70th week of Daniel timelines

 

360-day year in prophecy

Is there any significance to the number of days for the year of the flood being 360 days, when you add up all the days given in Genesis? I think the great tribulation period or the 2nd half of the "Week" is simply based on a 360 day year (from the middle of the Week to the end of the Week is 1260 days). Whether the rest of the 70 Weeks are 360-day years, or 365+-day years, only matters if you're trying to come up with what decree began the 70 weeks prophecy.

If the 2300 mornings and evenings of Daniel 8 don't apply to Antiochus IV (1150 mornings and 1150 evenings combined from his desecration of the temple to its restoration) but the 70th Week, then it must be from the middle of the Week (the Antichrist's AOD) to the anointing of the Millennial Temple.

Forgiveness but consequences

 When it comes to forgiveness, I think it is best to deal with the offense as soon as possible. We should be forgiving type people.

Probably what's difficult is the nature of the offense and the consequences attached to it. When it comes to forgiveness, what consequences are we responsible to not hold the offender for?

It seems people can say they forgive someone, and yet they exercise consequences on the offender. That's where it gets difficult. You can say you forgive someone, but the relationship is not the same, because you don't trust them or are more cautious around them.

It may take a wise person to sort out what is being forgiven and what consequences remain from the offense.

There is a conditional aspect of forgiveness with God, for until we acknowledged our sin to God, fellowship can't continue as before. That seems true in human relationships, because one can choose to continue to be friendly with someone who offended them, but the failure of the offender to acknowledge what they did will affect the relationship.

I had someone tell me that another person would not even acknowledge something offensive they said to a third party. The offended person was very upset, and told me they would still be the offender's friend, but couldn't trust him around the third party, and so would avoid inviting him to events involving the third party. It's an unfortunate situation. So the forgiveness is kind of limited because of the consequences are ongoing.

fathers, young men, and children in First John 2:12-14

 ¹² I write to you, little children, Because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake. ¹³ I write to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, Because you have overcome the wicked one. I write to you, little children, Because you have known the Father. ¹⁴ I have written to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, Because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, And you have overcome the wicked one. 1 John 2:12-14

The writer gives 3 or 4 physical stages of a man as a kind of representation of their spiritual assets (“little children” translate 2 different Greek words). The way the stages and assets are given suggest that these are not different stages of growth within the readers—some are this, and some are that-- but assets they have in their lives—maybe contrary to the claims of others. All assets describe where they are spiritually and relate to the issues already addressed, though the “young men” related assets deal with their adversaries in what follows in the letter.

There may be some correlation between the physical aspect and its representation and the spiritual asset that is ascribed to it (an asset is a quality that is beneficial). The little children are actually a different Greek word in each use, the second one is of maybe a little older age. The first use of children is about forgiveness of sin, and the second is about knowing the Father. The Father reference is about knowing God--both times. And the young men overcoming Satan, and being strong and the word abiding in them. All these things are things true about them.

He uses three titles to recognize three spiritual assets. These are not three levels of maturity in the assembly, but three assets they possess. Children, fathers, and young men do represent 3 levels of natural maturity or development, and that does correspond to the spiritual asset represented, but all three coincide in the individual. The natural maturity/ development corresponds to each spiritual asset as each has developmental progression to it.

Children and Fathers come before young men because they correspond to what John has already covered.

Children correspond with the forgiveness of sins, in both salvation and fellowship. Fathers correspond with knowing God as to His character and moral will. Young men correspond to that which hasn't been covered yet, but probably recognizes spiritual victory they have had in spiritual conflict, and it is that aspect of their spiritual character that continues to do battle by the word of God and the qualities of being Children and Fathers.

Concerning “knowing God,” I think two aspects are seen here; the one as with children with reference to the remission of sins and the new covenant, and the other as with fathers in coming to Know God in His character and will (getting to know God).

By the spiritual assets, they will overcome their adversaries.

The end of sacrifices, the abomination of desolation, and Preterism

 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.

Many—particularly those called “preterists”--believe Daniel 9:27 was fulfilled by Christ. The first half of the "70th Week" (being a 7 year period) was fulfilled by Christ in his ministry ending in the middle of the "week" by His death by which came the end of the sacrifice and offering.

The second half of the “week” was fulfilled by His disciples ministry. Some (preterists) believe there is a gap in the 70th Week of about 40 years: the first half fulfilled by Christ, while the second half fulfilled in the events of AD 70 with what happened in Jerusalem with its destruction and the temple.

I believe Daniel 9:27 was not fulfilled by Christ and his disciples or in the events of AD70.

I believe Jesus was referring to Danel 9:27 when He said, Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains ... For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. Matthew 24:15-16, 21.

The Septuagint (LXX) is used by Christ and the New Testament in quotes of the OT. The reference to the Abomination of Desolation spoken by Daniel standing in the Holy Place comes from Dan 9:27 in the LXX.

The LXX reads:

And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midsts of the week my sacrifice and drink offering shall be taken away:

and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.

The abomination of desolation, according to Christ, is followed by Great Tribulation, which is followed by the second coming.

The 42 months and 1260 days referenced in Revelation would correspond to that second half of the 7 years of the 70th Week, being 3 1/2 years (42 months, or 1260 days).

Those time references cover the Great Tribulation period that follows the Abomination of Desolation (AOD) which is brought to an end by the coming of Christ.

The wording of Daniel 9:27 is similar to other references in Daniel concerning the taking away of sacrifices and the abomination of desolation. There are 4 places in Daniel (8.13, 9.27, 11.31, 12.11) that speak of the daily sacrifice being taken away and the AOD being set up.

A few of them were fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanies IV, but the others refer to the prophecy of Daniel 9:27 in which we have the time frame for complete restoration of Jerusalem and Israel (Daniel 9:24).

Daniel 8:11: (NKJV) "He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down."

Daniel 8:13: "(NKJV) “How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation?"

Daniel 9:27: (LXX) "and in the midsts of the week my sacrifice and drink offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations"

Daniel 11:31 "(NKJV) And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation."

Daniel 12:11: "(NKJV) “And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days."

Those who believe the AOD took place in AD70 are usually anti-futurists. "Preterism" is the view that most prophecy has been fulfilled in the past, mostly in the events of AD70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. They would argue that the temple cannot exist in the future since Israel was judged and the Church and New Covenant replaces Israel, the Law, and the Temple.  Therefore, there can't be any Divine approval for a restoration of sacrifices that will be stopped. 

The reference in 2 Thesalonians 2:4 to the “temple” has to be the Church and not the Jewish temple according to Preterism: the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

They would not correlate the holy place of Daniel's prophecy (referenced by Jesus) with Paul’s reference in 2 Thes 2:4 to the temple—Daniel’s and Jesus’ references were fulfilled in AD70, and Paul’s reference in history by maybe the Pope. Though those who believe the disciples fulfilled the second half of the "Week" can't believe Dan 9:27's "desolation" was fulfilled in AD70; Jesus' reference to Daniel's prophecy has to be a different from a different text and time, unrelated to Daniel’s 9:27 taking away of sacrifices and AOD.

Yet if an AOD could happen 40 years after the Church began--as some preterists believe, who believe the second half of the “Week” was fulfilled in AD70 and not by the ministry of the Disciples of Christ, then, likewise, it could happen in a future temple in Jerusalem during the existence of the Church.  For if the sacrifices were stopped in AD70, and this is considered part of the AOD, 40 years after the Church began, then why couldn’t the futurist view work the same way, being a future AOD in a future Jewish Temple during the Church age? Preterists have to have gaps just like futurists (between 69th and 70th Week), because of those 2 things, if the end of sacrifices was by the death of Christ and the AOD was during the events of AD70--about a 40-year gap. If any Preterists say all of the prophecy happened in AD70, what was the first half of the 70th Week about, and what is the second half of the Week about?

2 Thesalonians 2:1-4 corresponds to Revelation 13.3-8 and Matthew 24:15-22 concerning the “Great Tribulation.” Revelation 13:5 has 42 months and Daniel 7:25 has time, times, half a time with reference to persecution of the saints: Rev. 12:14 has the same time reference, and Rev. 11:2,3 has 42 months and 1260 days, and Rev 12:6 has 1260 days. Daniel chapter 12 speaks of the unparalleled affliction/ tribulation, "time of the end," a "time, times, and half a time," and the "power of the holy people" being "completely shattered." The correlation is 3 ½ years of the Second half of Daniel’s Week.

Savoies and Acadia

 From the Acadian Expulsion in 1755 to 1763, some of the fourth generations of Acadian Savoies remained in exile or were held in prisons in Halifax. Many died from diseases and heartbreak. 

Francois Savoie was my 10th great grandfather, and he is the genealogical dead end for the Savoies.  He came from France to Acadia, Canada, married Catherine LeJEUNE, and had 9 children.  His parents are unknown.

Francois Savoie is said to be the progenitor of all the Savoie /Savo/Savoy/Savoye/Savois families in Southwest Louisiana.  Though I am a descendant of Francois' son Germain, my line of descent did not end up in Louisiana.

The Acadians (French: Acadiens) are the descendants of 17th and 18th century French settlers in parts of Acadia (French: Acadie) in the northeastern region of North America comprising what is now the Canadian Maritime Provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, the Gaspé peninsula in eastern Québec, and the Kennebec River in southern Maine.  Wikipedia

The British first deported Acadians to the Thirteen Colonies, and after 1758, transported additional Acadians to Britain and France. In all, of the 14,100 Acadians in the region, approximately 11,500 were deported, at least 5,000 Acadians died of disease, starvation or shipwrecks. Men, women and children were forcibly removed from their homes and their land, which they had farmed for a century. Their houses were burned and their land given to settlers loyal to Britain, mostly immigrants from New England and then Scotland. The event is largely regarded as a crime against humanity, though modern-day use of the term "genocide" is debated by scholars. A census of 1764 indicates that 2,600 Acadians remained in the colony having eluded capture. Wikipedia

Without making any distinction between the Acadians who had been neutral and those who had resisted the occupation of Acadia, the British governor Charles Lawrence and the Nova Scotia Council ordered them to be expelled.[e] In the first wave of the expulsion, Acadians were deported to other British North American colonies. During the second wave, they were deported to Britain and France, and from there a significant number migrated to Spanish Louisiana, where "Acadians" eventually became "Cajuns". Wikipedia

From the Acadian Expulsion in 1755 to 1763, some of the fourth generations of Acadian Savoies remained in exile or were held in prisons in Halifax. Many died from diseases and heartbreak.  Among the few who survived the British exile was Charles Savoie, who is assumed to have died later in New York. The rest of his large family is buried in scattered places in New Brunswick and Quebec. Among the Savoies later found in Louisiana were...From this family came another Francois Valcour Savoie, who is the ancestor of the Southwest Louisiana descendants.

I'm a descendant through a different son of Germain Savoie, but this is interesting: “After Germain Savoie died,” wrote Harry J. Savoy, “most of his sons moved north across the Bay of Fundy to what is now New Brunswick. Four of them evaded capture and deportation during the Canadian Expulsion, although the rest were deported. Germain’s youngest son, Charles Savoie, and his family of eight children were exiled to New York. His eldest son, Francois Savoie, was separated from the family and sent to Georgia.

Francois Savoie's 3rd great grandson left Canada and settled in Kansas, and after that, 2 generations later, John (Jean Baptiste) Savoie settled in Illinois.  His son, John Francis Savoie, settled in Albion, Indiana.  He was my great grandfather.  He was a farmer and owned a hotel in Albion (the "Savoie Hotel").  My great grandfather's family was recorded to be a French-speaking family.  That seems amazing after so many generations.  I've read that my grandfather was a French interpreter during World War One.   My grandfather died when I was about 5 years old, so I vaguely remember him.

Does God have emotion?

 Classical theism famously insists that God is simple or non-composite, impassible, immutable, eternal in the sense of atemporal, omniscient in a sense that entails complete knowledge of the future, and omnipotent in the sense that there can be nothing that exists or occurs independently of his causal power. Classical theists hold that these attributes follow from God's being the ultimate reality in the order of being and the ultimate explanation of things in the order of discovery. Hence, it is claimed, to deny any of them is at least implicitly to deny God's ultimacy.                                                                                                          by Chris Morrison (Facebook Friend)

Immutability and Impassibility are key, historic attributes the church has confessed, attributes that distinguish the infinite and eternal Creator from the finite and temporal creature. Immutability means God does not change in any way; he is unchanging and for that reason perfect in every way. Impassibility, a corollary to immutability, means God does not experience emotional change in any way, nor does God suffer. To clarify, God does not merely choose to be impassible; he is impassible by nature. Impassibility is intrinsic to his very being. Impassibility does not mean God is apathetic, nor does it undermine divine love. God is maximally alive; he is his attributes in infinite measure. Therefore, impassibility guarantees that God’s love could not be more infinite in its loveliness. Finally, impassibility provides great hope, for only a God who is not vulnerable to suffering in his divinity is capable of rescuing a world drowning in suffering.                                                                                                   by Matthew Barret

I don't know how classical theism works with human free will, but I believe that somehow free will is figured into what will come to pass.

Setting free will aside, how should one understand those references to God's emotion, such as wrath or sorrow or jealousy? These are different than things like love or mercy, because the former are temporal emotions and the later are the nature of God. Some believe God has emotions and others say that they are anthropomorphisms or anthropopathisms. Some say God is impassible and does not experience emotional change. But others would disagree.

Anthropomorphisms are human characteristics ascribed to God. God doesn't have an arm, but if Scripture speaks of the arm of God, we know it represents something about him, though he doesn't really have an arm. But when Scripture speaks of God's wrath, what does it represent? Maybe it is using a human emotion to represent God's disapproval. Jealousy represents the fact that God will not share his glory or his creation with another. God is just and disapproves of injustice. God desires to show mercy. Whether these are actual emotions on God's part or words to represent what is true of his nature, it seems either way we know something about him and what he expects from his creation. God is just, and he disapproves of injustice. God is creator, and he does not share his glory and creation with that which is not God, therefore he is a jealous God.

Anthropopathism : Attribution of human feelings to things not human, such as inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena. The ascription of human passions to supernatural beings, especially to the Supreme Being.

Anthropomorphism: Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena. The ascription of human attributes to supernatural or divine beings; in theology, the conception or representation of God with human qualities and affections, or in a human shape

When Lust is fulfilled

 It seems lust becomes sin when it is "fulfilled."

There must be a point when the lustful thought reaches the "fulfilled" stage, for it is that stage that walking in the spirit keeps you from: "I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh." Galatians 5:16.

So maybe one can sense the lustful inclination, but you don't act on it in your imagination or behavior, if walking in the spirit. 

Walking in the spirit must involve taking every thought captive in obedience to Christ  (2 Corinthians 10:5) and being energized by a renewed mind (Ephesians 4:23) in the truths of one's salvation and the glory of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18).

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, ⁵ casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

2 Corinthians 10:4-5

That you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, ²³ and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, ²⁴ and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.

Ephesians 4:22-24

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

2 Corinthians 3:18

A "70th Week of Daniel" timeline

My timeline chart on Facebook...

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=6481848805192986&set=a.372005219510739 

Private Property will exist in the Millennium ...

so private property is divinely recognized and sanctioned.

​¹ Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the LORD's house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And peoples shall flow to it.
² Many nations shall come and say,
"Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths."
For out of Zion the law shall go forth,
And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
³ He shall judge between many peoples,
And rebuke strong nations afar off;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore.
⁴ But everyone shall sit under his vine and under his fig tree,
And no one shall make them afraid;
For the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken. Micah 4:1-4

God created them Male and Female

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=6664773896900475&set=a.372005219510739 

Carbon Dioxide levels and Greenland

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=7252025484841977&set=a.372005219510739

The Prophet's line of vision of near and far events

 https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=6759767000734497&set=a.372005219510739

Is Trump the AntiChrist?

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=7193207607390432&set=a.372005219510739 

Prophetic Parallels of Jesus and Paul

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=7072821389429055&set=a.372005219510739 

THE QUESTION: “What must I do to be saved?’

 THE ANSWER: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” Acts 16.31

That answer to the question is the information that one needs to have for faith and to be saved.

The word “saved” (or “salvation”) is used with the understanding that one is not right with God and in eternal peril and needs deliverance. The word "saved" simply speaks of “deliverance.”

So the question is seeking the solution to one's present dire situation of not being right with God with a destiny of eternal peril or destruction (in a place called “Hell”).

The answer tells one how to be saved, that is, how to have deliverance from not being right with God and a certain destiny of eternal peril.

The answer is that one is saved by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ for that salvation.

This is the word of God and the promise of God. This word and promise connects the salvation that is sought by believing in Jesus Christ for that salvation.

Faith is the assurance of what is said and promised. Faith is taking God at His word.

Whatever one may believe up to this point can not deliver from eternal peril until he or she comes to know and believe this answer to the question of “how can I be saved?”

This is the final piece of information: God saves those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

“Sin” is of course the big problem as to why one is not right with God and faces eternal peril. The issue with sin is that it is a violation of God’s nature and moral law.

Sin is subject to penalty or consequence—the consequence has already been stated as not being right with God and a certain destiny of eternal peril.

Salvation can also be understood as the "remission of sins."

"To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." Acts 10:43

“Remission of sins” speaks of being released from the consequence of sin: this is “salvation” from sin. This remission of sins is the result of believing in him, that is, Jesus Christ. This is attested to by “all the prophets.” It is according to God’s word; it is God’s promise.

The reason that remission of sins is connected with Jesus Christ is because He died for those sins in the place of--as the substitute for--all people, who have sinned.

“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3.23

The death that Christ died on the cross was to bear the “wages” of sin, that is, the consequence of sin.

“The wages of sin is death.” Romans 6.23

"Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree [the cross]." 1 Peter 2.24

This death of Christ was how God loved the world and gave His son.

It is because of the death of Christ for our sins that we can have everlasting life.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

Because of what Christ did, God can give everlasting life to those who believe in Jesus for everlasting Life. Everlasting life is salvation, because the alternative is to “perish.”

The word “perish” means “destruction”: this is that condition of not being right with God.

(The New Testament was originally written in Greek, and the Greek word for "perish" is the same as "destroy.")

It is ultimately being assigned to eternal peril in that place called “hell.”

Jesus said, "do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10.28

Why must it be this way? It is because God created man with a certain measure of free will. The outcome of free will was disobedience to God and the result was separation from God.

Yet God made provision for this at His own great sacrifice through the death of Christ for our sins. One can’t completely fathom the depths of this sacrifice, for it was not merely a physical death that Christ suffered, but a spiritual death, which is separation from God.

While on the cross, Jesus cried out: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me ?" Matthew 27.46

Yes, we did not choose to come into this world, a world of this arrangement. Consider that we did not choose our parents, and yet our parents usually love us and want a relationship with us, and us with them. The situation is similar with God, but God is without moral failure, unlike our parents. Most people want to live, enjoy life, and have meaningful relationships. These things are fulfilled by God through that salvation which is through faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

Jesus said: “I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” John 10:10

This life and salvation is the possession of those who believe in Jesus Christ for it. This answers the question as to how to be saved. It is the final piece of information to be understood and believed for salvation to take place.

"That whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” The words of Jesus, the Gospel of John 3:15

jsonb58@gmail.com

The Angels that Sinned

I have this theory about the angels (sons of God) who mated with humans in Genesis 6:1-4.  

First, there is a video by Dr. Peter Gentry on YouTube that points out that the reference to Giants in Genesis 6 reveals that the giants on the earth existed before the fallen angels had offspring.  These giants were on the earth before and after the flood.  He suggests that this information is to correct the view that the giants were the offspring of angels.  

I think the giants (Nephilim) were humans who were taller than normal. Three to four feet taller than the average tall person would be a giant. They were not the result of gigantism or giantism caused by a pituitary disorder, such as Robert Wadlow who was 8 feet 11 inches tall (said to be the tallest man on record).  There have been those who do not or did not have the disorder that are over 7 feet tall, such as Angus MacAskill who was 7' 9"; he was/ is the tallest on record without the pituitary disorder.  We know famous basketball players who were 7 feet and taller. Goliath could have been 9 feet 6 inches. It could be that the giants of the Old Testament reached nearly 10 feet tall, but that probably was the upper limit.  Before the flood, when the environment was better, and people lived longer and probably were healthier, that upper limit could be reached, but I doubt there were 30 foot tall people

Angus MacAskill 

Concerning the angels of Genesis 6, it's hard to understand how spirits could have sex with humans.  I am thinking that maybe when an angelic being leaves their realm (domain) and enters into our 3-dimensional realm, that God has designed it so that they are transformed into a functioning flesh and blood human being.  The angels can enter by will, but once they enter, they take on human biology, but this was only meant to be temporary. There is no such thing as Angel DNA that could be passed on to humans--they had to become human to procreate with humans.  Those angels who entered and chose to stay and cohabit with humans left their proper domain (Jude 6).  This would have been in violation of God's will.  They became human but retained their self-awareness and superior knowledge. They took human wives and had children.  The children were human, but the knowledge of the angels could be passed on to their children which gave them an advantage over others becoming mighty men on the earth.  

In connection with the flood, God cast these offending angels into chains of darkness.  It could be that they transitioned back to their realm to escape the flood, which would have killed them in their human form. This judgment of these angels would have kept them from a repeat offense in the new post-flood earth and serve as a deterrent to other angels who have access into our 3-dimensional realm.

The demons are other fallen angels who do not enter into our 3-dimensional realm in human form but still have an influence in their own spirit form into our realm while staying in their own realm (which I would call "the spirit realm").  Satan is a fallen angel, but he did not cohabit as a human with humans, but he can function in his spirit form in our realm from his realm.  I question the view that says the demons are the disembodied spirits of those whose bodies were destroyed by the flood being the half-breed children of both the the fallen angels and their human wives, and after the flood, their spirits live on, roaming the earth in search of bodies to inhabit (demon possession).

"the faith OF Jesus Christ"

 *Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.   Galatians 2:16  KJV

I don't believe "of Jesus" and "of Christ" means Jesus' or Christ's faith. The names "Jesus" and "Christ" are in the genitive case, so "of" is added, which is often descriptive or speaks of possession, but it has a lot of other usages, like a "bucket of balls": "of balls" is the content of the bucket. So "faith of Jesus [or Christ]" could be the content of faith. But even if "faith of Jesus [or Christ]" was Christ's faith, how does that save us, unless it means his faithfulness in going to the cross? Yet we still have to believe, as Galatians 2:16 says: even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith of Christ. That clearly says we believe in order to be justified.

*This quote is from the King James Version, which translates it "of Christ," while the New King James translates it "in Christ": Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Galatians 2:16

Christian Deism

I think the common mindset in our country is one that's deistic and nominally Christian.  It's a cultural mindset, one that is still accepting of things like Christmas and Easter, promoting a nominal Christianity (mostly in name only), and one that may be cynical of the Church and its form and ritual and certain traditional values.  They are deistic in that they loosely hold some commonly held beliefs with several religions, such as there is an intelligence ("God") who will judge us on the basis of our relative goodness, after death, but they are generally disinterested in and ignorant of the Bible.  They are "Christian" in that they identify more with it culturally (singing Christmas songs about Jesus and his birth) than with Judaism or Islam or Hinduism, and they may believe in a Jesus who went about doing good, believing if they are relatively good, as Jesus was, in their character and conduct, they will be ultimately approved by God.   

Belief and Doubt

There is a view that faith and belief are not the same, for the former is to have assurance about a thing, while the latter can include doubt.  I don't think this is really about a difference between the words "faith" and "belief," because both words can have the same meaning.   It seems the issue is whether there is a faith or belief that is defined as assurance and certainty, and a faith or belief that includes doubt.

The book of Hebrews describes faith as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1, New American Standard)  But some want to argue that faith can include doubt, that faith is not necessarily assurance. There can be a faith that is assurance concerning a thing, while there is a faith that includes doubt concerning a thing.

The faith that includes doubt could be in which a person may act with a certain degree of trust but has doubts about what will happen.  For example, you could trust a friend due to his known character but be uncertain that he will be able to fulfill what he claims.

I see two things in view, as in the example just given, of which faith and doubt can latch onto.  It's not that I am having faith and doubt in the same thing at the same time.  There can be two objects of faith, one is the character and integrity of the individual that makes a promise or claim, and the other is in what they can promise or claim.   Humans can fail, no matter how trustworthy their character.   If they were God, you could believe their character and their claim, because you could not only believe in their character, but you could believe they would not fail in their claim.    

If belief is certainty, does that mean you have to have absolute knowledge concerning a thing?  I don't believe you do.  To be certain just means you are certain, it doesn't mean you have to have absolute knowledge on a metaphysical level (like God can have).  Does certainty mean that your belief has to be true?  I don't believe it does, because you can believe in something that is not true, yet your belief is still belief.  Certainty is not uncertainty.  

Is uncertainty unbelief?  It may not be a stubborn rejection of something, but uncertainty is not certainty: it involves doubt, whether it be a mild doubt or a strong one.  Having doubt is not necessarily bad; it just means you are not certain: you are not persuaded.  We can see in Scripture examples where faith and doubt are in contrast, such as when Peter begins to walk on water at the command of Christ, and yet begins to sink when he is frightened.  Jesus asked him why he doubted. Peter started out with certainty, but then uncertainty took over. Jesus said to Peter, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" Matthew 14:31  What was the "little faith?"  Maybe it recognizes that Peter believed Jesus could enable him to walk on water, but when he saw the waves, he became uncertain that he could walk on the water.  Peter limited the ability of Christ.  This is in contrast to the "great faith" of the Centurian in Matthew 8:5-13.

Jesus said that the Centurian had "great faith."  I believe the circumstance in which he believed revealed it as "great," not that there are different quantities of faith.  In Matthew 8:5-10, Jesus says to the Centurian that he will come to his house to heal the one in need, but the man says that Jesus does not need to go to his house but only speak the word from where he is at.   His faith is "great" because he believed Jesus could heal by simply speaking the word where he was at without coming to his house.  Others would expect Jesus to go where the healing was needed, but this man did not.  That was what made his faith great.

There was the situation where Jesus said, "All things are possible to him who believes.”  Immediately the boy’s father cried out and said, “I do believe; help my unbelief.” Mark 9:23-24    This is used as an example of one having belief and doubt at the same time.  We don't know exactly what the man meant when he responded this way.  It could be his way of saying he wanted to believe, but he had doubts.  Or it could be that the man believed one thing but had doubts about another.  It would be like saying that you believe God is able to do such and such, but you don't know that he will.   I believe God can heal me, but I don't know that he will, or I doubt that he will.  I could believe that he will, if he gave me special revelation, but typically, that revelation doesn't come.   So maybe the man believed Jesus could cast the demon out of his son, but he didn't know if he would.   Or maybe it was just his way of saying he wanted to believe Jesus could do it, but still wasn't sure he could.

If a person believes in a thing (called "X"), but there is a view (called "Y") that would refute X, and that person does not believe in Y, but he acknowledges that Y is plausible, does that mean he doesn't really believe in X, or does he believe in X but with doubt (maybe a weak doubt)?   Is this an example of faith with doubt?   To say that Y is plausible, when Y refutes X, would seem to suggest some doubt about X.  Maybe it's just exercising some humility about the subject matter of which X and Y involve.  

Sometimes we believe in something that has arguments against it--that have some validity, but you are not persuaded by them, but you recognize them.  Sometimes we embrace a view because it makes the most sense and/or the majority hold to it, and yet there are other views that have arguments that seem plausible or valid, which you may not have the ability to refute, and yet you go with a different view.  It may not be doubt concerning those opposing arguments, but a recognition that they are valid or difficult to refute, but you take a different view.  And why do you take that different view?  Hopefully it is due to honest persuasion by the evidence and not just a stubborn rebellion.  

With the options of God existing (X) and not existing (Y), the former X seems more likely to you that Y.  You are convinced that the X option is the better one of the two, though you have doubts about X.  Being convinced X is the better option, you go with it and live accordingly. There's two objects here for faith: one is which is the better option; the second is which is true.  You are certain of one, but have doubts about the other.  You live according to X because you are persuaded it's the better option, but you have doubts that it is true.   I think this could be problematic in your walk with God, because of what Hebrews 11 says. It seems like if I am uncertain about the existence of God, then everything else kind of hangs in doubt that is connected.  Hebrews 11:6 says, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."  

If I doubt the divine authority of Scripture, then I'm more likely to doubt it's claims and promises.  But even here, it could be like the belief in God example:  I am certain that going with the divine authority of Scripture view is the better option, though I am uncertain that it is divinely authoritative.  But that uncertainty will probably cause you problems, even if you believe it is better to live your life as if scripture is divinely authoritative, because when difficulty comes, you can have a reason to disobey its instruction.

If says they have doubts about everything, that seems rather exaggerated.  Would you go to work every day, if you doubted you would be paid?  Faith is not about perfect knowledge but whether you are persuaded.  It's not doubt if I turn out to be wrong in my belief, because I can be convinced and wrong; it just means I was fooled.  

If a person has doubt about a thing, then they are not yet persuaded --understanding persuasion as belief.  If you are not yet certain, then it seems you do not believe it.  If you do not have assurance about a thing, then you do not yet believe in such a thing.  You may have to make a choice between two things of which both you are not sure, so you go with the thing that seems to have the better argument(s) or has the most support, but there's still uncertainty.   A person may want to believe something, and they may be close to believing it, but they still are not certain about it: they lack assurance and conviction about it. 

The author of Hebrews describes faith as assurance and conviction about things God has promised, and he gives many examples from the Old Testament of how it looks when one lives by faith.   That kind of faith believes in both the character of God and God's ability to fulfill what he promised. Those are 2 things which are connected.  To not believe in both would be to have faith and doubt, but ultimately, in that case, it would be to question the character of God, because God is not human, and he cannot fail.  Either you have assurance and conviction in what God promises or you are still unbelieving, whatever the reason or however close to believing you are; you are still not persuaded.  Faith is assurance and conviction.

John the Baptist's doubts

When John the Baptist was in prison, he begins to have some doubts about the identity of Jesus.  We read John ... "calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to Jesus, saying, 'Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?'" Luke 7:19  

It can be said that even the prophet John the Baptist had doubts.  Why this uncertainty, when his divine mission was certain, and God gave evidence that Jesus was His son?  John being in prison could have been part of the reason, because difficulty can cause one to have doubt. 

It could be that the course of Jesus' ministry led to some uncertainty, if John had limited understanding of the course Jesus' ministry would take.  

The fact John asked this of Jesus shows that he believed Jesus was sent from God, and John would trust his response, even if he wasn't the anticipated "Christ," because obviously God was with Jesus.  

It may be that he was familiar with a teaching that there would be two messiahs, and maybe in light of the course that Jesus' ministry was taking, he might have wondered if that two-messiah-view had some validity to it.  The two-messiah-view is the view that there would be a suffering messiah, being "Messiah Ben Joseph," and a conquering messiah, "Messiah Ben David."   We can't know if that added to John's uncertainty or not.   Difficulty in life can cause us to sometimes question things of which we were once convinced.

John needed reassurance that Jesus was the Christ.  Jesus' response was not one of rebuke, and Jesus had nothing critical to say about John. Jesus gave demonstration through miracles to John's disciples that he was The Christ.  There is something to learn from this about doubt and asking God for reassurance.

------

Then the disciples of John reported to him concerning all these things.  And John, calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to Jesus, saying, "Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?"

When the men had come to Him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, 'Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?'" And that very hour He cured many of infirmities, afflictions, and evil spirits; and to many blind He gave sight. Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them.  And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me." 

When the messengers of John had departed, He began to speak to the multitudes concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind?  But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Indeed those who are gorgeously appareled and live in luxury are in kings' courts.  But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet.  This is he of whom it is written: 'Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way before You.'  For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." Luke 7:18-28

Israel as a people and a state

My beliefs about the people and nation of Israel are informed by what I understand the Bible has to say about them.  That understanding is according to a futurist perspective, being God will restore them as a people and nation in the land promised to Abraham after the second coming of Christ.  Apart from that perspective, I would hope that I would want the same degree of justice and what's right for them as a people and geographical nation as any other.  

Understanding a uniqueness about the Jewish people from a biblical perspective, I still know and believe that when it comes to what the Bible says about eternal life, they are saved in the same manner as we who are not by nature Jews ("...we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they." Acts 15:11).  

Their situation as a nation and people in the land since the first century is due to the rejection of Jesus as the Christ.  Jesus revealed this:  "For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side,  and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation." Luke 19:43-44.  Their restoration as a people and nation in the land in peace and safety will come in the future, when Christ comes again, and a large number of Jews will see and believe in him:   "And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: 'The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.'" Romans 11:26-27 

At present, there will be conflict between Jews and mostly Muslims-led people over the land and their right to exist there.  It's part of the consequences of Israel's rejection of Jesus as the Christ.  Their presence in the land seems necessary for certain prophecy to be fulfilled.  Even the conflict may play a role in the fulfillment of prophecy. 

Some anti-Zionist Jews believe the present State of Israel is illegitimate, because the coming of the Christ will establish them in the land.  Actually, that is true, but even they don't yet believe Jesus is the Christ.  If the did, they would be joined to other Christians as part of the Church.  However, even though Israel as a nation is presently illegitimate from a prophetic understanding, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have a presence in the land as a nation.  But how can that be accomplished in light of the surrounding opposition, and knowing there will always be a conflict until Christ returns?  That's the complicated part.  

Can the Christian take the view that Israel should have the right to exist as a nation in the land they were driven from, ultimately because they rejected Jesus as the Christ?  Can the Christian agree with some kind of 2 State solution that recognizes both a Jewish State and a Palestinian State?  Could it be the 2 State solution in which there would be a Palestinian State consisting of Gaza and the West Bank?  Could the Christian agree and support this, knowing it is only a temporary solution, in light of prophecy, and not be guilty of the accusation of Joel 3:2, "And I will enter into judgment with them [the nations] there on account of My people, my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; They have also divided up My land."  

As a biblicist and futurist, I know whatever agreement that can be reached is only temporary.  I don't want to be guilty of Joel 3:2 in going along with dividing up the land, but I can go along with Israel having a nation in the land, and if that requires a 2 State solution, then so be it. It's only temporary, and it may be the means of fulfilling prophecy that leads up to the time of the end.  Israel does exist as a nation now.  

There was no established nation in that land prior to 1948, and even though there were more non-Jews in the land in the centuries prior to Israel's Statehood, the Jewish people took that step and have established a nation. Though many don't want them there, yet they are there, and a 2 State solution may be the best solution until the time of the end when all things will be fulfilled, prophetically, concerning them as a people and nation.

I believe God still has a plan and purpose for them as a people:

"I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins." Concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."
Romans 11:25-29

The theologian Charles Hodge wrote concerning the "all Israel" being "saved": "Israel here must mean the Jewish people, and 'all Israel' the whole nation. The Jews, as a people, are now rejected; as a people they are to be restored. As their rejection, although national, did not include the rejection of every individual, so their restoration though national, need not include the salvation of every Jew. All Israel does not mean all the true people of God, as Augustin, Calvin, and others explain it; nor all the elect Jews -- i.e., all that part of the nation which constitute "the remnant according to the election of grace" --but the whole nation, as a nation. (Charles Hodge on Romans 11:26, Romans Commentary)

Parable of the Talents

In understanding the parable of the talents (Matthew 25.14-30), it might be that the designation "servant" includes anyone who makes claim to God, especially the Jew, or it could be that the servant-master relationship is analogous to the creature-Creator relationship.

I believe the following saying, as it is used elsewhere, is instructive in understanding the parable: the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. (Mat 25.29) These words appear in Mat 13.12. Jesus says this in response as to why he spoke in parables to the multitudes, predominately Jewish. The parables were a judgment on them. He also said these words in Luke 19.26 in connection with the parable of the 10 minas. This parable has similarities to the Talent parable, yet with some extra details such as the master of the slaves being hated by his citizens. I believe this must be a reference to the Jewish nation, and the slave must be a reference more to the individual and his responsibility to the master's entrustment. 

It seems to me that the talents and minas represent something more than just something entrusted, but that which should be desired or grasped, like the revelation of God--especially the gospel of the kingdom. The Jewish people were entrusted with this revelation, and so in a sense, they had something, but not all of them properly desired or grasped it, and so in a sense, these didn't have it. Those who had grasped it could be said to have, and to them was given more. Those Jews who believed in Christ, who were unlike the multitudes who came to hear Jesus, were not under the judgment as Jesus explained in Mat 13. Those who believed were granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, ... for to whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have abundance. (Mat 13.11-12) But those who had hard hearts to the revelation, who did not desire or grasp the truth, it was "not granted" to know the mysteries of the kingdom. They did not have it in that they did not desire it or grasp it. They were privileged to hear, but because they were not ready or hungry to receive it, the understanding would not be given them (from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away). It would be given to the one who was receptive. 

Maybe the parable of the Sower would somewhat explain the process: The seed is the word of God. Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. Luke 8.11-12 One could also consider what Jesus said to Martha about Mary: Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her. Luke 10.41-42

Paul's Thorn in the Flesh

 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 2 Corinthians 12:7

There's uncertainty as to what Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was, but I tend to agree with the view that it was a physical weakness.  Paul pleaded with God to remove it--3 times he pleaded, and God would not remove it.    He called it a "messenger of Satan to buffet" him, "lest he be exalted above measure," but he also called it an "infirmity" or "weakness" (both words translate the same Greek word in the New Testament).   God said, "His strength is made perfect in weakness."  The reference to a "messenger of Satan" may lead one to conclude it was some form of persecution, but Satan can use a health problem to cause affliction--as he did with Job, whose body was covered with painful boils (Job 2;7).  I believe the thorn was something physical nature, a health related issue, because Paul identified it as an infirmity, which he distinguishes from persecutions: I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong. 2 Corinthians 12:10 There is reason to think that Paul had a problem with his eyes:  You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first.  And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. ... I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me.  Galatians 4:13-15   It is through physical weakness that God can have a greater witness, because of the character of the one who suffers.  There can be a greater witness in the truth spoken and lived out when one is physical weak or handicapped.  We can pray for healing, especially if it is a life-threatening issue, or if it involves pain that makes life unbearable, but I tend to believe that in many, if not most cases, healing does not come, but we can receive grace to respond to our weakness in a God-honoring way.  As the Lord said to Paul: My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.  And Paul responded: Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me...For when I am weak, then I am strong. 2 Corinthians 12:9-10

Hypocrisy

Words should be defined by their usage and not simply by their etymology, but I believe the word "hypocrisy" is not being used correctly today. People seem to be using the word "hypocrisy" to label those they disagree with as deceivers, which portrays them as being much worse than being inconsistent in what they believe or do.  "Hypocrisy" is not the same as being "inconsistent" in what one believes or does, for the former involves deception, while the latter does not necessarily involve deception, and the inconsistency may be merely the perception of another but not necessarily the case.

Random House Dictionary defines "hypocrisy as “a semblance of having desirable or publicly approved attitudes, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess.”  The Greek word “hupokrisis”--which is transliterated as "hypocrisy"--speaks of a stage actor or one who pretends.  The word represents deception not inconsistency.  It speaks of one seeking to appear before others what they know they really are not.  To call someone a hypocrite is to call them a deceiver.  Deception is worse than inconsistency, and hypocrisy as deception is to be discerned and rejected.

Maybe before calling a person a hypocrite, which involves deception, discern the difference between deception and inconsistency.  Most people are inconsistent about many things, but that doesn’t mean they are intentionally seeking to be deceptive.  It doesn’t make them a hypocrite.  

If you don’t like a person’s beliefs and practices, that doesn't qualify them as a hypocrite.  If their beliefs and practices are or seem inconsistent, that doesn't make them a hypocrite.

Examples in Scripture

Acts 5:1-5: Ananias and Saphira lied to the Holy Spirit: they knew it was wrong, and they gave the impression that what they were doing was what others had done, see Acts 4:32-35.   They were not obligated to give all of what they sold, but they wanted others to believe they did.   It was hypocrisy.  

Even when Jesus called the great crowds hypocrites, it must be because  they claimed ignorance of the times (of accountability to God), but could not deny the evidence, Luke 12:54-56.  It’s like when one claims ignorance when they surely knew better.  They could not deny the signs of certain weather coming, yet, after the signs of John's ministry and the person, preaching, and miracles of Jesus, they couldn't discern the times?

Luke 12:1:  The leaven of the Pharisees is hypocrisy.   Hypocrisy referred to as leaven speaks of it permeating affect, as a little fermented dough affects the whole.

What was their hypocrisy? Matthew 23:27-28:  The Pharisees were called hypocrites because they made a show of being righteous but were not so much.

Peter and Barnabas were deceptive out of fear: Gal 2:11-13. Fear is a motivation for hypocrisy.  In that situation, the issue was legalism, and this legalism denied the truth of the gospel.  Peter and Barnabas should have taken a stand for the gospel and not feared the disapproval of these Jewish reps. Legalism, especially when it denies the truth of the gospel, can not be justified in order to not be an offence to others.  Jesus didn’t do it.

Inconsistency does happen, but hypocrisy goes to the point of being deceptive:  you know what you’re doing or claiming.  By this you will be disapproved and fail to be effective.

Buying my EV

 

I chose to buy an electric car (not a hybrid) because I have an off-grid solar setup for my house, and I wanted to have an alternative to a gas-only-vehicle when prices get extremely high; and I wanted to take full advantage of my solar system setup, when I have extra solar-generated-power after my house battery storage is full, and I am able to power the house loads that are connected to the system.

The extra solar power will be mostly during the months of April through September, when there is excess sunshine.  My system reverts to the grid when my house batteries reach a certain low point of charge.   

When there is enough sun, and my batteries are charged high enough around 90%, and the demand of the loads can be met, I can plug my car into the solar system-- I have a dedicated 120 volts outlet to charge the car.  There are 2 settings in the car at 120 volts of about 800 watts and 1200 watts.  The former setting provides about 3 miles an hour charge, and the latter about 4 or 5 miles an hour.  The car can charge up to about 280 mile range.   I don't want to delete my house batteries to charge the car, because the original intent was to power the house loads, and not go back to the grid when my batteries are low (usually during the night), so I have to keep an eye on how deleted the batteries might get.  I may only charge the car 5 or 6 hours during a sunny day.  That's only about 20 to 25 mile range.    I mostly want to drive the car locally.

If I need to charge the car more often and quickly, I installed a dedicated 240 volt connection to the grid, and this will charge the car at about 27 miles an hour.  I don't know how much that is costing me. 

I drove to South haven, Michigan, and I charged at the "Red E" charger.   I used my phone's camera to scan the QR code at the charger by which I went to the website of that charger.  I put in my information and credit card, and it told me how many watts it had charged the car and the cost while charging.  I could stop the charge at any time with my phone.  I did it 3 different times.  The third time it cost me $2.32 for a 41 miles charge.   That didn't seem too bad.  The mileage shown in the car isn't exactly what you will get, for it  depends on how fast you drive the car.

I'm charged an extra 150. annual fee for my plates (Indiana's EV fee).  I'm not opposed to a fee, since I'm not paying a gasoline tax.   The annual fee is based on an assumed 10,000 miles of driving a year--which is about double what I'll probably drive it.   I had to pay the full 150. when I bought the car in May, and I have to pay it again when I renew my plates for October.  Why wasn't it prorated between May and October?  I asked the BMV about this, and they said fees aren't prorated.  So I got charged the full annual fee for part of a year, and it's based on mileage I don't drive.  Not a good incentive for buying EVs.