From Gary.... Is a tummy rub a good thing?

Rub my tummy; no doubt about it!!!  I see it every day and would recognize it no matter what the breed!!!!  I wonder, is there a human equivalent???  I think there is and it is found below...

2 Timothy, Chapter 4
1 I command you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom: 2 preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all patience and teaching.  3 For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts; 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside to fables. 5 But you be sober in all things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, and fulfill your ministry.

In 1973, I saw firsthand the pressures that can be exerted upon a preacher: one week he preached on the fallacies and doctrinal errors of free masonry and the next he recanted because a man-made board threatened his job.  Then and there, I knew I was in the wrong place and went looking for the truth.  Some people are more interested in hearing what they want to hear- instead of a sincere desire to hear what God has said.  So, there is in fact a "tummy rub" for humans, but it isn't a good thing!!!!  Fortunately, there are preachers like Timothy out there who still- tell-it-like-it-is, but with as much love as the circumstances dictate.  Be one of those people!!! As for me, I am still working on it!!!

From Jim McGuiggan... Using truth to tell lies

Using truth to tell lies

Interpretation of scripture requires more than lexicons, grammars, historical and cultural knowledge and an understanding of the latest literary theory. Somewhere, in all our getting, we've got to get the big picture! It isn't enough to know many specific truths and be able to exegete correctly many specific verses and spit them out as if they stood unrelated to God and his over-arching purpose. How are these specific truths to be used within the context of the Big Picture and to serve his over-arching purpose so as to be true to God? That's part of the interpretive obligation.

The book of Job teaches us many things—some of them we can easily see. I’m of the opinion that commentators abuse the book of Job as surely as Job’s friends—in the end—abused Job. But you can’t help being impressed with how much truth his friends spoke and yet at the conclusion of the matter God said to those friends (42:7), "I am angry with you...because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."

Is that not a kick in the head? Job is the one that now and then screams slander against God and the friends say things like this. "Is not God in the heights of heaven? And see how lofty are the highest stars! Yet you say, ‘What does God know?’...Submit to God and be at peace with him...Accept instruction from his mouth and lay up his words in your heart." So said Eliphaz in 22:12-13, 21-22. And God is angry at those words?

Earlier (22:2-3) Job’s friend and God’s defender said, "Can a man be of benefit to God? Can even a wise man benefit him? What pleasure would it give the Almighty if you were righteous? What would he gain if your ways were blameless?" God is so exalted, Eliphaz said, that he needs humans like he needs a hole in the head. The man is glorifying God and stressing his eternal majesty—how can that be wrong?

The same wise man said (4:17): "Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?" Is he not right? Of course he’s right; so how can God be angry with him for not speaking what is right? Listen to Eliphaz as he continues to extol and proclaim the majesty of God. "If God places no trust in his servants, if he charges his angels with error, how much more those who live in houses of clay, whose foundations are in the dust...?" Psalmists and prophets and NT apostles spoke like that and we glory in it! So how come God scathed Eliphaz and his friends for bearing witness on his behalf?

He scathed them because of what they did with truth! It’s possible to take truth and make points with it that are clearly false (compare 13:7 and the anguished man’s protest). It’s possible, of course, to take truth and use it to maim and destroy but there’s no reason to think Job’s friends were not friends even to the end. The reverse is true (42:10).

To take truth about God and to use it so that it reflects badly on God is folly. Those who took the truth of God’s utter holiness, his utter majesty and his complete self-sufficiency and in the name of that God buried a man that floundered in faith and ignorance—they committed folly (42:8).

(You might be interested in my little book on Job: Life on the Ash Heap. In The USA, call toll free  877-792-6408)

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

Only True Christianity is Defensible by Kyle Butt, M.A.


Only True Christianity is Defensible

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

Recently I was involved in a very productive discussion with two atheists. They were in their early thirties, intelligent, and extremely well spoken. We arranged the meeting to discuss why they had chosen to adopt atheism, and reject God and Christianity. In the course of the two-hour discussion, it became clear that many of their complaints about “Christianity” were legitimate. In fact, I heartily agreed with a host of their lengthy refutations of, and rebuttals to, “Christianity.” Lest I mislead the reader, however, let me explain. Notice that I have put in quotation marks the “Christianity” against which they railed, because the term demands qualification. Much of the “Christianity” that so incensed these young men involved gross misrepresentations of God and heinous misinterpretations of the Bible. For instance, during the discussion, one of the men explained that if, according to John Calvin’s views, God arbitrarily chose some people to be saved and some to be lost, regardless of their choices, then God would be unjust. He explained this point in detail for several minutes. After listening attentively to his astute refutation of Calvinism, I completely agreed with him, but noted that Calvinism is not true Christianity. It seemed that since Calvinism had been so inseparably bound-up in many “brands” of “Christianity” to which this young man had been exposed, he was taken aback that any “Christian” would so readily agree with his assessment of its evident flaws.

The discussion with these men, coupled with a critical reading of the atheistic community’s primary authors, has impressed upon my mind the fact that skeptical writers have a knack for exposing pseudo-Christianity for the error that it truly is. Unfortunately, skeptics often use the pseudo-Christianity and misinterpretations of the Bible that they so adequately debunk as straw men that they insist represent true Christianity. In truth, they certainly do not. It is a useful study, however, to notice several areas of biblical misinterpretation and un-Christian beliefs that skeptics have correctly identified as flawed.


In 2006, David Mills authored a book titled Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism. Much of the material in that book is incorrect. But chapter six, titled “Can Genesis Be Reconciled with Modern Science?” has some trenchant things to say about those who claim to believe the Bible but try to bend its interpretation to jibe with modern evolutionary findings. At the beginning of the chapter, Mills stated:

According to Genesis, God made Adam and Eve on the sixth day of Creation Week. The Genesis genealogies then detail the exact ages at which Adam and his male descendants “begat” their own male offspring. The New Testament books of Matthew and Luke [NOTE: Matthew and Luke actually do not give ages—KB] then continue the genealogy from David to Jesus, again specifying the age at which each male descendent “begat” the next generation. Since we have a fixed “historical” time period for Jesus’ birth, creationists thereby calculate that the heavens and Earth were created by God in the year 4004 B.C. Earth, therefore, is only 6000 years old by biblical chronology. [NOTE: Although Mills is correct about the general age of 6,000 years, the chronology is not so precise as to nail down the exact date of 4004 B.C.—KB.] Despite widely divergent viewpoints, creationists and evolutionary biologists agree on a crucial fact: Six-thousand years is insufficient time for evolution to have produced the complex life-forms we observe on Earth today.... A 6000-year-old Earth means therefore that Genesis and the Theory of Evolution are forever irreconcilable (p. 137).
Mills further noted:

If Earth’s history began with Creation Week, and if Genesis provides an accurate historical record, then Earth had no prehistoric eras, no prehistoric peoples, and no prehistoric animals. Dinosaurs walked the Earth only a few thousand years ago, side-by-side with modern man (p. 141).
Mills went on to write: “If creationists now wish to abandon their historical position and acquiesce to an ancient Earth, then I applaud their progress. But it is a farce to maintain that Genesis never really demanded a young Earth since the genealogies were always intended as metaphors” (p. 148, emp. added).

Regarding those who attempt to compromise the literal nature of Genesis and accept both the Bible and evolution, Mills wrote: “Citing the Day-Age theory, these Great Pretenders make believe that Genesis actually describes an ancient Earth. The purpose of this pompous intellectual charade is to allow the Great Pretenders to ‘have it both ways’—imagining themselves to be both religious and scientific at the same time” (p. 151). In what sounds exactly like a young Earth apologist’s writings, Mills then commented: “In seeming anticipation and preemptive rebuttal of the Day-Age theory, however, the Book of Genesis itself provides a clear and specific definition of Creation Week...‘the evening and the morning’ were a day—a literal 24-hour day” (p. 151).

Mills is exactly right in regard to the fact that a compromise of the Genesis account of Creation is indefensible and illogical. He does an excellent job of showing that the special pleading needed to warp the text of Genesis into agreement with modern evolutionary ideas cannot stand critical scrutiny. He concludes correctly that: “A 6000-year-old Earth means therefore that Genesis and the Theory of Evolution are forever irreconcilable” (p. 137). Those who compromise the text of Genesis in an attempt to force it to agree with modern evolutionary teachings have gotten it wrong, and would do well to listen to Mills’ criticism of their inaccurate interpretation.

Unfortunately, Mills leaves his critical thinking at the doorstep of his correct assessment that the Bible and evolutionary theory are irreconcilable. He incorrectly reasons that the Bible has been wrong all along and that evolution is the true creative agent of our planet. We have shown repeatedly that such simply cannot be the case (cf. Jackson, et al., 2008), and Mills and other atheists would do well to apply the same critical thinking to the false evolutionary theory as they so aptly apply to indefensible compromises of the biblical text.


Many people who consider themselves Christians today have accepted the idea that humans are born with a sinful nature. These religious people believe that sin can be inherited from one’s ancestors, and that every human, even infants, deserve death due to their inherently sinful nature. The Bible, however, nowhere teaches such a doctrine. Thus, when atheists and skeptics seize on this false interpretation of Scripture, they correctly insist that such a teaching would manifest a contradiction in the nature of the God of the Bible.

Christopher Hitchens, in his discussion of Christ’s death on the cross, wrote:

Furthermore, I am required to believe that the agony was necessary in order to compensate for an earlier crime in which I also had not part, the sin of Adam.... Thus my own guilt in the matter is deemed “original” and inescapable. However, I am still granted free will with which to reject the offer of vicarious redemption (2007, p. 209, italics in orig.).
Hitchens correctly concluded that such an idea “negates the moral and reasonable idea that the children are innocent of their parent’s offenses” (p. 99). Richard Dawkins weighed in on the idea as well: “The sin of Adam and Eve is thought to have passed down the male line—transmitted in the semen according to Augustine. What kind of ethical philosophy is it that condemns every child, even before it is born, to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor?” (Dawkins, 2006, p. 251, emp. added).

Hitchens, Dawkins, and numerous other atheistic writers correctly conclude that a god who condemns children because they inherited their ancestors’ sins would be an unjust being unworthy of worship. The biblical portrait of God, however, is not of such a cruel, unjust being. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The Bible points out in unambiguous terms that children do not inherit the sins or guilt of their ancestors. The prophet Ezekiel wrote: “The one who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (18:20). It has been shown repeatedly and beyond doubt that the Bible never indicates that children inherit sin or guilt from their parents (Butt, 2004), nor do children ever suffer any type of spiritual punishment as a result of the sins of their parents (Butt, 2003). While it is the case that children often suffer physical consequences of their parents’ wrong choices, such as when a drunken father abuses his children, it is not the case that those children bear any of the father’s spiritual guilt or inherit any of their parents’ sin.

One can completely understand why the skeptical community would be aghast at a being who would cast innocent babies into hell as punishment for the sins of their parents. Yet, a correct interpretation of the Bible shows that such is not the case. While it is sad that many religious people have falsely taught such a view, their false teaching on the subject, and the skeptics’ acceptance of that false teaching as a correct interpretation of the Bible, cannot be used as a legitimate weapon to impugn the character of the God of the Bible.


It is unfortunate for Christianity that some who call themselves Christians completely misunderstand the basic concept of faith. For many in Christendom, faith is a warm feeling in their hearts when they have failed to find adequate evidence to justify their beliefs. Modern dictionaries have done much to engrain this false definition of faith into modern Christianity. For instance, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary states that faith is “a firm belief in something for which there is no proof” (1988). The American Heritage Dictionary gives as a primary definition of faith: “belief that does not rest on logical or material evidence” (2000, p. 636). The idea that faith is a warm, fuzzy feeling divorced from logical thinking and separated from all “material evidence” does not coincide with what the Bible actually says about faith (cf. Sztanyo, 1996). As Sztanyo correctly noted: “There is not a single item in Christianity, upon which our souls’ salvation depends, that is only ‘probably’ true. In each case, the evidence supplied is sufficient to establish conclusive proof regarding the truth of the Christian faith” (1996, p. 7).

The false view that faith is “a leap in the dark” without adequate evidence provides the skeptical community plenty of fodder for their atheistic, anti-Bible cannons—and rightly so. If believing in God, or the divine inspiration of the Bible, or the deity of Jesus Christ is not established by rational, logical evidence, then those ideas are as unworthy of belief as the unprovable ideas of atheism and evolution. Knowing the inconsistency of such a false definition of faith, Sam Harris wrote: “In fact, every religion preaches the truth of propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable. This put the ‘leap’ in Kierkegaard’s leap of faith” (Harris, 2004, p. 23, italics in orig.). Christopher Hitchens, building on the “leap of faith” idea, opined:

Actually, the “leap of faith”—to give it the memorable name that Soren Kierkegaard bestowed on it—is an imposture. As he himself pointed out, it is not a “leap” that can be made once and for all. It is a leap that has to go on and on being performed, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary (2007, p. 65).
In his analysis of religion, Richard Dawkins quipped: “The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification” (2006, p. 23, emp. added). Because of his belief that biblical faith is belief without rational justification, Dawkins concluded: “We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that” (p. 283). What Dawkins really means to say is that no fundamentalist who has adopted the concept that faith does not depend on rational justification would abandon his or her belief if evidence were provided to the contrary. But if his definition of faith is wrong, then he is incorrect to conclude that those who believe in God, the divine inspiration of the Bible, and the deity of Christ would not alter their views based on the evidence. In fact, according to a proper definition of biblical faith, it is only because of the rational justification and logical evidence available that true Christians hold to their beliefs.

When Dawkins states, “Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don’t have to make the case for what you believe” (p. 306), he manifests his lack of knowledge of what biblical faith is. Biblical faith is based completely and solely on truth and reason, as the apostle Paul succinctly stated in Acts 26:25. The prophet Isaiah underscored this fundamental truth about biblical faith when He recorded God’s invitation to the Israelites: “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ says the Lord” (1:18). Luke, in his introduction to the book of Acts, pressed the point that Jesus’ resurrection was attested by “many infallible proofs” (1:3). For one to believe in the resurrection requires faith, based on infallible proofs.

Sam Harris wrote: “It is time that we admitted that faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail” (Harris, 2006, p. 67). Harris’ accusation is justified when it is applied to false religions, and to those who attempt to defend Christianity without providing a logical, rational justification for their belief. But his allegations, and similar sentiments from Dawkins, Hitchens, and other atheists, are wholly inadequate to attack true, biblical faith. Sadly, too many self-proclaimed Christians open the door for the skeptical community to bash Christian “faith,” when, in reality, the “faith” that is being destroyed was never biblical in the first place.


It is often the case that “Christianity” is abused by modern skeptics due to the tendency of many in Christendom to claim that the Holy Spirit continues to work miracles today just as He did during New Testament times. Atheist Dan Barker wrote about the time that he was thrown out of “Peter Popoff’s ‘miracle’ rally” (1992, p. 291). Barker wrote that Popoff “grabbed a woman’s head, deliberately mussed up her hair, shook her and pronounced her healed” (p. 293). During Popoff’s healing antics, Barker noted, “The audience punctuated his ‘healings’ by loudly speaking in tongues, raising their arms, shaking, crying, and hollering ‘Amen,’ ‘Thank you, Jesus!’ and ‘Hallelujah!’ It had the feel of one of those professional wrestling matches on TV” (p. 293).

Barker’s assessment of the event was, “It was comical; and it was sad. The man was practicing medicine without a license, raising false hopes and endangering lives. (Many of his believers have discarded medicine or cancelled doctor’s appointments.) I remember having participated in meetings just like this when I was a full-gospel evangelist, and I was ashamed” (p. 294). Barker’s caustic assessment of Popoff’s “faith healing scam” is accurate in many ways. As Barker admitted, he at one time in his past participated in many false-healing events, and thus he knows the inherent dishonesty involved in such deceptive shenanigans. Here again the skeptical community has logically and correctly concluded that such faith healings are not valid. As David Mills wrote: “If God has the power to miraculously cure others (though invariably in a vague and uncertain way), why doesn’t God ever help amputees?” (2006, p. 161).

Mills is right to surmise that if the miraculous power that was available during the time of the apostles is still available today, as many Christians erroneously teach and believe, then miracles that can be empirically verified like the healing of amputees should be documented. After all, even the enemies of the apostles had to admit that the miracles worked by the apostles were empirically verifiable: “For indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it” (Acts 4:16).

In truth, the skeptical community does an excellent job of showing that such “faith healing” events are emotionally charged frenzies that do not produce legitimate medical results. The problem arises, however, when the skeptical community tries to lump all Christians into this mold, or attempts to use these verifiably false miracles to discount the possibility of any type of miracle at any time in history. The fact of the matter is, the Bible predicted that the miraculous power that was available to the apostles would come to an end, and would not continue throughout the ages until modern times (Miller, 2003). Furthermore, it has been repeatedly and definitively shown that such false miracles sustain no argumentative value against the historical legitimacy of true miracles recorded in the Bible, such as the resurrection of Christ (Butt, 2002).


Mortimer J. Adler once stated, “Christianity is the only logical, consistent faith in the world” (as quoted in Sharp and Bergman, 2008, p. 288). Unfortunately, the truth of his statement is often obscured by the copious, false philosophies and inaccurate biblical interpretations that masquerade as Christianity. Calvinism, theistic evolution, inherited sin, misdefined faith, and a belief in modern-day miraculous healings are just a few of the obstacles standing in the way of a proper understanding of New Testament Christianity. To this list could be added hundreds of similar ideas fraught with error such as the unscriptural concepts of purgatory, limbo, modern-day Divine inspiration, the perseverance of the saints, and a plethora of ridiculous “predictions” supposedly rooted in the biblical text of Revelation. Those who genuinely wish to defend the validity of New Testament Christianity must be willing and able to assess the writings of modern skeptics, separating the wheat from the chaff. By acknowledging the mistakes that are inherent in false concepts of “Christianity,” the honest-hearted truth seeker can be led to see that such foibles and errors do not mar authentic, defensible Christianity.


American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion).

Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?” Reason & Revelation, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/121.

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2255.

Butt, Kyle (2004), “Do Children Inherit the Sins of the Parents?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2543.

Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin).

Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).

Harris, Sam (2006), Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).

Hitchens, Christopher (2007), god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: The Twelve).

Jackson, Wayne, Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2008), Surveying the Evidence (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking and Holy Spirit Baptism—A Refutation,” Reason & Revelation, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569.

Mills, David (2006), Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Sharp, Doug and Jerry Bergman, eds. (2008), Persuaded by the Evidence (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Sztanyo, Dick (1996), Faith and Reason (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1988), (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster).

From Mark Copeland... The Vision Of The Time Of The End - I (Daniel 10:1-11:1)

                          "THE BOOK OF DANIEL"

           The Vision Of The Time Of The End - I (10:1-11:1)


1. As mentioned in previous lessons, the second half of Daniel contains
   four visions...
   a. The vision of the four beasts - Dan 7:1-28
   b. The vision of the ram and the goat - Dan 8:1-27
   c. The vision of the seventy weeks - Dan 9:1-27
   d. The vision of the time of the end - Dan 10:1-12:13
   -- In which God reveals to Daniel many things about His purpose and
      plan in history, regarding the nation of Israel and the
      everlasting kingdom to come

2. In the tenth chapter, therefore, we find the beginning of the final
   vision recorded by Daniel...
   a. A vision that pertains to what will affect Daniel's people (i.e.,
      Israel) - Dan 10:14
   b. Describing what will occur "in the latter days, for the vision
      refers to many days yet to come" - Dan 10:14
   c. Its words were to be closed and sealed "till the time of the end"
      - Dan 12:9
   -- For such reasons this vision has been called "The Vision Of The
      Time Of The End"

3. But what is meant by the expression "the time of the end"?
   a. Is it the end of time as we think of it, when Christ returns?
   b. Or does it refer to the end of God's dealings with Israel as His
      covenant nation?

[As we seek to address this and other questions raised in this
difficult portion of Scripture, we first notice...]


      1. It occurred in the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, on the
         24th day of the first month (ca. 535 B.C.) - Dan 10:1,4
      2. Daniel had been in mourning (fasting) for three weeks - Dan 10:2,3
      3. He was beside the Tigris river - Dan 10:4

      1. Daniel saw a certain man - Dan 10:5-6
         a. Clothed in linen, whose waist was girded with gold of Uphaz
         b. With a body like beryl
         c. His face like lightning, his eyes like torches of fire
         d. His arms and feet like burnished bronze in color
         e. His words like the voice of a multitude
      2. Only Daniel saw the vision - Dan 10:7
         a. The men with him did not
         b. They fled with great terror to hide themselves
      3. The impact on Daniel - Dan 10:8-9
         a. Without strength, his vigor turned to frailty (he was
            probably in his nineties!)
         b. When he heard the sounds of the man's words, Daniel was in
            a deep sleep with his face to the ground

[The similarity between this "certain man" and John's vision of the Son
of Man (cf. Re 1:12-17) have led many to wonder if this was a
Christophany (an appearance of the preincarnate Christ); but he may
have been only an angel.  As we continue, we next read of...]


      1. A hand touches Daniel, causing him to tremble - Dan 10:10
      2. The man addresses Daniel - Dan 10:11
         a. Calling him "man greatly beloved" - cf. Dan 9:23; 10:19
         b. For Daniel to understand, and to stand up
         c. For the man has been sent to Daniel
         -- Daniel stands up, but trembling
      3. The man comforts Daniel - Dan 10:12
         a. Telling him not to fear
         b. That he has come because of Daniel's humility, and desire
            to understand
      4. The man explains the reason for the delay - Dan 10:13
         a. The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood him
            twenty-one days (the same time during which Daniel had been
            in mourning - cf. Dan 10:2-3)
            1) Spiritual warfare seems to have been taking place (cf.
               Re 12:7; Ep 6:12)
            2) The "prince" (angel?) of the kingdom of Persia had been
               withstanding him - cf. Dan 11:1
         b. But Michael came to help him who had been left alone with
            the kings of Persia
            1) Michael is described as "one of the chief princes"
            2) Later he is called "your prince" and "the great prince
               who stands watch over the sons of your people" - Dan 10:21; 12:1
            3) Jude calls him "the archangel", who contended with the
               devil over the body of Moses - Jude 9
            -- Michael appears to have served as the guardian of the
               nation of Israel
      5. But now the man has come make Daniel understand - Dan 10:14
         a. What will happen to his people (Israel)
         b. What will occur "in the latter days", "many days yet to
         -- From what follows, the expression "latter days" appears to
            refer to the time leading up to the coming of the Messiah
            and into the Messianic period (Harkrider) - cf. Dan 2:28;
            Ac 2:16-17

      1. Daniel is initially speechless - Dan 10:15-17
         a. With his face turned to the ground
         b. But one with "the likeness of the sons of men" touched his
            lips (some think this may have been Gabriel, who had helped
            Daniel before - Dan 8:16)
         c. Daniel can now speak, but is overwhelmed with sorrow and
            without strength
      2. Daniel is strengthened - Dan 10:18-19
         a. By the touch of the one having the likeness of a man
         b. By the words bestowing love, peace and courage
         c. Ready now to hear what he has to say

      1. Though he must soon return - Dan 10:20
         a. To fight with the prince (angel?) of Persia
         b. To deal with the prince (angel?) of Greece yet to come
      2. Yet he will tell Daniel what is noted in the Scripture of
         Truth - Dan 10:21-11:1
         a. Adding that only Michael helps him against them (the
            angelic princes of Persia and Greece) - cf. Dan 10:13
         b. Adding that he had confirmed and strengthened him
            (Michael?) in the first year of Darius the Mede


1. At this point (Dan 11:2), "The Vision Of The Time Of The End" begins
   in earnest...
   a. Describing what will happen "in the latter days"
   b. Referring to what will occur "many days yet to come"
   -- Which we shall examine when we resume our study in the next

2. In these introductory remarks of the vision, we find a glimpse of
   the spiritual warfare that was going on "behind the scenes"...
   a. With angelic forces withstanding each other - Dan 10:13a,20
   b. With angelic forces helping each other - Dan 10:13b,21; 11:1
   c. With Michael introduced to Daniel as:
      1) "one of the chief princes" - Dan 10:13
      2) "your prince" - Dan 10:21
      3) "the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your
         people" - Dan 12:1

While there is little we truly know about this "spiritual warfare", and
to what extent it may be going on today, perhaps our study will
encourage us to take more seriously Paul's words:

   "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against
   principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
   darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in
   the heavenly places."

   "Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able
   to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand."

                                                   - Ep 6:12-13

What are we doing to take up the armor of God, that we might be strong
in the Lord and in the power of His might (cf. Ep 6:10-18)?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Mark Copeland... The Vision Of The Seventy Weeks (Daniel 9:20-27)

                          "THE BOOK OF DANIEL"

               The Vision Of The Seventy Weeks (9:20-27)


1. We come now to one of the most difficult passages of the Old
   a. Commonly called "The Vision Of The Seventy Weeks" - Dan 9:20-27
   b. Edward J. Young describes it as "one of the most difficult in all
      the OT, and the interpretations which have been offered are
      almost legion."
   c. Stuart says that "it would require a volume of considerable
      magnitude even to give a history of the ever-varying and
      contradictory opinions that have been offered"
2. With such a difficult passage before us, we should ...
   a. Approach it with humility, and not dogmatically
   b. Not draw conclusions that would contradict clear teachings of

[We begin our study with verse 20, in which Daniel first describes...]


      1. Even as Daniel was confessing his sin and the sin of his
         people, and making supplication for the holy mountain of God
         (i.e., Jerusalem) - Dan 9:20-21
      2. This was the same person seen in the vision at the beginning
         - cf. Dan 8:16

      1. Commanded to do so even at the beginning of Daniel's prayer
         - Dan 9:22-23
      2. For Daniel was "greatly beloved" - cf. Dan 10:11,19

[And so Gabriel, who provided explanation to Daniel regarding the
vision of the ram and the goat (Dan 8:16), now proceeds to give
details concerning...]


      1. 70 "weeks" are determined for Daniel's people (Israel) and his
         holy city (Jerusalem) - Dan 9:24
         a. The word "weeks" in Hebrew is actually "sevens" (i.e., 70
         b. Most agree it likely refers to "weeks", but weeks of what?
            1) Weeks of days?
               a) Then it would be 490 days
               b) Few believe this to be the case, and so most all
                  figuratize this passage to some extent
            2) Weeks of years (i.e., each day representing a year)?
               a) Then it would be 490 years
               b) But the Jews used a lunar calendar (360 days/yr), so
                  it would be 483 years according to our calendar)
               c) Many suggest this to be the answer, but it is not
                  without difficulty
            3) Of some complete, yet non-specific period of time?
               a) Then it may just refer to seventy complete periods of
               b) And each week may not be equivalent in time (i.e.,
                  one "week" may be longer than other "weeks")
      2. This period of time will be for the fulfillment of six things,
         each apparently related to the work of the coming Messiah
         a. To finish the transgression
            1) The marginal reading has "restrain" for "finish"
            2) The idea is that Messiah would provide a restraining
               power and influence which would check the progress of
               sin (Barnes) - cf. Ac 3:25-26
         b. To make an end of sins
            1) The marginal reading has "to seal up" for "make an end"
            2) The idea is that sins will be sealed up, or closed, or
               hidden, so that they will not be seen, or will not
               develop themselves (Barnes) - cf. Ac 3:19
         c. To make reconciliation for iniquity
            1) Literally, to cover iniquity
            2) How this would be done is not stated here, but cf. Isa 53:5-6,10-12
         -- Note:  The first three things relate to our Lord's work of
            dealing with the problem of sin, how sin would 
            "restrained", "sealed up", and "covered over"
         d. To bring in everlasting righteousness
            1) Literally, to cause to come
            2) To provide a way by which a man could become righteous
               and holy - cf. Ro 3:21-26; 2Co 5:21
         e. To seal up the vision and the prophecy
            1) To complete, to finish, meaning the prophecies would be
               fulfilled (Barnes)
            2) Young suggests that it is referring to OT prophecies,
               especially those related to the work of the Messiah
               making an end of sin - cf. Lk 24:44-47
         f. To anoint the Most Holy
            1) Barnes opines that the Most Holy refers to the temple in
            2) And that the anointing of the temple refers to the
               presence of the Messiah in the temple - cf. Mal 3:1-2;
               Mt 12:6
            3) Especially regarding the presence of the Lord in the
               temple during His final week - cf. Mt 21:1-16
            4) Some believe it may refer to the baptism of Jesus when
               the Spirit came upon Him in the form of a dove - Mt 3:

      1. There shall be 7 weeks and 62 weeks - Dan 9:25
         a. Beginning with the command to restore and build Jerusalem,
            until Messiah the prince (the street and the wall shall be
            built, even in troublesome times)
         b. At least three possible decrees may serve as the "terminus
            pro quo" (starting point) of the 70 "weeks"
            1) The decree of Cyrus (539-538 BC) - cf. Ezr 1:1-4
               a) To rebuild the temple (and the city, cf. Isa 44:
                  26-28; 45:13)
               b) If one starts here, then the 70 weeks could not be
                  490 literal years, for that would place the end of
                  the 70 weeks around 55 B.C. (much too early)
               c) The appeal of using this decree as the starting point
                  1] It is the most well-known decree regarding the
                     restoration of Israel
                  2] It was given about the time Daniel received his
                     vision of the 70 weeks
               -- This decree is preferred by many who do not hold to a
                  literal 490 years (Young, Harkrider, McGuiggan)
            2) The decree of Artaxerxes (457 BC) - cf. Ezr 7:13-14
               a) For Ezra to restore the Law and its worship
               b) Starting here, 490 Julian years would end the 70
                  weeks around 33 A.D.
               c) But 490 lunar years end the 70 weeks around 26 A.D.
                  (seven years too early)
               -- This decree is preferred by some amillenialists who
                  hold to a literal 490 years, but not lunar years
                  (Haley's Bible Handbook)
            3) The second decree of Artaxerxes (445-444 BC) - cf. Neh 2:1-8
               a) For Nehemiah to build the city
               b) Starting here, 490 lunar years end the 70 weeks
                  around 38 A.D.
               c) This would place the start of the 70th week near the
                  beginning of Jesus' public ministry (ca. 30 A.D.)
               d) There are problems with the first 7 weeks ending
                  around 396 B.C., which some contend is too late for
                  the restoration of the city
            -- Premillenialists prefer to start with this decree, but
               so do some amillenialists such as Albert Barnes
         c. Each starting date has its problems, but I lean towards
            Barnes' choice of the second decree of Artaxerxes in 445
            B.C. as the terminus a quo for this prophecy
            1) The 7 and 62 "weeks" is the period of time from the
               decree until "Messiah the Prince"
            2) Barnes has this period ending with the baptism of Jesus
               and the beginning of His public ministry
      2. After the 62 weeks, certain events will occur - Dan 9:26-27
         a. Messiah will be cut off, but not for Himself
            1) This refers to the death of Christ
            2) Whose death occurs midway during the 70th week
               (see below)
         b. People of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city
            and the sanctuary
            1) The end of it shall be with a flood; until the end of
               the war, desolations are determined
               a) The people are generally accepted to be the Romans,
                  who destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70
               b) The "prince" is thought to be either Titus, the Roman
                  general, or perhaps referring to Jesus Himself (with
                  the Roman army as the instrument of God's judgment
                  upon Jerusalem)
            2) Many contend that the destruction must fall within the
               70th week
               a) However, Young and Barnes argue that such is not
                  necessarily required by the text
               b) The desolation to befall Jerusalem may be the
                  consequence of events during the 70th week, and not
                  fall within the period of the 70th week
         c. For 1 week, he shall confirm a covenant with many
            1) "He" refers to Jesus (Barnes)
            2) "Confirm a covenant" describes the work done by Jesus
               and His apostles in Israel, before and immediately after
               His death (Barnes)
               a) His earthly ministry lasted about 3 and half years
               b) The gospel was preached only to Jews for 3-4 years
                  after Pentecost
         d. In the middle of the week he shall bring an end to
            sacrifice and offering
            1) This refers to Jesus who was cut off, but not for
               Himself (Barnes)
            2) Through His death, He brought the need for sacrifices to
               an end - He 10:12-18
         e. The abomination and desolation to come - Dan 9:27
            1) Alluding to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70
            2) Jesus referred to this in Mt 24:15
            3) Again, this desolation may be the consequence of what
               occurred in the 70th week, even though it occurred after
               the 70th week
            4) But if required to occur during the 70th week, then the
               70th week must extend beyond A.D. 70 (Harkrider, 


1. Such a brief look at this difficult passage will naturally raise
   many questions, which are beyond the scope of our study

2. For more detailed study, one might consider the following
   commentaries which provide several alternative views...
   a. Commentary on Daniel, Albert Barnes
   b. The Prophecy of Daniel, Edward J. Young
   c. Commentary on Revelation, Robert F. Harkrider
   d. The Book Of Daniel, Jim McGuiggan
   e. Exposition Of Daniel, H. C. Leupold
   -- Each of these examine the passage from the amillenial
      perspective, which finds no place for the "gap theory" favored by
      dispensational premillenialists

While the passage is admittedly difficult, let's not lose sight of the
wonderful promises concerning the Messiah's work related to sin and
righteousness.  For Jesus through His death has truly brought an end to
the consequences of sin and introduced everlasting righteousness!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Mark Copeland... Daniel's Penitential Prayer (Daniel 9:1-19)

                          "THE BOOK OF DANIEL"

                  Daniel's Penitential Prayer (9:1-19)


1. As we continue our survey of the book of Daniel, we come to a
   remarkable chapter...
   a. In which we find a beautiful prayer expressed by Daniel - Dan 9:
   b. In which we find an amazing revelation regarding "seventy sevens"
      - Dan 9:20-27

2. Without question, the latter part of the chapter is difficult...
   a. Edward J. Young describes it as "one of the most difficult in all
      the OT, and the interpretations which have been offered are
      almost legion."
   b. H. C. Leupold wrote "This is one of the grandest prophetic
      passages; and yet, if there was ever an exegetical crux, this is
3. In light of its difficulty...
   a. We should certainly approach this passage with humility, and not
   b. We should be careful not to draw conclusions that contradict
      clear teachings of Scripture

4. But before we consider the actual vision of the seventy weeks, let's
   take the time to consider the prayer offered by Daniel...
   a. A beautiful example of confessing sin and seeking forgiveness
   b. Akin to the prayer of David in Ps 51

[A wonderful blessing we enjoy as Christians is the cleansing blood of
Jesus as we confess our sins (1Jn 1:9).  Daniel's prayer in this
chapter provides insight into the art of confessing sin...]


      1. In the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus - Dan 9:1
         a. Of the lineage of the Medes
         b. Made king over the Chaldeans (Babylonians) - Dan 5:31; 6:
      2. The time is now about 538 B.C.

      1. Daniel knew the prophecy of Jeremiah, regarding 70 years of
         Babylonian captivity - Dan 9:2; cf. Jer 25:9-12; 29:10
      2. The 70 years of Jerusalem began in 606 B.C., with the
         captivity of Daniel and the first devastation of Jerusalem
         - 2Ch 36:5-7; Dan 1:1-6
      -- So with this first year of the Medo-Persian empire (With
         Darius the Mede over Chaldea, but with Cyrus the Persian over
         all), the prophecy of Jeremiah was almost completed - 2 Chr 36:21-23; Ezr 1:1-4

      1. Daniel set his face toward the Lord God - Dan 9:3
         a. To make request by prayer and supplications
         b. This may have included facing toward Jerusalem - cf. Dan 6:
      2. With fasting, sackcloth, and ashes
         a. Physical preparations which illustrated his humility and
         b. Similar to the practice of others - Neh 9:1-2; Jon 3:5-9

[With the Word of God fresh on his mind, his heart humbled by his own
sins and those of his people, even his physical body humbled into
submission, Daniel begins his penitential prayer...]


      1. Addressing the Lord his God - Dan 9:4
         a. As great and awesome
         b. Who keeps His covenant and mercy with those who:
            1) Love Him
            2) Keep His commandments - cf. Ps 103:17-18; Jn 14:15
      2. Confessing in behalf of his people - Dan 9:5-6
         a. Of sinning and committing iniquity
         b. Of doing wickedly and rebelling
         c. Of departing from His precepts and judgments
         d. Of failing to heed His servants the prophets, who spoke to
            their kings, princes, fathers, and all the people - 2 Chr 36:15-21
      3. Contrasting their shame with God's righteousness - Dan 9:7-9
         a. To Judah, Israel, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem belong
            shame of face
            1) Those both near and far off in countries where God had
               driven them
            2) To them, their kings, princes, and fathers
            3) Because of their unfaithfulness against God, their sin
               and rebellion - Ezr 9:6-7
         b. To God belongs righteousness
            1) To Him belongs mercy and forgiveness
            2) Even though they had rebelled against Him - Ezr 9:8-9
      4. Reviewing their sin, and the fulfillment of God's warnings 
         - Dan 9:10-14
         a. The nature of their sin - cf. Neh 9:13-30
            1) They have not obeyed the voice of the Lord
            2) They have not walked in His laws set before by His
            3) They transgressed His law, and departed so as not to
               obey His voice
            4) They had not prayed that they might turn from their
               iniquities and understand His truth
         b. The fulfillment of God's warnings - Lev 26:14-39; Deut 28:
            1) The curse and oath written in the Law of Moses has been
               poured out
            2) He has confirmed His words spoken against them by
               bringing a great disaster upon them
            3) Especially the disaster which has come upon Jerusalem
      5. Summarizing their sin - Dan 9:15
         a. To Him who delivered them from Egyptian bondage with a
            mighty hand
         b. They have sinned, and done wickedly!

      1. His passionate plea for God to:
         a. Turn away His anger and fury - Dan 9:16
            1) From His city Jerusalem, His holy mountain
            2) Because of their sins and iniquities
            3) For which they have become a reproach
         b. Hear his prayer and supplications - Dan 9:17a
         c. Cause His face to shine on His sanctuary, which is desolate
            - Dan 9:17b
         d. See their desolation, and the desolation of the city called
            by His name - Dan 9:18
         e. Hear, forgive, act and not delay! - Dan 9:19
      2. His passionate plea based, not because of their righteous
         deeds, but upon:
         a. God's righteousness, and for His sake - Dan 9:16-17
         b. God's great mercies, and for His city and His people called
            by His name - Dan 9:18-19


1. Like the penitential prayer of David in Ps 51, this prayer of
   Daniel is a classic example of how to confess our sins and seek
   God's forgiveness
   a. To seek forgiveness on the basis of God's lovingkindness and
      mercy, not one's own righteousness - cf. Ps 51:1-2
   b. To acknowledge one's sins before God - cf. Ps 51:3-4
   -- As we confess our sins (cf. 1Jn 1:9), remember the example of
      godly men like David and Daniel!

2. Daniel's noble character is seen in how he identified himself with
   his people in their sins...
   a. Even though he had been faithful to God throughout his life - Dan 6:10
   b. For such reasons he was "greatly beloved" by God - Dan 9:23; 10:

May the example of Daniel's life and faith inspire us in our own walk
with God, for we too have been blessed to be "greatly beloved":

   "Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that
   we should be called children of God!" - 1Jn 3:1a

Are we trusting in the love and mercy of God for the forgiveness of
sins, and not our own righteousness?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Mark Copeland... The Vision Of The Ram And The Goat (Daniel 8:1-27)

                          "THE BOOK OF DANIEL"

              The Vision Of The Ram And The Goat (8:1-27)


1. In previous chapters we've seen visions describing four kingdoms...
   a. The vision of Nebuchadnezzar - Dan 2
   b. The vision of Daniel - Dan 7
   -- These kingdoms were the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Greek,
      the Roman

2. In Dan 8, Daniel relates another vision...
   a. Commonly called "The Vision Of The Ram And The Goat"
   b. In which two kingdoms are described

[As we shall see, the two kingdoms as the same as two of the four
kingdoms in earlier visions.  But just as the vision in Dan 7 related
more information about the fourth kingdom, so now the vision in Dan 8
provides information about the second and third kingdoms...]


      1. Received by Daniel in the third year of Belshazzar king of
         Babylon - Dan 8:1
      2. This would be about 552 B.C., two years later than the vision
         in Dan 7

      1. In the vision, Daniel saw himself in Shushan (Susa) - Dan 8:2
         a. In the province of Elam (western Persia, modern day Iran)
         b. The winter capital of the Persian kings
         c. He was by the river Ulai
      2. He saw a two-horned ram - Dan 8:3-4
         a. Standing beside the river
         b. The horns were high, with one higher than the other which
            came up last
         c. The ram was pushing westward, northward, and southward
            1) No beast could withstand him
            2) None could deliver from his hand
            3) He did according to his will and became great
      3. He saw a one-horned male goat - Dan 8:5
         a. Coming suddenly from the west
         b. Across the surface of the whole earth, not touching the
         c. With a notable horn between his eyes
      4. He saw the goat defeat the ram - Dan 8:6-7
         a. With furious power the goat attacked the ram and broke his
            two horns
         b. The ram was unable to withstand the goat, and was trampled
      5. The goat become great, but when he became strong... - Dan 8:8
         a. The large horn was broken
         b. In its place four notable ones came up toward the four
            winds of heaven
      6. He saw a little horn come out of the four with great power
         - Dan 8:9-12
         a. Which grew exceedingly great
            1) Toward the south and east
            2) Toward the Glorious Land
         b. Which grew up to the host of heaven
            1) Casting down and trampling to the ground some of the 
            2) Exalting himself as high as the Prince of host
         c. By this powerful horn...
            1) The daily sacrifices were taken away
            2) The place of His (God's) sanctuary was cast down
            3) An army was given him to oppose the daily sacrifices
               (because of transgression)
            -- He did all this and prospered
      7. Daniel then heard a conversation between two holy ones - Dan 8:13-14
         a. One asking:  "How long will the vision be, concerning..."
            1) "...the daily sacrifices and the transgression of
            2) "...the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be
               trampled under foot?"
         b. The reply given to Daniel:
            1) "For two thousand three hundred days"
            2) "Then the sanctuary shall be cleansed"

[With the details before us, we are now ready to consider the
explanation provided Daniel...]


      1. Daniel was seeking to understand the meaning - Dan 8:15-16
         a. When there stood before him one having the appearance of a
         b. When a man's voice from the banks of the Ulai charged
            Gabriel to make Daniel understand the vision
      2. Gabriel speaks to Daniel - Dan 8:17-19
         a. He approaches Daniel
            1) Prompting Daniel to fall on his face in fear
            2) Telling him that "the vision refers to the time of the
         b. He stands Daniel on his feet
            1) For Daniel had fallen into a deep sleep with his face to
               the ground
            2) To tell him "what shall happen in the latter time of the
               indignation; for at the appointed time the end shall be"

      1. The two-horned ram - Dan 8:20
         a. Depicts the kings of Media and Persia
         b. The larger horn may represent Persia's greater influence
            - Dan 8:3
         c. The expansion of the Medo-Persian empire illustrated by the
            ram pushing westward, northward, and southward - Dan 8:4
      2. The one-horned male goat - Dan 8:21
         a. Depicts the kingdom of Greece; note that it came from the
            west - Dan 8:5
         b. The large horn representing it's first king (Alexander the
         c. The speed of the goat aptly reflects Alexander's conquests
            - Dan 8:5
         d. Alexander defeated the Persians in three decisive battles
            - Dan 8:6-7
            1) At Granicus (334 B.C.)
            2) At Issus (333 B.C.)
            3) At Gaugamela (331 B.C.)
      3. The broken horn and four horns that arose in its place - Dan 8:22
         a. Alexander died at 33 years of age 
         b. His empire was divided between his four generals - Dan 8:8
            1) Ptolemy (Egypt)
            2) Seleucus I (Syria)
            3) Cassander (Macedonia and Greece)
            4) Lysimachus (Thrace and Asia Minor) 
      4. The little horn that became exceedingly great - Dan 8:23-25
         a. Some time later a king shall arise
            1) When transgressors have reached their fullness (when
               Israel has fallen back into sin)
            2) With mighty power, but not by his own
            3) Who shall destroy fearfully, prosper and thrive
            4) Who shall destroy the mighty and also the holy people
            5) Through cunning he shall cause deceit to prosper
            6) He shall magnify himself, and destroy many in their
            7) He shall even rise against the Prince of princes (i.e.,
               God Himself)
            8) But he shall be broken without human hand (God shall
               destroy him)
         b. This is most likely Antiochus Epiphanes, ruler of Syria
            (175-163 B.C.)
            1) Who imposed Greek culture and deities upon his subjects
            2) Who when he conquered Jerusalem:
               a) Set up an image in the temple
               b) Offered swine flesh upon the altar
               c) Encouraged Greek soldiers to commit fornication in
                  the temple
               d) Forbade circumcision, keeping the Sabbath, possessing
                  a copy of the Scriptures (Harkrider)
      5. The vision of the evenings and mornings - Dan 8:26
         a. The number of days the sacrifices will cease, and the
            temple desolated
         b. Maybe a literal period (a little over six years)
            corresponding to the actual period of time the abomination
            by Antiochus Epiphanes occurred (171-165 B.C.)
         c. Daniel instructed to seal up the vision
            1) For it was to occur "many days in the future"
            2) I.e., almost four hundred years later

      1. He fainted and was sick for days - Dan 8:27
      2. Though he afterward arose and went about the king's business,
         he was astonished by the vision (but no one understood it) 
         - Dan 8:27


1. This vision is probably the easiest to understand of the four
   visions that Daniel saw...
   a. The identity of the ram and goat are clearly given
   b. History confirms what is described in this vision
      1) The conflict between Medo-Persia and Greece
      2) The division of the Grecian empire following Alexander's death
      3) The rise of Antiochus Epiphanes and his desecration of the
         temple in Jerusalem

2. The purpose of the vision was to prepare the people of Daniel for
   what was to come...
   a. In "the time of the end"
   b. In "the latter time of the indignation"
   -- I.e., the persecution that would come upon Israel toward the end
      of the OT period, during the inter-testamental period (Young)

The remarkable accuracy of this vision has led some to date the book of
Daniel after the events of Antiochus Epiphanes.  But its accuracy poses
no problem for those who accept the inspiration of the Scriptures, and
should remind us of God's power to fulfill His Word:

   "Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there
   is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me,

   "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times
   things that are not yet done, Saying, `My counsel shall stand,
   And I will do all My pleasure,'

   "Calling a bird of prey from the east, the man who executes My
   counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will
   also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it."

                                             - Isa 46:9-11

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011