 years ago). I have been a Christian for over 50 years and all during that time I never have “bought into” the various cults (Mormonism; Seventh-Day Adventism; Jehovahs Witnesses; Church of Christ; etc. – by the way, have you noticed that most of the cults have their origin in America?) I never embraced Pentecostalism; Calvinism; Hyper-Dispensationalism; “Christian Patriotism; “Estepism”; or any other “ism”. I NEVER used any other “bible” other than the King James Bible for all of those 50 years - although I didn’t come to the realization that the King James Bible was God’s perfect, Holy, inspired word of God without error until 1968 – 1969.

I’m not saying I am perfect – I’m far from it! And I’m not saying that I have never been wrong or mistaken, because I have been at times. But there has never been a time in my life where I have embraced false doctrine or heresy, or ever wanted to be a member of a “Christian” Rock Band (not once). I guess you might say that although I am imperfect, I have at least been “prudent” when it comes to embracing false teaching and doctrine.

Many different "kinds" of "Christians" from many different backgrounds (yourself included) have joined this Forum, and many of these people have come out of all kinds of false cults and corrupt churches. They have a whole lot of “baggage” and sometimes even “garbage”, which they may not have “jettisoned” completely; and not only that, but our country has become a nation of Humanists and Sophists, and much of our “Humanistic culture” has crept into the churches and into “Christian” doctrine. Because of the pervasiveness of Humanism in our culture - today's Christians are far more "inclined" to compromise Biblical principles and precepts than at any time in the history of the church of God. Your “curiosity” and “interest” in Prophesy is an “intellectual exercise” of the mind to satisfy your inquisitiveness; but an inquiring mind, is not the same as a heartfelt search for the truth.

In these last days, Christians should be concentrating on those things which are edifying to one another, and which are profitable to the hearer. You and I are never going to be able to work out all of the mysteries of God concerning the Translation of the church of God; the Great Tribulation; the Second Coming; the Millennial Reign of Christ; and the New Heavens & the New Earth. These things may be of some interest, and we may be “curious” about all of the details concerning these events, but what “profit” is to be derived from an inquiring mind?

I challenge you to go through all of the letters of Paul, and see how much time he spent on these matters of curiosity (i.e. creation, prophecy, etc.), and how much time he spent on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ; and on His Holy word; and on Christian Conduct – what I call “the Weightier Matters”. If we are to “follow” Paul, and he said we should, [1 Corinthians 4:16, 11:1; Philippians 3:17; 2 Thessalonians 3;7-9] then don’t you think that we should be majoring in those things that he concentrated writing on and have the Lord Jesus Christ satisfy our inquisitiveness on these curious matters of interest when we see Him face to face?

This Post is not meant to castigate or demean you, but I get weary of dealing with Christians who make "excuses" for false teachers and have a high "tolerance" for false doctrine. I would advise you to stop looking to men for your understanding of Scripture, and instead get into The Book itself. And above all I would be real careful as to WHO you recommend from here on out.

2 Corinthians 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

I have never heard of Greg Estep and I dont really follow any "celebrity" Christian, but reading the snippets of his quotes from what Brother George posted I would turn on my heels and flee from a Church where the pastor elevated himself above my Lord & Saviour, not stick around to see what else he twists. Some men need to learn to FEAR God.

Proverbs 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
Proverbs 15:33 The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility.

I have the greatest teacher indwelling me and If I ask I receive if its HIS will for ME to learn.
Will the Lord be glorified by figuring out the things he has already purposed? or will he be glorified in the edification of his Body.
2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
2 Timothy 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Sigh! People of the way:

I don't follow any men either, and I've already stated a bunch that I'm not following Estep, but if you actually took the time to listen to the sermon, you would find it is nothing at all like the thing George posted.
Also, I'm not sure when the tapes George reviewed were done, but given they were on audio cassette, I can only assume they are pretty old. As far as I can tell this Daniel's 70 weeks was done in 2006.
Plus, I'm still a little dubious about George's assessment, it seems a bit over critical, and the context cannot be verified. One can vilify someone by taking snippets here and there. Not to say George is lying or misquoting, but the point is I never recommended him nor the submission tapes. I ONLY wanted to discuss the CONTENT of the 70 week time line theory.

And for goodness sake, I've made it quite clear I'm not here to talk about Estep, but rather the theory he put forward. If one of the favored pastors put it forward, you'd all gobble it up, or at least give it a listen and a fair analysis.
Instead its only been met which character assasination from ONE viewpoint (plus George's co-reviewer) of something that you don't know if Estep has changed since then.

How come nobody has even commented on the actual theory? *with the exception of CKG.
Someone posted on here a video of a black pastor talking about the Jews. I pointed out he was a charismatic, but that was shushed because he had a love for the Jews.
Since I believe that Ruckman is flat wrong about the gap theory, should I dismiss everything he's ever said as heretical?
Or if a teacher said something 20 years ago that was wrong, but 20 years later is saying something right, am I to cut off my nose to spite my face and miss out on something good?



George - WHOA!!! its going to take me a while to read, and then address everything you wrote there (like, an entire day!)
But honestly, I'm getting quite disheartened that everyone is focusing on Estep, when the ONLY reason his name is even here, is because he's the first place I heard of the Daniel's 70 week theory, and I used his sermon as a reference to discuss the content of the sermon. And even if he was in error about one thing years ago, that is quite unrelated to the 70 weeks time line now, does that automatically disqualify the theory?
Arg!!! I don't really care about Estep, I just want to know if the facts he presents are true, because they sure made a lot of sense to me, regardless of WHO said it.

I guess you are all missing that.

I've presented some very good points about the theory, which nobody really addressed, except CKG. instead everyone is labeling me a man-follower, or that I recommend hereticks, when I've done nothing of the sort, and frankly it hurts and is wasting time.
I just want to discuss the 70 weeks. I regret using his name in the thread title, perhaps had I not referenced an audio file I came across that clearly explains the 70 week position, and only posted a 10,000 word post to explain it out myself, we could have avoided this snafu.
Like, if I quoted a TIME magazine article saying something that was Biblically true, would the truth of it be disqualified because TIME is a media outlet for the NWO?

George, I just skimmed your post, and I'll have to respond to it tomorrow.
I'm forced to work tomorrow, and will be starting an hour earlier, but I should have the time to complete a response.
I'm going to have to start this thread over again if I want any answers on Daniel's 70 weeks.

As discouraged as I am about not being able to explain myself clear enough here in this forum, I am still appreciative of all your time in attempting to converse with me.

Please be patient, as I am trying to be as well.

In Christ,
~Brian.

Brother the is no need to "Sigh" I never said that YOU were a man follower, if you re-read my posts I was stating that I would never listen to anything (theories or otherwise) from a man who claimed he was the head of HIS Church over Christ. I wont reply regarding the 70 weeks, I believe what I have read in scriptures and confirmed by the Holy Ghost as truth. If something I read or hear dosent ring true to me I search the scriptures and study to show my self approved Onto GOD for the truth and do you know what Brother my Lord never fails me when I ask in all sincerity and truth.
I used to listen to sermons from a whole lot of different preachers and teachers and the more I listened to each individual and their pet doctrines the more confused and disheartened I became with the subjects. So prayerfully one day I sat on the end of my Bed with my Bible in my hands and asked the Lord from that point on to show me truth irrelevant of its consequence through his Holy Written word.

Psalms 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

The GREATEST teacher we can and will EVER have just waits on us asking his direction and delights when we do.
John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

And if we are led by Gods spirit then we can produce the truth in our lives
Ephesians 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth; )

I urge you Brother DONT listen to sermons, dont read other authors (doctrines, theology) even if only for a couple of weeks and soley and prayerfully depend on and read God and I guarantee that you will be blessed with a refreshed pair of eyes toward his Holy Word and a renewed truth within you.

1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1 Corinthians 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

PS Brother using the acronym SNAFU in regards to the post isn't particularly fitting to a Christian Bible believing forum, considering its meaning.

OK, I shouldn't have used the word snafu, I didn't even really know what it stood for until I googled it just now. Its something I always heard my mom say, and I didn't know it was vulgar until 2 minutes ago. Considering I don't use vulgar language at all in my life, that's one more term I will delete from my vocabulary.
Thanks for calling my attention to that, I honestly had no clue what it literally meant, only the connotation my mom had used it in. :doh:


I too, have sincerely asked the Lord to reveal to me His truth from the Book. I too have its author inside me. I've learned much from His guidance in the Book, and the Book IS my final authority. I've also had various preachers highlight things I hadn't seen before, and they turned out to be 100% true. Even if I initially hear something from a man, I will only believe it if the Book supports it.


I came across a sermon a good church friend of mine (IFBBB) handed me on CD, and I listened to it, not knowing anything about Estep's past. What I heard on that sermon alone included absolutely nothing about headship usurpation. If I had heard a blatant heresy, I would have rejected it, but I didn't hear anything except a good study on the 70 weeks, which motivated me to study this topic more carefully.
The reason I sigh is because everyone is all over me for referencing this guy's sermon, and asking for a discussion on the CONTENT of THAT sermon, NOT the guy.
People are implying that I condone hereticks, advocate Estepism?, that I seek truth from men alone, and that I want to wrest scripture for some agenda.
The reason it hurts me is because nobody is willing to look at the evidence put forward about the 70 weeks, but rather get their hackles up over Estep and paint me out to be heretical for asking questions about his viewpoint on the 70 weeks.


Its interesting that you brought up Apollos:

1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1 Corinthians 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

Paul planted (inspired), Apollos watered (not inspired), but God gave the increase.
Its also very interesting to note that Apollos was an heretick before he got straightened out, and THEN God used him for great things.

If Estep was making heretical statements in the sermon I heard, then I would have already rejected it. But the 70 weeks have nothing at all to do with the submission thing, which was probably done many years before the 70 weeks. Why then can't we learn something about the 70 weeks by comparing scripture with scripture?

For the record, I resolutely beleive that headship usurpation over the church is blasphemous, and I would never allow a Nicolaitan to rule over me.
I don't condone leaven, I don't accept heresy, I don't promote any man as being above the Word of God.

I truely love God and the Book He gave us, and I just want to learn more about it. I do my daily devotions, my study time, my prayer time, continual prayer throughout the day, soul-winning, fellowship, church services throughout the week, Bible study group, and I do all these with a sincere desire to be led and used by God for His will. I'm sure I don't know everything, and that's why I seek to learn. I heard a good explanation of Daniel's 70 weeks, I wanted to learn more. I brought it to this congregation on the forum, hoping to share and receive about this topic from other brothers who love the Word as I do.
I know that prophecy isn't as important as salvation, seperation or edification, but if He put it in the Book, then its profitable. It doesn't overshadow my other areas of growth.

Anyways, it was busy today at work after all, George, I'll get to your post tonight, if I can find some extra time.

In Christ,
~Brian.

Don't sweat it, Brian, this isn't the first time this sort of thing happened around here. Keep pushing the prophecy and ignore the other jangling. Maybe you'll get somewhere with it.

I believe (with good reason) Estep is wrong in his teaching here, yet I've been laying low, monitering this one, waiting to see if anyone digs into this most allusive "final week." Try to keep in on subject.

Thanks Pbiwolski,

I could use the encouragement. But even I don't consider the other's remarks as janglings, they all make very good points towards someone promoting a heresy, or an heretick, and I know they are only doing so for my sake. Its just that I think they are mistaken where I'm coming from.

I'm going to try to sit down and write out the entire theory with scriptures, then eventually perhaps start another thread, so we can discuss the theory, not the man.

Anyways, if you think the teaching is wrong, please show me why, that is after all, what I'm looking for.

Thanks again,
In Christ,
~Brian.

Brother I don't think Apollos was a heretic, he simply hadn't heard the Gospel As he was preaching the Baptism of John. He was a "learned man," "mighty in the scriptures," "fervent in spirit," "instructed in the way of the Lord" but his teaching was incomplete until he was given the Gospel by Priscilla and Aquila

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject

Judging by his preaching In Achaia and Paul desiring him to come unto the Church at Corinth I would say that he wasn't a Heretic as he hadn't been rejected, simply put straight on the Gospel of Grace.


Ill say no more on the subject Brother as Its not a theory I agree with either, but It is NOT jangling on my Part.

If a person doesn't want to listen to or read behind others I would say they certainly have the liberty to do so, but I have been greatly helped by reading behind or listening to other preachers and teachers.

Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; (Romans 12:6-7)

Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ((2 Timothy 2:1-2)

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; (2 Timothy 4:1-3)

But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; (Titus 2:1-3)

I realize, especially with the advent of the internet, people must be discerning with whom they read behind or listen to which is where Acts 17:11 comes in;

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

I would be willing to say there are probably very few people who read or post to this forum who haven't been helped in their understanding of the Bible by lisitening to or reading behind someone else. I am very thankful for the many men got has raised up who have helped me in learning to rightly divide the word of truth, yet I realize I have the responsibility to take God's Word and check them out. Our American society is built around putting people (athletes, musicians, actors, ...etc) on a pedestal to the point this man-worship attitude has spilt over into the church. I don't think I've ever read behind or listened to anyone that eventually I didn't find something I disagreed with them on. Like so many areas there is a balance here; thank God for the preachers and teachers He raises up, but always check them out with THE Bible.

Note I pointed out I don't consider anything jangling, including your posts.

Point about Apollos is that his teaching was deficient until he was shown otherwise. Why can't that possibly happen to anyone else, even Estep?
For his sake, I hope it has in the many years since the usurpation thing. I found no evidence of heresy in the 70 week timeline. If its there, I'd like someone to show it. So far folks are all keeping mum, as far as I can tell simply because we've all heard a thousand times that there will be 7 full years of trib after the rapture. But what if the evidence indicates its only 6.38?

This weekend I'm going to try to start compiling the scriptures for this. Perhaps its my lack of presenting it clear enough for people to comment on without a bias, but from the scriptures alone.

I'm still thankful that you folks are taking the time to post to me.

In Christ,
~Brian

CKG: Amen and Amen!

Now that is making sense, and echos where I am coming from. I never even heard about rightly dividing the word of truth or dispensationalism until two years ago. I could have heard about it from PBI or a crackpot on the street, doesn't matter, I heard about it, and I sought out the truth from God and His Book myself.

For goodness' sake, I hope people understand I'm just interested in the scriptures on this matter. I'm not an Estep follower / promoter / disciple / whatever, I just referenced something he put on audio to be discussed, in case they wanted the details I hadn't put into text yet.
I'm afraid people are misconstruing me and I might be headed to a banning, for the wrong reasons.

Anyways, I will try to do my homework and prepare an actual outline for this thing, so we can focus on the Book instead of some guy.
I read all the other threads, usually silently, but this is something that intruiged me, and I wanted to discuss it. I only know one other person I can talk to about this face-to-face, with enough Bible knowledge and willingness to talk about it, so I reached out to the forum family.

George, I'm still going to respond to your post. All these other ones are shorter , heheh.

Re: "Dr. Greg Estep's Daniel's 70 Weeks"
 

Aloha BornAgainBibleBeliever,

I intend for this to be my last Post in regards to Greg Estep and his Heresy on this Thread. I am going to put into "chronological order" what transpired, and that has caused so much concern and comments from me.

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Thread:
Post #1 - 03-24-2009
Your description of Greg Estep (a man who you don’t know) is both “POSITIVE” and “ENTHUSIASTIC”. And you made the “assumption” that he is a “solid Bible believer” - just like many of us on this Forum. This is the PROBLEM with endorsing or recommending a man, or “Bible” material (sermons, videos, books, etc.) from people you don’t know - someone out their might know something about them which will prove that they are, in fact, NOT “solid Bible believers” at all!

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Post #3 - 03-25-2009
BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Post #5 - 03-25-2009
BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Post #6 - 04-01-2009
Please Notice: You first Posted on (Post #1) 03-24-2009. I Posted (Post #7) about one week later and only after you kept “gushing on” about:

“a truly amazing sermon set by Dr. Greg Estep, who is a KJO Dispensationalist”; “I'm quite blown away with the sermons”; “his delivery is much like Gipp's, so he's almost fun to listen to.”; “this incredible teaching”; my discernment is giving me a bright green light on this one”; “Its quite a good listen”; “Its like he's trying to pour a lake through a handheld funnel!”; ”This was the most revolutionary sermon I'd heard in a long time, thought others might enjoy too.”

For one week I sat and read your comments about this man (Greg Estep) and his “revolutionary sermon”, etc., and your complimentary remarks – thinking: BABB has NO IDEA WHO he is recommending. You said: “I'd like to get some more input on the things he presents from other solid Bible believers.” You wanted input from “OTHER” SOLID BIBLE BELIEVERS”, which meant that you believed that Greg Estep IS a “Solid Bible Believer”. I could forbear no longer!

My reply (My Post #7) was extremely short (especially for me) and to the point. I didn’t “smear” Greg Estep, and I didn’t get into a scathing denunciation of him or his pernicious doctrine (NOT YET!) - I just directed any one who might be interested, to a 50 page “critique” of “DR.” Greg Estep’s “revolutionary” teaching on “The Doctrine of Submission”. My Post #7 follows:

George’s Post (I added some bold and underlines for emphasis – G.A.):
Post #7 - 04-01-2009
It was only after your anemic reply to our “critique”, and the admission that you hadn’t read it all, that I began to be a bit more “hard-nosed” about Estep, and his pernicious doctrine.

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Part of your reply:
Post #10 - 04-02-2009
BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Post #14 - 04-02-2009{Bold added by G.A. for emphasis.}
Don’t you notice how you will “agree” with something that I have said, and in the very next instance you throw in a big BUT or “However”? Whenever people do this, they “cancel” and make of “non-effect” everything they said before hand. “BUT” = on the contrary; except for; with reservations; etc. Which means (when you have used it) that you really don’t “agree” with me at all, but are just trying to be polite, or whatever.

It would be far better to disagree with me (that’s not only your right, it is also your prerogative) than “agree” to something I have said, and then in the next breath “disannul” what you just said (your “agreeing”) by the use of “BUT” or “HOWEVER”, and throwing in your “exception” to what I just said. It’s all very confusing to simple minded people like myself, because I really can’t tell (for sure) whether you do “agree” or not.

My Post #15 (too long to duplicate here) followed your comments made in your Post #14. You will notice that I took some of the statements you made (and quoted them first) and then commented on them. That is, I didn’t deal in “generalities” or “innuendo”, I specifically dealt with your statements by making specific comments about them; NOT - “some of the other comments seem like they might have been taken out of context, I dunno”. Your statement is a “generality” – designed to cast doubt on the veracity of what we presented, without ever producing any “FACTS” to back up the innuendo. General statements about issues only gender doubt, and never prove a thing. Generalities”, innuendo, insinuation, and intimation cast aspersions on people or what they say or write, without actually making any direct charges against them. These kind of “tactics” are used by Humanists and Sophists when they engage in discussion or debate.

Today’s Politicians and modern day “preachers” are MASTERS in the use of these “tactics” or “devices”. I don’t deal in “generalities” or “innuendo” – I deal with specific issues and matters, and speak (or write) specifically to them. And that is why people (today) take offense at many of the things that I say, because I don’t “beat around the bush”.

Truth saying today is NOT popular, Political Correctness (PC) is! I refuse to be intimidated by those people (lost or saved) who “think” that it is “cruel” or “hard” to speak the truth. I have been accused by some people on the Forum of engaging in “diatribes”, “cruel denunciations”, “railing”, “vilifying”, and even “persecuting”. Their have been people here who have said that I am “heartless” and use “cruel words”, etc. – all because I am "BLUNT"; and I speak “PLAIN”; and refuse to engage in Political Correctness or guile.

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Post #18 - 04-05-2009
Are those Christians that believe and teach about “The Gap” - HERETICKS? Is brother Chette Nichols a “HERETICK” for believing in, and defending “The Gap”? Because brother Peter Ruckman believes in and teaches about “The Gap”, does that make him a “HERETICK”? EQUIVOCATION is a sign of either little or NO “DISCERNMENT” or a deliberate attempt to “blur the lines” between good & evil; between right & wrong; and between a “Faithful” man of God (who’s judgment about a scriptural issue is questioned by you & others) and a man who, clearly and beyond any shadow of doubt, is teaching HERESY.

There is no Scriptural basis for equating “The Gap” (a doctrine that has been debated by sincere Christians for well over 100 years – and I might add, still NOT SETTLED!) and the so-called “Doctrine of Submission”, which, if ANY genuine Bible believer were to examine in depth, is found to be one of the most pernicious and destructive HERESIES of all time! To “equate” the two doctrines is like comparing a full course meal to “PIG SLOP”!

WHY do Christians make these kinds of “judgments” today? Have you NO DISCERNMENT? There is a difference between a doctrine that is “debatable” and a doctrine that is a FULL BLOWN HERESY. The two are NOT THE SAME! And neither are these two men (Ruckman & Estep) THE SAME! The one man is a “Faithful” man of God (who at worst may be mistaken), and the other, is a man who “THINKS”, and “BELIEVES”, and “TEACHES” that he has the “right” and “authority” to REPLACE the Lord Jesus Christ in His own Church!

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Post #18 - 04-05-2009 (continued)
Your “reasoning” above is flawed, simply because all genuine Bible believers “KNOW” that Billy Graham has apostatized – by his words and actions. You DON’T KNOW ANYTHING about Greg Estep (or the destructive effect his pernicious doctrine has had on Christians) other than one of his sermons “appealed” to your CURIOSITY, and you “THINK” that he “might” be right about an issue of so little importance to genuine Bible believers that only two people took the time to address it. (And CKG’s opinion about Estep’s “THEORY”: “Any attempts to fit the confirming of the covenant into John 19 is speculation and pretty wild speculation at that!”

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Post #27 - 04-09-2009
Your last Post (#27) is “CLASSIC”. My friend Ed Burch and I spent months transcribing these heretical tapes and crafting our response to them, and what do you have to say? “I'm still a little dubious about George's assessment”; and “the context cannot be verified”; and “One can vilify someone by taking snippets here and there”.

WHY DON’T YOU JUST COME OUT AND SAY WHAT YOU ARE “IMPLYING”? Your carefully crafted (PC) defense (in anticipation of my charge): “Not to say George is lying or misquoting”; BUT that is just exactly what you IMPLIED! Innuendo, insinuation, and intimation is what Sophists (University Professors, Politicians, and “preachers”, etc.) resort to – NOT genuine Bible believers!

Let’s take each of your “intimations”, one by one shall we?

#1. “I'm still a little dubious about George's assessment”. In anticipation of such a charge – Ed Burch and I made up Three (3) different “papers” on Estep’s so-called “Doctrine of Submission”.

• One “Critique” with ALL of our comments, which equals 52 type written pages.

• One “Critique” with SOME of our comments, which equals 35 type written pages.

• One “paper” with SELECTED QUOTES from Estep – WITHOUT any of our comments, which equals 9 type written pages.

If you are concerned about “George’s assessment” why not just read Estep’s “quotes” WITHOUT OUR COMMENTS – if you are so concerned that my comments may not be appropriate?

#2. “the context cannot be verified”. If that doesn’t call into question – our honesty and integrity, then I don’t know what “innuendo” or “intimation” is when I see it! :( We spent months carefully and with all fidelity transcribing the exact words spoken by Greg Estep (about six hours of taped sermons or "lessons"). If you don’t want to believe that we were “circumspect” in our labors, there is really nothing I can do (except, since you have brought the subject up, I might take those tapes and put them on CD’s – just to shut the mouths of the “gainsayers”).

#3. “One can vilify someone by taking snippets here and there”. Are you “accusing” me of “vilifying” Greg Estep? IF Ed Burch and I were honest in faithfully transcribing a good portion of Greg Estep’s Four Tape Series on the so-called “Doctrine of Submission”, then our “Critique” of his pernicious doctrine is both accurate and true – if NOT, Almighty God will judge us for our dishonesty and maliciousness. IF, on the other hand, we were “faithful” in our transcribing; and in our presentation; and in our comments; then we will be found “faithful” servants of God – warning the brethren about a “WOLF” in or midst. I will leave it up to those people who will take the time read ALL of our “Critique”, as to whether we have UNFAIRLY “misrepresented” what Estep said; or whether we took what he said “out of context”; or whether we “vilified” an innocent man and are found to be liars, railers, and false accusers.

You see, it’s so much easier to speak PLAINLY than to “cloak” accusations in Innuendo, insinuation, and intimation. When a man speaks BLUNTLY, it’s very hard for others to mistake WHAT he is saying. They may not “like” what he is saying, but there is no mistaking his “meaning”.

The other day brother Luke asked: “Where have all the real men gone”? There are a few of us left, but time (age); and Political Correctness (PC); and the pressure to “conform” to this world (HUMANISM); and the temptation to “compromise” (to get along) is taking its toll on old, crusty curmudgeons. There may come a day, when there may not be any of us left to point fingers at and accuse of being heartless, unloving, judgmental, and just plain "mean". I wonder WHO the nice, sweet, gentle and non-judgmental Christians will point their fingers at then? Hmmm?

The Bible is clear, as to what we are to do with HERETICS. There are NO IFS – ANDS – OR BUTS!

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

You have the Christian liberty to CHOOSE to IGNORE this Bible Command; you can continue look for NUGGETS from False Teachers and Hereticks (after all: “ISN’T ALL TRUTH, GOD’S TRUTH” – No matter WHO it comes from?); you have the freedom to “think” whatever you want to “think” about me (we still have some freedom left in America); but I have warned you (and others) about this man and his pernicious doctrine. It’s now up to you, as to what you do with this information. I have done my duty, and I am free of “the blood” of any man (or woman) on this Forum, as far as Greg Estep (or his “Doctrine of Submission”) is concerned.

This is NOT a “personal matter” with me – it’s a matter of “WHAT IS TRUTH”? The Lord Jesus Christ said: “Thy word is truth”. If it is the “TRUTH” (and I say that not doubting), then we ought to LOVE IT; DESIRE IT; STUDY IT; and OBEY IT; and leave men and their “traditions” and their “doctrines” for others to: “chew the meat and spit out the bones as it were.”

If those things that I have presented here are mere "janglings" and of little or no importance, then all of the "speculation", "conjecture", "hypothesis", "suppositions" and "THEORIES" about Daniel's 70 weeks are just an "exercise in futility"; since a man's CURIOSITY about some aspect of prophecy doesn't begin to measure up to the importance of WHO we accept as BIBLE "teachers" and WHAT (the substance) they teach. [Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.]

Job 23:12 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.

Job 22:22 Receive, I pray thee, the law from his mouth, and lay up his words in thine heart.

WOW George, wow.



I'm going to have to pray and sleep before I can possibly answer you.

Re: " Dr. Greg Estep's Daniel's 70 Weeks"
 

BornAgainBibleBeliever,

In regards to your Post #29:

Your Quote:
Your statement: “Paul planted (inspired), Apollos watered (not inspired),” demonstrates (once again) that you have very little spiritual discernment. First of all - you just ADDED “words” to the Holy words of God, i.e. the words - “inspired” and “not inspired”!

Your “private interpretation” of these verses is a gross misunderstanding of what Paul was saying. Have you ever done any Gardening (“husbandry”)? Paul said that he (Paul) “PLANTED” (the churches - God’s “husbandry”, in the Mediterranean area); and that Apollos “WATERED” (the churches - God’s “husbandry”, in the Mediterranean area). There is nothing said about Apollos “not” being “inspired” (i.e. “not inspired”). Paul was describing TWO DIFFERENT JOBS done by TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF WORKMEN (“labourers”). (PLANTING & WATERING!)

Read the verses in the context – don’t take my word for it:

{Both Paul and Apollos are “MINISTERS”. Both men were called of God. – NOT just Paul! Both men were called of God to do DIFFERENT JOBS, but they were BOTH MINISTERS OF GOD.}

{Read the Book of Acts – Paul “PLANTED” all of the early churches - God’s “husbandry”, in the Gentile world in the Mediterranean area, Apollos came along AFTER and “WATERED” them. It’s that “simple”.}

{Paul establishes the fact that the missionary, evangelist, and preacher ARE NOTHING! IT’S ALL ABOUT GOD! The labourer (Paul) who “PLANTED” isn’t anything, and neither is the labourer (Apollos) who “WATERED” anything. It (the church) is God’s Garden (i.e. “husbandry”) – NOT theirs! The teaching is clear: God’s “husbandry” (His church) belongs to Him – NOT the MINISTER (i.e. “labourer!”}

{NOTICE: BOTH “he that “PLANTETH” and he that WATERETH are ONE! Where does “inspired” & “not inspired” come into the equation? Both Paul and Apollos are labourers “working for God” in God’s Garden (i.e. His church) – they are both said to be ONE! The Scriptures don’t say anything about one of them (Paul) being “inspired” and the other one (Apollos) “not inspired”. That’s your “private interpretation”, which has absolutely nothing to do with what God is teaching here in these verses. You just ADDED to the Holy words of God in order to “make sense” out of God’s Holy word!}

{Paul clearly and distinctly says that WE (BOTH Paul & Apollos) are labourers TOGETHER WITH GOD! The testimony of Scripture is so clear: BOTH Paul & Apollos are working TOGETHER – “WITH GOD”. WHY would you “think” that One of them (Paul) was “inspired” and the other one (Apollos) was “not inspired”? WHERE would you get such an idea? It couldn’t possibly be one of the “preaching tapes” that you’ve been listening to, could it? NOTICE TOO: That Paul SWITCHES from using “husbandry” as a “SIMILE” to explain the difference between his job and Apollos’ and he now begins to use “carpentry” (building/construction) to further explain his ministry, (and those that may “build” upon his foundation) in terms that ordinary people could understand (at least back then). I was a carpenter/builder for over 25 years, and I have done a whole lot of farming (wet land, dry land, hydroponic, sprouting, etc.) The words that Paul is speaking here have special meaning to me since I have participated in all of these activities.}

{Paul is the “masterbuilder” (of the church). He “laid the foundation (of the church); and if “another” – (Apollos or anyone else) “buildeth thereon”, they had better be careful HOW they “buildeth thereupon”. God called the “masterbuilder” (Paul) to lay the foundation for the church/ Anyone who built upon that “foundation” better “take heed”!}

{So, if “another” comes along and claims that there is “another foundation” (like the "pastor" is the "HEAD")– other than Jesus Christ – You can be absolutely sure that they are not following the “foundation” that the “masterbuilder” (Paul) laid, and you can know for sure, that they aren’t working for God, because - “ALL HIS WORKS ARE DONE IN TRUTH.” Psalms 33:4}

{The “any man” in the verse is specifically talking about men (“any man”) that are called of God to “build” upon Paul’s “foundation”, i.e. ministers, labourers, workers.}

{The “every man”, in the context, is still talking about God’s workers, i.e. those who are called of God to “build” upon Paul’s “foundation”.}

{The “any man”, in the context, is still talking about God’s workers, i.e. those who are called of God to “build” upon Paul’s “foundation”.}

{Paul is still speaking about “any man”, in the context, he is still talking about God’s workers, i.e. those who are called of God to “build” upon Paul’s “foundation”.}

{The “YE” in the context is the church. The church is “the temple of God. The Spirit of God dwelleth in the church. “YE” & “YOU” are always plural pronouns in the King James Bible.}

{The “any man”, in the context, is still talking about God’s workers, i.e. those who are called of God to “build” upon Paul’s “foundation”. NOTICE THE SEVERITY OF THE OFFENSE OF DEFILING THE TEMPLE (i.e. the church) OF GOD! Those men (“any man”) who DEFILE “the temple (i.e. the church) of God”, him shall God DESTROY”! WHY? Because “the temple (i.e. the church) of God is HOLY! Perhaps now you can understand WHY I get so upset with “false teachers” and hereticks. “Any man” who messes with God’s temple (i.e. the church – the saints) is committing a most serious offense, and you can be sure - NO MAN who “defiles the temple of God” is going to get away with it!}

{The “no man” is still in reference to the “any man” who is supposed to be one of God’s workers. The warning is clear: “Let no man deceive himself” – If you are going to work on God’s temple (building, i.e. the church) you better take heed; you had better NOT MESS WITH IT!}

{Did you get that? Do you understand what God is warning against? The “no man” is still in reference to the “any man” who is supposed to be one of God’s workers; and “no man” (who is building upon Paul “foundation” i.e. the temple of God - the church of God) is to GLORY IN MEN! God’s workers (“labourers”) are NOT TO GLORY IN PREACHERS, EVANGELISTS, TEACHERS, ETC. OR ANY OTHER MEN, FOR THAT MATTER. We are not to be GLORYING in any man’s “work”, or his teaching, or in the man himself, instead we are supposed to GLORY in God and in His Holy word.}

{Please Notice: Paul closes by identifying the “any man” and “every man” as being himself (Paul), and Apollos, and Cephas (Peter) – ALL MEN, who were “labourers together with God”. ALL MEN - who were workers (“builders”) involved in building the temple of God (i.e. the church of God) at that time.}


And now on to your outrageous statement about Apollos being a "HERETICK":

Your quote: In an effort to PROVE your point (that a HERETICK {like "someone" who has been discussed here recently?} can “change” and be used of God) you have ended up ADDING to the word of God (once again) and twisting and wresting God’s word out of context to justify your “private interpretation”.

No where’s in Scripture does it say that Apollos was a HERETICK!

{Apollos was AN ELOQUENT MAN - “mighty in the Scriptures” – NOT A HERETICK!}

{Apollos was a man who was “was instructed in the way of the Lord” – He did NOT embrace HERESY! He “taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.” Apollos was NOT teaching “FALSE DOCTRINE” or “HERESY”; he just DIDN’T KNOW the “whole council of God”. You could say that God hadn’t “brought him up to date” – YET! But you can’t say that he was a HERETICK, or that he was teaching "HERESY"!

Every thing that Apollos was teaching was TRUE; it’s just that God had revealed to Paul the “mysteries” (one of which was “the church) that He (God) hadn’t revealed to Peter, James, John, or even John the Baptist. Apollo’s preaching was “out of date”, but it was NOT “FALSE DOCTRINE” or “HERESY”. Apollos was NOT a “HERETICK”!}

{When Aquila and Priscilla heard Apollos speaking boldly in the synagogue, they took him aside and “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly”. Apollos’ preaching in the synagogue was TRUE, it’s just that God hadn’t revealed to him “the way of God more perfectly”. When you claim that Apollos was a HERETICK, you are guilty of disparaging and maligning a “faithful” servant of God who wasn’t even “mistaken” - God just hadn’t revealed to him the “mysteries” that he revealed to Paul – NOT UNTIL Aquila and Priscilla “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly”. To accuse Apollos of being a HERETICK is to make FALSE ACCUSATIONS against a man of God, WHOM God used mightily, and of whom the Scriptures have NOTHING BAD TO SAY!

It is amazing (to me), the “lengths” that modern day Christians will go to, in order to support their own private interpretations of Scripture, or to prove and justify their own opinions about spiritual issues and matters. Before “expounding” on Paul and Apollos “ministry”, you should have read the Scriptures - rather than “jumping to unscriptural conclusions”, that you cannot possibly support. And before accusing a “faithful” man of God of being a heretick, you should have first tried to determine what the Scriptural “DEFINITION of a heretick IS! :eek:

Instead, you have ended up ADDING to the Holy words of God; TWISTING and WRESTING God’s word; taking the Scriptures OUT OF CONTEXT; and bad-mouthing a faithful servant of God from the past. It is apparent to me, that “listening” to all of the “sermons” that you have been listening to – hasn’t helped you to discern or understand God’s Holy word. And that’s because “sermons” can only give you “knowledge”. In order to acquire spiritual discernment, understanding and wisdom, you must study the Scriptures and look to the Holy Spirit for those things – NOT MEN. All the “sermons” in the world are but a poor “substitute” for God’s Holy word! :(

Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Moving on...:focus:

I believe Estep is wrong here on the same basis that almost everybody's system fails. The "tribulation" is only for 42 months or 3 1/2 years. Calling Daniel's 70th week (7 years) the "Tribulation Period" and noting the "last half" as "The Great Tribulation" is private interpretation at best. The scriptural evidence for a future 7 year period is based solely upon the intricate wording of Daniel 9.

However, the book of Revelation repeatedly yields one number (in various forms) for the "time of Jacob's trouble" - 3 1/2 years. This mysterious "first half of the week" (typically taught as a time of peace between the Jew and the Antichrist) is nowhere to be expounded upon within the scriptures, or is it?

I have from time to time, looked for a support in the scriptures for 84 months of Tribulation. Other than the popularized Daniel 9:27 interpretation, I can’t say I have actually found any. The gallery is about split in half as to the interpretation of 9:26-27 being fulfilled at Jesus first advent, and those who see it future. Other than to say, reading between the lines here and there, is there any support for a future 84 months of Tribulation.

Now I will be the first to admit, I am not the brightest bulb on the block; when it comes to prophesy. The Old Testament is filled, with evidence of the Times of Jacobs troubles. But again I can find nothing to confirm an 84 month of Tribulation, “anywhere”. Of course I am not saying the possibility that some does exist, is not conceivable at this point. So if someone has the clue, maybe we can thresh it out. :)