Copy of Personal Letter.
Maurice Lloyd's Comments on the errors of DH with regard to the 70 weeks of Daniel.
This is not a letter but just a few comments.
Please find enclosed cheque as a contribution to the work.
I'm surprised to see you now promoting what OQS wrote in S&B No.60 after my letter to you of the 11th October 1993. It is a serious error as I told him at the time
I enclose the latest issue of my monograph on 'The Mystery of Christ', which I think is an improvement on the original. you may have seen.
If you felt that you were obliged to put out just what Sellers taught I could understand. But you often disagree with him -- even where I do agree with him.
As you have my declared understanding of David's 70 weeks you will know how wrong DH is in stating 'this commandment by Cyrus' (It is never said that Cyrus was the one to issue such a commandment --- in fact it was done by Darius Hysterpes) nor does any Bible version say this was the start of the 490 years since it was the start of the 7 + 62 heptads. The including of the 7 + 62 within the 490 is a presumption.
I am not interested in the cassette of Hettema or of Ribbens, as they merely relay OQS, warts and all.
Howar White is somewhat different and agrees OQS was not always correct. He has his own research ideas -- some of which I would dispute. His S&B study is helpful and worthwhile. I sent him a copy of 'Chronology Rectified' but he has not acknowledged it. I have not yet modified my chronology chart.
Maurice Lloyd March 1997
The most serious error of OQS quoted by you, is to represent ekklEsia as meaning 'The Outcalled One' by which he means Christ. There is no known case of this word being other than a group noun, or Abraham surely would have been so named. I see no problem in it referring to the assembly which is The Body of Christ, where collective witness is not on the earth (as Exclusive Brethren hold) but to the Principalities and Authorities (i.e. the Eons) among the heavenly ones.
.Return to list.