PDA

View Full Version : Sir Robert Andersons Blunder



Cyberseeker
Sep 21st 2008, 11:52 AM
Prophecy is built on chronology. Entire prophetic systems stand or fall on dates which are already history. These dates have already been and gone. An example of this is the future seven year tribulation. Did you know that the hundreds (yea thousands) of books written about a future seven year reign of Antichrist is based on a faulty date?

It all started in 1895 when Sir Robert Anderson published his book, ‘The Coming Prince.’ He claimed that he had calculated Daniels sixty-nine weeks as finishing in the week Christ died - AD32. Wrong; the crucifixion was April AD30.

Now this might appear trifling to some, but the entire idea of the ‘70th’ week getting projected into the future relied on the assumption that Andersons 69th week stopped at the cross. Realizing that Anderson had blundered, modern pretrib teachers like Tim LaHaye, Thomas Ice, Chuck Missler scrambled to adjust his calculations to AD33 instead. But this only made matters worse. For example Jesus would have to be thirty-nine when he died. Hmmm. :hmm:


So the future ‘70th week’ seven years is actually a myth. The interesting thing is that many pretrib members of Christian forums do not realize that their endtime belief systems are based on Anderson’s faulty chronology.


Cyberseeker

Literalist-Luke
Sep 21st 2008, 11:57 AM
Can you provide any evidence to support these assertions?

bennie
Sep 21st 2008, 01:47 PM
Can you provide any evidence to support these assertions?

literalist,

i have done a study on the jubilee calender, and come to the same conclusion. to present the jubilee calender to some one in a study, a person need at leat 8to 10 hours. that is just presenting it.( let alone trying to type it into a forum.) Gods clocks it not easy to understand. His timing and our timing are different. Fantastic study though.
His assertions can not be proofed with a few bible verses. WhereCyber gets his views and opinions, i dont know. I get mine from the bible.

bennie

mfowler12
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:59 PM
literalist,

i have done a study on the jubilee calender, and come to the same conclusion. to present the jubilee calender to some one in a study, a person need at leat 8to 10 hours. that is just presenting it.( let alone trying to type it into a forum.) Gods clocks it not easy to understand. His timing and our timing are different. Fantastic study though.
His assertions can not be proofed with a few bible verses. WhereCyber gets his views and opinions, i dont know. I get mine from the bible.

bennie
So we should believe you just because you say so? What happened to that thing that the bible says in comparing all things to what the scripture says?

Literalist-Luke
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:13 PM
So we should believe you just because you say so? What happened to that thing that the bible says in comparing all things to what the scripture says?That's exactly why I asked for evidence to support these assertions. :yes:

Joe King
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:54 PM
Cyberseeker, you should know that you have to bring scripture into the discussion. I am interested in learning more because I do not believe in pre-trib anymore.

Cyberseeker
Sep 22nd 2008, 07:09 PM
My assertion is that Anderson / LaHaye / Ice / Misslers chronology is faulty. Since this is so, Anderson’s theory of a future seven-year ‘week’ is also faulty.

If anyone would like my evidence I can provide historical data. But if you want verses from the Bible there are none to quote. Why? Because the doctrine of a future ‘70th’ week doesn’t exist. May I turn your question around and ask you the same question? Is there any scripture (apart from Andersons mistake) that explicitly mentions a future seven year tribulation?

Cyber

bennie
Sep 22nd 2008, 07:40 PM
So we should believe you just because you say so? What happened to that thing that the bible says in comparing all things to what the scripture says?

do you have any idee of the jubilee calendar?? i did not say to believe anything i said. frankly i said nothing in my post, just made a referance to the jubilee calendar. ask about the calandar, not about believing me. try to figure the jubilee calendar out, it is fun and exciting to see Gods timing on everything.

bennie

Acerohombre
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:41 AM
Because the doctrine of a future ‘70th’ week doesn’t exist.Sure it does, Dan 9:27.

Or at least do it this way....Dan 9:27 is what Anderson's beliefs are built around or yours are built around in opposition to his "theory". So, please take the time to expound. If you don't then it's just as good as saying the color blue is cold and the color red is hot but we really don't know for sure do we?

Literalist-Luke
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:57 AM
My assertion is that Anderson / LaHaye / Ice / Misslers chronology is faulty. Since this is so, Anderson’s theory of a future seven-year ‘week’ is also faulty.

If anyone would like my evidence I can provide historical data. But if you want verses from the Bible there are none to quote. Why? Because the doctrine of a future ‘70th’ week doesn’t exist. May I turn your question around and ask you the same question? Is there any scripture (apart from Andersons mistake) that explicitly mentions a future seven year tribulation?

CyberI wasn't asking for exclusively Scriptural evidence. There is much empirical evidence that can be used in spiritual arguments that is from outside the Bible, especially in historical matters. This discussion certainly falls within that category. From my point of view, Daniel 9:26-27 gives us the basis for the seven-year Tribulation, along with the mention in Revelation 11 of a period of 1,260 days, which is 360 days X 3.5. The same period of time is also mentioned in Daniel 12 (IIRC), which provides a connection with the Revelation 11 mention.

So, aside from your statement to that effect, what reason do we have for discounting all of this? I'm not dismissing your statements out of hand, I'm quite willing to consider your points, but it's going to take something more than just "Cyberseeker says so". Historical data would be quite acceptable, so long as it successfully supports the argument.

Acerohombre
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:21 AM
along with the mention in Revelation 11 of a period of 1,250 daysBut as I'm sure you know, there are other configurations that equal 1,260 days (I'm sure you meant 60) like "time, times and the dividing of times" or a "thousand two hundred and threescore days." Same amount of time but if you read which terminology is used and where you see that one time is a preceding time period and one is a following time period which coincides with other verses in the Bible like Rev 11:3 and Rev 12:6 or Dan 7:25 and Rev 12:14. When you look at the events that are outlined specifically in Rev 12 there's no way that these two mentioned 1,260 day time events can be the same event or the Chapter is whacky. Add the two up and you get 7 years.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:26 AM
But as I'm sure you know, there are other configurations that equal 1,260 days (I'm sure you meant 60) like "time, times and the dividing of times" or a "thousand two hundred and threescore days." Same amount of time but if you read which terminology is used and where you see that one time is a preceding time period and one is a following time period which coincides with other verses in the Bible like Rev 11:3 and Rev 12:6 or Dan 7:25 and Rev 12:14. When you look at the events that are outlined specifically in Rev 12 there's no way that these two mentioned 1,260 day time events can be the same event or the Chapter is whacky. Add the two up and you get 7 years.Right, I agree. (And thanks for getting me to correct my typo, btw :D )

My point was simply that there are Scriptural reasons for the seven-year Tribulation.

Just a Door Keeper
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:09 AM
Well there sure is some future events yet to come, such as the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, the gathering of believers, the day of the Lord, the stars falling, the sun not giving her light, the moon turned to darkness, the antichrist revealed, the mark of the beast, etc, etc. These things are yet to happen, and they seem to fit into a seven year period where the abomination of desolation takes place in the midst of the week...
Or do you believe that these things have taken place already??? No of course they haven't. The Bible never says there will be a seven year tribulation, but there is the 70th week of Daniel with these afore mentioned events. Unless you don't really believe that the Lord is going to return like He said He would. Read Matthew 24, and tell me that it is talking of history past, no it isn't. Just read your Bible and think about it.

yoSAMite
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:57 AM
Hey Cyber,

Here's what I see is the discussion point, please let me know if I'm wrong.

We have a time line in Daniel 9:25 "Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."

So basically the first 69 weeks begin at a decree to rebuild Jerusalem and end at the proclamation of the Messiah. After these 69 weeks Jesus, the Messiah is killed.

Any valid time line must arguably meet these requirements.

Anderson's calculations seem to fit. I'd be interested in you're understanding.

wpm
Sep 23rd 2008, 05:22 AM
Right, I agree. (And thanks for getting me to correct my typo, btw :D )

My point was simply that there are Scriptural reasons for the seven-year Tribulation.

Where in Daniel 9 does it even mention the Second Coming of Christ.

Do you believe Rev is chronological? Could you tell me where the GT starts and finishes in Rev?

wpm
Sep 23rd 2008, 05:24 AM
Hey Cyber,

Here's what I see is the discussion point, please let me know if I'm wrong.

We have a time line in Daniel 9:25 "Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."

So basically the first 69 weeks begin at a decree to rebuild Jerusalem and end at the proclamation of the Messiah. After these 69 weeks Jesus, the Messiah is killed.

Any valid time line must arguably meet these requirements.

Anderson's calculations seem to fit. I'd be interested in you're understanding.

Most older scholars have been of the view that Christ's earthly ministry marked the end of the 69th wk; half way through the 70th wk was the cross.

Cyberseeker
Sep 23rd 2008, 06:08 AM
But as I'm sure you know, there are other configurations that equal 1,260 days

Yes, the Bible speaks of a 3½ year period (1260 days) but never a future seven year period. I’m cool with that. However, it is not linked to the 70-week prophecy and nor is the 70th 'week' detached from the other 'weeks' or projected into the future.

This theory is based on Sir Robert's calculation where the first 69 weeks ending (precisely to the day he claimed) when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem in April AD32. 'Problem is Jesus could not have been crucified in AD 32 and here is where the theory falls on its head.

As you know the last supper was 'Passover' and that is always celebrated on full moon. (14th Nisan – Exodus 12:6) Well, lunar cycles can be tracked back for centuries with pin pricking accuracy and guess what? Full moon in April AD32 was on Sunday ... which mean Jesus would have had to be crucified on Monday ... (Compare Mark 15:42 Hmmm :rolleyes: )


Modern pre-tribulation leaders (La Haye, Ice, Missler etc) are aware of this problem of course, but they play it down. This is because pre-trib greatly reveres Sir Robert Anderson and they dare not speak against his book, 'The Coming Prince,' for fear of creating offense. It has been the textbook for one hundred years! Never-the-less, Anderson's interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27 is pivotal to the 'futurist' understanding of end time events. The popular scenario of a future 7-year tribulation, a 3rd temple, Antichrist breaking his treaty after 3½ years etc, is all built on this theory ... and it is based on incorrect scientific and historical data.

vinsight4u8
Sep 23rd 2008, 11:22 AM
In Daniel 9:27 it speaks of a "he". Where does the angel that came to Daniel expect the prophet to link this "he to?

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many..."

What he?

Looking at verse 26, I see a place where Gabriel was telling Daniel of a time that came to its determined close. So verse 27 can't be using a he from that section of what Gabriel told Daniel.

Daniel 9:25-26
"...from....to...unto to the end of the war desolations are determined."
The end of the war came - under Tiitus, and so this whole section from 25-26 was determined and ended.

That leaves us with v27 and its - we must go hunt for this guy "he".

Daniel 9:1
"...he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem."
Could it be this "he" that is to make the V27 covenant time?

9:3
"I...supplications, with fasting..."
///Daniel wants to know when the "he" winds up the seventy years that Jeremiah wrote about, that he has just read.

So Daniel is pleading with God for understanding about this "he" will desolate Jerusalem fellow that is in Jeremiah.

9:23
"At the beginning of thy supplications...and I am come to shew...for thou [art] greatly beloved..."
Gabriel did not just happen to come by and well, since he is here - might as well give Daniel some more endtime info.
Gabriel was ordered to go and help Daniel - for he is greatly loved. Daniel wanted to understand the Jeremiah 25:11-12 - he has 70 years to desolate Jerusalem message.

Jeremiah wrote about this he dude, and Daniel now wants to learn what it is about.
so - Gabriel arrives to do just that. He must show him how that "he" desolates for the Jeremiah prophecy time won't come till other things happen first.

That determined other section ends with V26 and then V27 begins.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many...and that determined shall be..."
The Jeremiah he guy is the desolator for this verse.
(A future end-time Babylonian king)

Jeremiah 25:11
"And this whole land shall be a desolation...these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

This can't ever have happened, as last time the Persian and Medes ruled over Babylon for several years of the Jews time of 70 years being held captive.

So V12 is still on hold too!
"And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, [that] I will punish the king of Babylon..."

Since the last Babylon king fell after the Babylonian kingdom ruled for only about 66-67 years - this leaves more time left of the world under Babylon.
The - Daniel 9:27 guy that will confirm the covenant.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:34 PM
Where in Daniel 9 does it even mention the Second Coming of Christ.It's not mentioned explicitly, but it is mentioned implicitly in Daniel 9:24, especially where it mentions "to anoint the Most Holy Place". I recognize that is not a direct reference to the return of the Messiah, but it fits, along with the other things verse 24 says will be accomplished by the seventy "sevens".
Do you believe Rev is chronological?Nope.
Could you tell me where the GT starts and finishes in Rev?It appears to me to begin with the opening of the first seal. This is another thing that is not explicitly stated, but you'll have to show me reasons for rejecting that to convince me to do it.

The Great Tribulation ends with the 2nd Coming, which is at the Sixth Seal, the Seventh Trumpet, the ascension of the Two Witnesses, Revelation 14, and Revelation 19. They're all the same event, the 2nd Coming/Rapture.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:36 PM
Most older scholars have been of the view that Christ's earthly ministry marked the end of the 69th wk; half way through the 70th wk was the cross.I have encountered that view before and rejected it. Unfortunately, I don't remember precisely why right now. Maybe I should read up on it again.....

Literalist-Luke
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:40 PM
Yes, the Bible speaks of a 3½ year period (1260 days) but never a future seven year period. I’m cool with that. However, it is not linked to the 70-week prophecy and nor is the 70th 'week' detached from the other 'weeks' or projected into the future.

This theory is based on Sir Robert's calculation where the first 69 weeks ending (precisely to the day he claimed) when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem in April AD32. 'Problem is Jesus could not have been crucified in AD 32 and here is where the theory falls on its head.

As you know the last supper was 'Passover' and that is always celebrated on full moon. (14th Nisan – Exodus 12:6) Well, lunar cycles can be tracked back for centuries with pin pricking accuracy and guess what? Full moon in April AD32 was on Sunday ... which mean Jesus would have had to be crucified on Monday ... (Compare Mark 15:42 Hmmm :rolleyes: )


Modern pre-tribulation leaders (La Haye, Ice, Missler etc) are aware of this problem of course, but they play it down. This is because pre-trib greatly reveres Sir Robert Anderson and they dare not speak against his book, 'The Coming Prince,' for fear of creating offense. It has been the textbook for one hundred years! Never-the-less, Anderson's interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27 is pivotal to the 'futurist' understanding of end time events. The popular scenario of a future 7-year tribulation, a 3rd temple, Antichrist breaking his treaty after 3½ years etc, is all built on this theory ... and it is based on incorrect scientific and historical data.OK, two things:

1. There is a theory (only a theory, mind you) that Jesus was actually crucified on a Wednesday. There's a good, brief article on that right here (http://kentcrockett.com/biblestudies/didjesusdieonfri.htm).

2. Assuming that Jesus was crucified on a Friday, as tradition asserts, what year would this full moon have correctly coincided with it?

vinsight4u8
Sep 23rd 2008, 05:41 PM
I don't see the tribulation beast coming till the 4th seal when the rider shows up that has many ways to slay people.

sword, death, beasts and hunger

Just as like when Nebuchadnezzar was taking Israel captive - he had several ways to slay her people.

Jeremiah 24:10
"And I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, among them, till they be consumed from off the land that I gave unto them and to their fathers."
V9
"And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth..."

The man of sin gets unsealed to rule under the time of the 4-6th seals over Israel and scatter it off of the land.

What about the other seals could be showing us a timeline of events to watch for in that man of sin's nation, so as to know when the time is about for him to rule the land?

Such as-
1st seal - the first ruler
conguer - as in possess the land
begin the kingdom
///of Iraq

This would link right up with the prophecy messages given to Zechariah in chapters 5-6. Zechariah has foretold how Shinar was to come back.

Cyberseeker
Sep 23rd 2008, 05:48 PM
Assuming that Jesus was crucified on a Friday, as tradition asserts, what year would this full moon have correctly coincided with it?

Apart from other evidence, we can to pinpoint two possible dates for the cross. They are AD 30 or AD 33. This is based on New Testament information that the 'last supper' (Jesus Passover meal with his disciples) took place on a Thursday.

Passover was always celebrated on the Jewish date 14th Nisan on a full moon, and since the position of the sun and moon can be determined precisely at any moment in history, we can determine any Passover date. This Passover had to be a Thursday and, according to astronomical data from the U.S. Naval Observatory, a full moon occurred on a Thursday 14th Nisan during this period only on 6th April AD 30 and 2nd April AD 33. Therefore, since Christ was crucified the following day, the crucifixion date must either be 7th April AD 30 or 3rd April AD 33.

Take your pick, but when we look at all the facts the early date of AD30 become the obvious choice.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 23rd 2008, 06:25 PM
Apart from other evidence, we can to pinpoint two possible dates for the cross. They are AD 30 or AD 33. This is based on New Testament information that the 'last supper' (Jesus Passover meal with his disciples) took place on a Thursday.

Passover was always celebrated on the Jewish date 14th Nisan on a full moon, and since the position of the sun and moon can be determined precisely at any moment in history, we can determine any Passover date. This Passover had to be a Thursday and, according to astronomical data from the U.S. Naval Observatory, a full moon occurred on a Thursday 14th Nisan during this period only on 6th April AD 30 and 2nd April AD 33. Therefore, since Christ was crucified the following day, the crucifixion date must either be 7th April AD 30 or 3rd April AD 33.OK, I can go along with this. :yes:
Take your pick, but when we look at all the facts the early date of AD30 become the obvious choice.How so? Not arguing, just asking.

Cyberseeker
Sep 23rd 2008, 06:52 PM
His age bro, his age. :) A major difficulty for the AD 33 date theory is the age of Jesus when he got baptised. Luke 3:23 tells us he was "about thirty years old."

It is known that Jesus was born before BC 4 because that was the year King Herod died not long after he had attempted to kill the children. So Jesus would have been born BC 6 making him about thirty / thirty-one at the time of his baptism as Luke said.

Proponents of the late crucifixion date find themselves having to do a generous stretch on Luke’s word, ‘about.’ Thats why I say it fits better with the AD 30 crucifixion. (among other things)

wpm
Sep 23rd 2008, 07:07 PM
It's not mentioned explicitly, but it is mentioned implicitly in Daniel 9:24, especially where it mentions "to anoint the Most Holy Place". I recognize that is not a direct reference to the return of the Messiah, but it fits, along with the other things verse 24 says will be accomplished by the seventy "sevens".Nope.It appears to me to begin with the opening of the first seal. This is another thing that is not explicitly stated, but you'll have to show me reasons for rejecting that to convince me to do it.

The Great Tribulation ends with the 2nd Coming, which is at the Sixth Seal, the Seventh Trumpet, the ascension of the Two Witnesses, Revelation 14, and Revelation 19. They're all the same event, the 2nd Coming/Rapture.

So you accept Daniel 9 doesn't actually mention the Second Coming? This is the major difficulty the Futurist has here. They have to insert it in. What about the 2 of us going through the reading and giving what we believe to be the location, meaning and exact fulfilment of it and seeing who has actual scriptural corroboration for their view?

So you don't believe Rev is chronological?

wpm
Sep 23rd 2008, 07:10 PM
I have encountered that view before and rejected it. Unfortunately, I don't remember precisely why right now. Maybe I should read up on it again.....

That would be helpful.

Paladin54
Sep 23rd 2008, 08:17 PM
Matthew 24 (New International Version)

The Day and Hour Unknown
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.




Trying to figure it out is pointless. Jesus made it very clear that no one knows but God when He will return. We cannot figure it out. So why waste your energy on debating it? Only God knows the day and the hour, not even Jesus Himself knows.

You are being deceived into trying to figure out something that cannot be known instead of preparing yourself for His coming.




Matthew 24 (New International Version)

42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

45"Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,' 49and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

bennie
Sep 23rd 2008, 09:55 PM
Matthew 24 (New International Version)

The Day and Hour Unknown
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.




Trying to figure it out is pointless. Jesus made it very clear that no one knows but God when He will return. We cannot figure it out. So why waste your energy on debating it? Only God knows the day and the hour, not even Jesus Himself knows.

You are being deceived into trying to figure out something that cannot be known instead of preparing yourself for His coming.




Matthew 24 (New International Version)

42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

45"Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,' 49and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


why did God put all these diffedrent time periods in daniel and revelation??? So we can study His timing and still dont know enything? no probably not.

bennie

Cyberseeker
Sep 23rd 2008, 10:08 PM
Trying to figure it out is pointless. Jesus made it very clear that no one knows but God when He will return. We cannot figure it out. So why waste your energy on debating it? Only God knows the day and the hour, not even Jesus Himself knows.

You are being deceived into trying to figure out something that cannot be known instead of preparing yourself for His coming.

We are not trying to figure when he comes. Check out the opening post Pal. :spin:



i have done a study on the jubilee calender, and come to the same conclusion.

Hey Bennie, I never replied to this before but if you ever open another topic about the Jubilee cycle, I'll be interested to talk to you about it. :)

Cyber

Paladin54
Sep 24th 2008, 12:57 AM
Cyber...

I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to figure it out. I was stating that the whole idea of trying to figure it out is a waste of time.

Many people have an endtime belief system based on dates and trying to figure out prophecy etc... but in the end only God knows. All of these attempts by others to try to figure it out fall flat. And you point out a good example of an attempt that doesn't work. That was my point.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 24th 2008, 02:42 AM
His age bro, his age. :) A major difficulty for the AD 33 date theory is the age of Jesus when he got baptised. Luke 3:23 tells us he was "about thirty years old."

It is known that Jesus was born before BC 4 because that was the year King Herod died not long after he had attempted to kill the children. So Jesus would have been born BC 6 making him about thirty / thirty-one at the time of his baptism as Luke said.

Proponents of the late crucifixion date find themselves having to do a generous stretch on Luke’s word, ‘about.’ Thats why I say it fits better with the AD 30 crucifixion. (among other things)Got it, thanks.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 24th 2008, 03:15 AM
So you accept Daniel 9 doesn't actually mention the Second Coming? This is the major difficulty the Futurist has here. They have to insert it in. What about the 2 of us going through the reading and giving what we believe to be the location, meaning and exact fulfilment of it and seeing who has actual scriptural corroboration for their view?
The Decree of The Seventy Sevens

(Edited from an article by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum)

In Daniel 9:24, we find the decree of the seventy sevens: ”Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city”. One of the greatest blunders in biblical translation occurs here in the KJV with the selection by the KJV translators of the word “weeks”. In fact, the Hebrew word does not mean weeks, but “sevens” (as it is rendered in most modern versions, such as the TNIV used for this article). It could refer to “seven” of anything, just as “dozen” means 12 and can be 12 of anything (a dozen roses, a dozen eggs, etc.). Dozen is a quantity of 12, and only the context can reveal what the quantity is referring to. The same thing is true with the Hebrew word, shavuim; it simply means “seven”. In the Daniel 9 context, it is referring to “years”, since Daniel has been dealing with years in verses leading up to this moment. He has been calculating the 70 years of the Babylonian captivity predicted by Jeremiah, assuming that the Kingdom would be established after this 70 years. So Daniel has been thinking of years. And what we have in the Hebrew text is a play upon words: Daniel is told that not “seventy years” but “seventy sevens” of years must pass before the introduction of the Kingdom. In this passage, then, it means seventy sevens of years or a total of 490 years. The angel is telling Daniel that a 490-year period is decreed for the Jewish people.

The Hebrew word for decreed means “to cut off” or “to determine.” Throughout his book, Daniel has been dealing with the theme of the Times of the Gentiles, the lengthy period that began with Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. and will end with the close of the Tribulation and the Second Coming. Daniel was the prophet who was given lengthy and detailed revelation regarding the nature of the Times of the Gentiles, and it was Daniel who revealed that the Times of the Gentiles would undergo a history of four Gentile empires. In the seventy sevens passage, Daniel is told that a period of 490 years is being cut out or decreed out of the Times of the Gentiles for the final restoration of Israel.


The Purpose of The Seventy Sevens

The second part of verse 24 states the six purposes for the seventy sevens. The first purpose is to “finish transgression”. The Hebrew word translated to finish means “to restrain firmly”, “to restrain completely”, and “to bring to completion”. The word “transgression” is a very strong word for “sin.” It is a word that literally means “to rebel”. It is referring to a willful act. In the Hebrew text, it has a definite article, which is unfortunately not usually rendered in English translations. It is not merely to “finish transgression”, but to finish the transgression, to finish the rebellion. It refers to one specific act of rebellion, one specific act of transgression. The one specific transgression in this context is the rejection of Yahweh’s Lordship over Israel, which later culminated in the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus. The finishing of this one transgression is seen in Isaiah 53:1-9 and Zechariah 12:10-13:1. In this first purpose, sin is to come under control so that it will no longer flourish; specifically, Israel’s sin of the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus. Israel’s national sin is to now be firmly restrained, a point that is also made by Isaiah 59:20 and Romans 11:26.

The second purpose is to put an end to sin. The Hebrew word translated to put an endmeans “to seal up” or “to shut up in a prison house.” It means “to be securely kept,” “to be locked up,” to be prevented from roaming at random. The Hebrew word for this instance of ”sin” is one that means “to miss the mark,” and refers to sins in daily life. It is not necessarily a willful act like “transgression”. Sin in general, then, will be put to an end. But we know that there will be sin in the Millennium; so the point of this passage is that though there may be sin among the Gentile nations in the Millennium, there will be no sin in Israel at that time. This very same truth is taught in Isaiah 27:9; Ezekiel 36:25-27; 37:23; and Romans 11:27. This is also the point of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34, where Jeremiah predicts the day will come when all Israel’s sins will be removed and all Israel will be saved.

The third purpose of the seventy sevens is to atone for wickedness. This “atonement” is the means by which the first and second purpose will be accomplished. The means by which Israel’s national sin of rejecting the Messiah will be removed, and the means by which her daily sins will be removed, is by means of an atonement. The word wickedness refers to the sin nature. The program of the seventy sevens is a cleansing of Israel that will include the removal of all three things: first, the national sin of rejecting His Messiahship; second, daily sins; third, the sin nature itself.

The fourth purpose of these seventy sevens is to bring in everlasting righteousness, or, more literally, to bring in an age of righteousness – which is what the Hebrew word for everlasting really means. This age of righteousness (also referred to in Is. 1:26; 11:2-5; 32:17; and Jer. 23:5-6; 33:15-18) is called the Messianic Kingdom by Jewish people, and the Millennium by Gentile Christians.

The fifth purpose of the seventy sevens is to seal up vision and prophecy. The Hebrew word for seal up means “to seal up” or “to shut up.” It means to cause a cessation, to bring completely to fulfillment or to completely fulfill. The word vision refers to oral prophecy, like those of Elijah and Elisha. The word prophecy refers to prophecy in written form, such as that of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 minor prophets. The fifth purpose of the seventy sevens is to cause a cessation of prophecy, both oral and written, because the program of the seventy sevens will lead to the final fulfillment of all prophecies; the function of prophecies will cease at the Second Coming of Messiah. This evokes a question: how is it that the Messianic Kingdom will fulfill all prophecies when we know that there are also prophecies in Revelation 21-22 concerning the time beyond the Kingdom, the Eternal State? The answer is that all we know of the Eternal State is New Covenant revelation; no Old Testament prophet ever saw beyond the Millennium into the Eternal State. From the Old Testament perspective and in light of the fact that no prophet ever saw beyond the Messianic Kingdom, Daniel’s words about the sealing up of vision and prophecy mean that everything predicted up to that point will, indeed, be fulfilled.

The sixth and final purpose of these seventy sevens, we read in verse 24, is to anoint the Most Holy Place. Unfortunately, the KJV left out the word “place”, leading to many errors in understanding of this purpose. It is not a most holy person as is consequently sometimes suggested but a most holy place that is to be anointed. The most holy place is the Temple, but not the first Temple of Solomon nor the second Temple of Zerubbabel (which was still present in Jesus’ day, having been renovated by Herod), and certainly not the third Temple of the Tribulation. Rather, it is the fourth Temple, the Temple of the Millennium, built by the Lord Himself and anointed as part of the program of seventy sevens, the Temple that is described in Ezekiel 40-48.


The Starting Point of The Seventy Sevens

The starting point of the seventy sevens is given in the first phrase of verse 25: Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem…. Verse 24 already stated that the seventy sevens concern not only the Jewish people but the Jewish city of Jerusalem. Now we learn that the program will begin with a commandment, one that involves the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

The decree which Daniel is speaking of is the decree of Cyrus, and this can be based this on five reasons: First, this is a real decree, in the actual form of a historically recorded royal decree. Second, this is the one given the same year as the vision of the seventy sevens. The year Daniel received the seventy sevens vision was the same year that Cyrus passed his decree. Third, this is the decree that is emphasized in Scripture. It was spoken of prophetically (Is. 44:28; 45:1, 13) about 150 years before it happened. In fact, Isaiah actually named the giver of this decree (Cyrus) at least 150 years before it occurred, and his prophecy is recorded in fulfillment four times (II Ch. 36:22-23; Ezr. 1:1-4; 6:1-5, 6-12). This is clearly the decree that is emphasized in Scripture. The fourth reason is that this decree did include the building of the city. The fifth reason is because it is clear from parallel passages that the Jews did rebuild the city. In fact, they rebuilt the city before Nehemiah ever came to rebuild the walls. In Haggai 1:2-4, 70 years before Nehemiah arrived, the Jews were already living in private homes in Jerusalem though the Temple itself had not been rebuilt yet. Certainly they would not dare to rebuild Jerusalem if they did not have permission to do so because they would otherwise face imminent military action. According to Ezra 4:12, the city was being built even in Ezra’s day, and Ezra preceded the time of Nehemiah. It therefore appears that the decree of which Daniel speaks is the decree of Cyrus, and that the seventy sevens began with the issuing of this decree. The first 483 years, i.e., the first 69 sevens, ended with the first coming of Jesus.


The Seven Sevens or 49 Years

The seventy sevens are subdivided into three units: seven sevens; sixty-two sevens; and, one seven. The second part of verse 25 speaks of the first 69 sevens, combining the first two of the three subdivisions – the seven sevens and the sixty-two sevens. The first subdivision, the seven sevens, is a total of 49 years, and refers to the 49-year period that it took to rebuild Jerusalem.


The 62 Sevens or 434 Years

The second subdivision of the seventy sevens is the 62 sevens, comprising a total of 434 years. Insofar as this passage is concerned, there was no break between the first subdivision and the second subdivision of the seventy sevens. The 62 sevens immediately followed the seven sevens, or the 434 years immediately followed the 49 years. Combining seven sevens and 62 sevens gives a total of 69 sevens, or combining 49 years with 434 years gives a total of 483 years. There would be a total of 483 years from the time that Cyrus’ decree is issued until the coming of the Messiah. From the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the birth of Jesus would be a total of 483 years.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 24th 2008, 03:16 AM
The Events Between the 69th Seven and the 70th Seven

In verse 26, the events between the 69th seven and the 70th seven are prophesied. After saying exactly how many years would transpire before the First Coming in verse 25, Daniel in verse 26 is now told of events coming between the 69th seven and the 70th seven. While there was no gap of time between the first subdivision of the seventy sevens and the second subdivision of the seventy sevens, there is in this case a gap of time between the second subdivision and the third subdivision since we are given a specific list of events that occurs during this gap. Notice how verse 26 starts out: After the sixty-two sevens…. The third subdivision begins in verse 27. But in verse 26 after the 62 sevens, i.e., after the second subdivision, we learn that certain things must occur before the third subdivision begins. When he says after the 62 sevens, he means after the conclusion of the second subdivision of the seventy sevens and before the start of the third subdivision of the seventy sevens. This phrase clearly shows a gap of time exists between the second and third subdivisions, that is, between the 69th seven and the 70th seven. In this gap of time three things are to occur. First, the Messiah shall be “put to death, and will have nothing”. This occurred in A.D. 30, approximately 35 years after the birth of Jesus. Regarding the phrase, and will have nothing, the noun may mean “nothingness” to explain His state at death, but the Hebrew noun may also mean “but not for Himself,” meaning He did not die for Himself but for others. This seems to be the most likely intent of the passage. The first thing that is to happen in this gap of time between the 69th seven and the 70th seven is that the Messiah would be killed, not for Himself but for others.
Then, in verse 26 we come to the phrase “the people of the ruler who will come”. We know, of course, that Jerusalem was obliterated by the Romans in 70 AD, so most people take that to mean that the “ruler to come” will be a Roman. That had me scratching my head for the last 18 months when I started discovering the multitudinous passages that seem to be firmly speaking of Islam throughout end times passages. How could there be so many passages that indicate Islam as the enemy at the 2nd Coming and yet Daniel indicating the final ruler would be “Roman”? When I started checking the original language version of Daniel 9:26, I found a startling answer. The phrase the “people of the ruler who is to come” is not even the correct rendering.

A Strong’s Concordance will show you that the KJV’s entire phrase, “but not for himself: and the people”, is represented in the original text by just one word, “עם”, which is transliterated as “`am” and which means “nation”, “people”, “kinsman”, or “kindred”. That’s not much to build on to develop the entire phrase, “but not for himself: and the people”. The next words after “עם” are “נגיד בוא שחת עיר קדש” or “nagiyd bow’ shachath ‘iyr qodesh”. Literally translated in English, this would read, “ruler enters to destroy city and holiness”.

In a literal translation we would find it rendered more accurately in this way:

Daniel 9:26 - “And after the sixty and two sevens, cut off is Messiah from His people, and the ruler who comes will destroy the city and its holiness; and its end is as a flood, and till the end is war, determined is desolation.”

So what we have is a statement that after the first 69 “sevens”, Messiah will be cut off from His people, which is precisely what happened at the Crucifixion. Next, a ruler will come and will destroy the city (Jerusalem) and its holiness, and will commit “desolation” during a time of war. Jesus specifically told the Twelve in Matthew 24 that this occurrence was still future at the time of the Olivet Discourse and He also mentioned that it would be something that could be seen “standing” in the Most Holy Place, the deepest interior of the Temple. The Romans did not do this, they simply knocked the Temple down, so that event is still yet to occur. So there is no requirement for the Antichrist to be “Roman”.

The third thing to happen in this gap of time is even unto the end shall be war. For the remainder of the interval before the start of the 70th seven, the Land will be characterized by war. This has certainly been true throughout Middle East history. As a result of the wars, desolations are determined, a reference to the state of the Land as determined or decreed by God.


The 70th Seven

The third subdivision of the seventy sevens is the last seven, the 70th seven, and is dealt with in verse 27. This last seven, a total of seven years, is commonly called the “Tribulation”. In this verse, these seven years are subdivided into two equal halves of 3½ years each.

The verse states he will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven. This is the starting point of the 70th seven: when he confirms a covenant. The pronoun “he” in verse 27 goes back to its nearest antecedent, which is the ruler who will come in verse 26; the “he” who makes a covenant in verse 27 is one and the same person, better known in Christian circles as the Antichrist. The ruler who will come, or the Antichrist, will confirm a covenant. He will confirm it; he will make it strong. The starting point of the 70th seven of Daniel, the last seven, is still in the future, and the starting point of the Tribulation is the signing of a seven-year covenant.

Furthermore, it says that the covenant is made with many, not with all. The Hebrew text uses a definite article meaning “the many,” (again, unfortunately not rendered in some English translations) and “the many” are the leadership of Israel empowered to sign covenants of this nature, since individuals cannot enter into solemn agreements of this type on behalf of their nation.

The verse goes on to state that in the middle of the seven, he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. In the middle of the 70th seven, that is, after the first 3½ years, the covenant will be broken. There is going to be a forced cessation of the sacrificial system, a point also made in Revelation 11:1-2.
Following this violation of the covenant and the cessation of the sacrificial system, the next line states, at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation. This refers to the worship of the Antichrist, when the Antichrist declares himself to be the one true god (II Thess. 2:3-4). The word abomination in Hebrew refers to an image or idol, meaning that an image or idol of the Antichrist will be set up in the Temple compound on the pinnacle of the Temple itself. This is also spoken of in Daniel 12:11 and Matthew 24:15, with the image itself seen in Revelation 13:14-15.

The verse then states until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. The phrase until the end is translated from the Hebrew word that means “to finish or complete.” To the end, to the finish, to the completion of the 70th seven these things, these desolations, are determined. The word decreed means to be announced beforehand, because the events spelled out in Daniel 9:27 were already prophesied and decreed long before the Tribulation as seen in Isaiah 10:23 and 28:22. The phrase also means that the Tribulation will not go a single day beyond its predetermined duration. The same point is made in Matthew 24:22, where we read, If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. This reveals not that the Tribulation will last less than seven years, which many Pre-Wrath Rapture advocates teach, but rather that it will not be allowed to last a single day beyond its allotted seven years.

So you don't believe Rev is chronological?You can find a detailed explanatin of my position regarding the sequence of Revelation right here.

Cyberseeker
Sep 24th 2008, 06:34 AM
<<snip>> It therefore appears that the decree of which Daniel speaks is the decree of Cyrus, and that the seventy sevens began with the issuing of this decree. The first 483 years, i.e., the first 69 sevens, ended with the first coming of Jesus.

... There would be a total of 483 years from the time that Cyrus’ decree is issued until the coming of the Messiah. From the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the birth of Jesus would be a total of 483 years <<snip>>

Eh? Cyrus issued his decree in BC538. From that date to Jesus birth is 532 years - not 483??

But Im pleased to see Dr. Fruchtenbaum supports the AD30 crucifiction.

Oh heck, I think I need to go to bed before I go cross-eyed.

Cyber on the verge of a :crazy:

Literalist-Luke
Sep 24th 2008, 06:47 AM
Eh? Cyrus issued his decree in BC538. From that date to Jesus birth is 532 years - not 483??Hmm, I better go back-research that. I figured Fruchtenbaum would have his bases covered on that one. :hmm:
But Im pleased to see Dr. Fruchtenbaum supports the AD30 crucifiction.It makes sense to me as well. :thumbsup:
Oh heck, I think I need to go to bed before I go cross-eyed.

Cyber on the verge of a :crazy::lol:

ananias
Sep 24th 2008, 10:37 PM
Prophecy is built on chronology. Entire prophetic systems stand or fall on dates which are already history. These dates have already been and gone. An example of this is the future seven year tribulation. Did you know that the hundreds (yea thousands) of books written about a future seven year reign of Antichrist is based on a faulty date?

It all started in 1895 when Sir Robert Anderson published his book, ‘The Coming Prince.’ He claimed that he had calculated Daniels sixty-nine weeks as finishing in the week Christ died - AD32. Wrong; the crucifixion was April AD30.

Now this might appear trifling to some, but the entire idea of the ‘70th’ week getting projected into the future relied on the assumption that Andersons 69th week stopped at the cross. Realizing that Anderson had blundered, modern pretrib teachers like Tim LaHaye, Thomas Ice, Chuck Missler scrambled to adjust his calculations to AD33 instead. But this only made matters worse. For example Jesus would have to be thirty-nine when he died. Hmmm. :hmm:


So the future ‘70th week’ seven years is actually a myth. The interesting thing is that many pretrib members of Christian forums do not realize that their endtime belief systems are based on Anderson’s faulty chronology.


Cyberseeker

I agree. And I'm not even going to say why - I'll be typing all night giving all the Biblical reasons why I say I agree. :)

bennie
Sep 24th 2008, 11:46 PM
We are not trying to figure when he comes. Check out the opening post Pal. :spin:




Hey Bennie, I never replied to this before but if you ever open another topic about the Jubilee cycle, I'll be interested to talk to you about it. :)

Cyber

hi

i need to get some notes and stuff together. then i will have a crack at it.

bennie

Romulus
Sep 25th 2008, 02:40 PM
Hi Everyone,

I agree that the starting point is with Cyrus since:

1) Scripture(Isaiah) says so about 150 years prior to Cyrus even existing.

2) There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the first decree is not the one. If you were living at the time, you would have heard the prophecy and assumed the first decree to be the one. Many who believe Xerxes made the decree in 457 B.C. have to contend with that this was the 4th decree, not the first. If God really meant the 4th decree it would have thrown off everyone until thousands of years later when the fufillment already occurred and looking back can see the correct decree. Logically it must be Cyrus.

Here we have the problem that Robert Anderson and pretty much all scholars who calculate this prophecy, start off incorrectly. They begin with Xerxes in 457 B.C. and not with Cyrus. Why? Because Cyrus is too early to lead to Christ at his decree in 538 B.C. Here is a major rule in the study of scripture, if there ever is a discrepancy between the Bible and history, the Bible wins out. Our friend sir Robert and pretty much everyone after him is beginning with history, not the Bible.

There is generally no disagreement that Jesus was crucified between 30-33 A.D. One of the stipulations of the prophecy was that from the starting point, it would lead to Christ. I believe the ending of the 69 weeks was in the time of Jesus's baptism. I believe this for 2 reasons:

1) The baptism by John was the first time that Jesus was publicly referenced as the Messiah. Remember "this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased". This was three years before the triumphant entry into Jerusalem.

2) Jesus was anointed not by man(as in the triumphant entry) but by God Himself. Only God can annoint the Messiah.

There is general agreement that Jesus was baptised by John between 26 A.D. and 29 A.D. I believe that it was 26 A.D. Since we now have the date to work with, we simply go backwards 483 years where we arrive at 457 B.C. as the starting point of the prophecy.......with Cyrus! But wait a second, history says that Cyrus made the decree in 538 B.C. but are we looking at scripture or at history?

Isaiah 44

28 who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd
and will accomplish all that I please;
he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt,"
and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid." '

Isaiah 45

1 "This is what the LORD says to his anointed,
to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of
to subdue nations before him
and to strip kings of their armor,
to open doors before him
so that gates will not be shut:

13 I will raise up Cyrus [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=45&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-18575b)] in my righteousness:
I will make all his ways straight.
He will rebuild my city
and set my exiles free,
but not for a price or reward,
says the LORD Almighty."



Scripture is clear. Not history. Cyrus made the decree in 457 B.C. The reason history is wrong is simple, all scholars (including Anderson) are using Ptolymy's cannon of persian Kings which was flawed. Ptolymy admitted he did not know the exact dates of the reigns of the Persian Kings(which included Cyrus.) His dates were based on guesses rather then hard evidence. Almost every scholar and teacher who come up with Xerxes as the starting point are looking at outside sources, not the scriptures. Sir Robert Anderson made the mistake, like most others in following the flawed guess of a secular astrologer. When looking at scripture we see that God was right on in the calculation. If we look at scripture we would come with the correct dating of the starting point of the prophecy.

I won't argue that the 70th week followed directly after the 69th, that has been addressed in other threads.

Blessings!

Cyberseeker
Sep 26th 2008, 01:59 AM
Scripture is clear. Not history. Cyrus made the decree in 457 B.C.

You cannot fudge history in order to justify a pre-conceived interpretation of the Bible. Cyrus made the decree in BC538, Darius in BC520 and Artaxerxes in (both) BC457 and BC444.

What do you make of this Romulus?

So the elders of the Jews built, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they built and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the command of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.
(Ezra 6:14)

Romulus
Sep 26th 2008, 04:31 PM
You cannot fudge history in order to justify a pre-conceived interpretation of the Bible. Cyrus made the decree in BC538, Darius in BC520 and Artaxerxes in (both) BC457 and BC444.

What do you make of this Romulus?

How is this fudging history? Christ's baptism date has never been challenged in regards to a range of 3-4 years from 26 A.D. through 29 A.D. Even if you do not agree that the 69 weeks ended at Christ's baptism, but rather at Christ's triumphant entry, anywhere from 30 A.D. to 33 A.D. we would at the most disagree within a range of 3-4 years of the 69 weeks ending. We cannot refute scripture though as to the starting point.

Isaiah 44(Septuagint into English)

44:28 Who bids Cyrus be wise, and he shall perform all my will: who says to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and I will lay the foundation of my holy house.

45:1 Thus saith the Lord God to my anointed Cyrus, whose right hand I have held, that nations might be obedient before him; and I will break through the strength of kings; I will open doors before him, and cities shall not be closed.

45:13 I have raised him up [to be] a king with righteousness, and all his ways are right: he shall build my city, and shall turn the captivity of my people, not for ransoms, nor for rewards, saith the Lord of hosts.

This is scripture, not possible flawed history, but God's Word. God specifically prophecied about Cyrus 100+ years before he even existed. The starting point of Daniel states:

Daniel 9(Septuagint into English)

9:25 And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince [there shall be] seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then [the time] shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted.

This is using scripture to interpret scripture. Again, not history. To state that it was Artaxerxes is to ignore Isaiah. God Himself said Cyrus would restore Jerusalem. Not History, God.

Since I can't ignore Isaiah, all that is needed is to subtract 483 years from 26 A.D. and we arrive at 457 B.C. which is when scripture says the decree was to be made. Either we ignore Isaiah or we don't. Also, what do you think about Christ's baptism ending the 69 weeks? Is not this a better date for the revelation of Messiah for the following reasons?

1) God anoints the Messiah "here is my Son, in whom I am well pleased". The triumphant entry only had man proclaiming the Messiah. Anointing of the Messiah could only be done by God our Father, not man.

2) Christ's baptism was the first time Jesus was revealed as God's Son(Messiah). The trumphant entry was not the first time Jesus was revealed as the Messiah. Christ's baptism was witnessed by many as John baptised Him and this was around 3 years before the triumphant entry.

We can disagree on Ptolemy and Sir Robert Anderson but to state that the decree began in 457 A.D. by Artaxerxes is to ignore Isaiah and also logic. Logically if you were living in the time of Cyrus and he makes this decree, there is no reason whatsoever to not believe this was the fulfillment of prophecy. If God really meant Artaxerxes, Artaxerxes was historically the 4th decree made. If this was the one God had in mind it would have thrown everything of hilt until Jesus came. Only future scholars could have figured it out(again ignoring Isaiah) and not the contemporaries who lived during that time. The first decree must have been the decree God was talking about and Isaiah proves it.

What do you do with Isaiah's clear prophecy of Cyrus restoring Jerusalem?

pastor cheerful
Sep 26th 2008, 04:55 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't he reign of the Antichrist 7 years but the tribulation only the last half of it - 3.5 years. (and that will be shortened by God for the sake of his elect.

Please amplify your responses....

Cyberseeker
Sep 26th 2008, 08:04 PM
Thus saith the Lord God to my anointed Cyrus, I have raised him up [to be] a king with righteousness, and all his ways are right: he shall build my city, and shall turn the captivity of my people, not for ransoms, nor for rewards, saith the Lord of hosts. (Isaiah 45)


Never-the-less, Cyrus's decree (literally spoken from his mouth) was in BC538, not BC457. I would be happy to explain what I think about the Isaiah reference but before I do would you please explain the following from Ezra 6:14?

So the elders of the Jews built, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they built and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the command of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.

Cyberseeker
Sep 26th 2008, 08:21 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't he reign of the Antichrist 7 years but the tribulation only the last half of it - 3.5 years. (and that will be shortened by God for the sake of his elect.

Please amplify your responses....

Hi Pastor. That is the futurist teaching - that the seven was divided into two parts. But the purpose of my topic was to question whether Daniel '70th week' was projected into the future at all. The theory only holds water if the 69th week finishes where Sir Robert said it finished.

Unfortunately for futurists the 69th week doesn't finish at the cross as they thought it did. Sir Roberts theory (and the entire future 7-year scenario) falls down because its chronological foundation is false.

Romulus
Sep 30th 2008, 02:09 PM
Never-the-less, Cyrus's decree (literally spoken from his mouth) was in BC538, not BC457. I would be happy to explain what I think about the Isaiah reference but before I do would you please explain the following from Ezra 6:14?

Ezra 6

14 So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia.

This scripture is simply stating the temple was finished after the decrees of 1) Cyrus 2) Darius 3) Artaxerxes. Yes the temple was finished after the decree of Artaxerxes but Cyrus was still the first to make the decree. Let us go to the beginning:

Ezra 6

1 King Darius then issued an order, and they searched in the archives stored in the treasury at Babylon. 2 A scroll was found in the citadel of Ecbatana in the province of Media, and this was written on it:
Memorandum:
3 In the first year of King Cyrus, the king issued a decree concerning the temple of God in Jerusalem:
Let the temple be rebuilt as a place to present sacrifices, and let its foundations be laid. It is to be ninety feet [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezra%206&version=31#fen-NIV-12155a)] high and ninety feet wide, 4 with three courses of large stones and one of timbers. The costs are to be paid by the royal treasury. 5 Also, the gold and silver articles of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple in Jerusalem and brought to Babylon, are to be returned to their places in the temple in Jerusalem; they are to be deposited in the house of God.

Daniel's prophecy stated from the decree to restore Jerusalem. This was Cyrus first.

What is your take on this?

Cyberseeker
Oct 1st 2008, 06:14 AM
Ezra 6

14 So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia.

This scripture is simply stating the temple was finished after the decrees of 1) Cyrus 2) Darius 3) Artaxerxes. Yes the temple was finished after the decree of Artaxerxes but Cyrus was still the first to make the decree …
Daniel's prophecy stated from the decree to restore Jerusalem. This was Cyrus first.

What is your take on this?

Hi Romulus,

Believe it or not, I agree with you that the decree belonged to Cyrus. The scriptures you quote from Isaiah are incredible. But I have to disagree that he actually spoke it in BC 457.

The decrees were made by three Persian Emperors, Cyrus, Darius and two from Artaxerxes in the years BC 538, 520, 457 and 444 respectively. Now, the prophecy requires 69 weeks (483 years) from the decree until Messiah, but the problem with Cyrus’ decree is when we add four hundred and eighty three years to BC 538 we arrive at a year of no particular significance. Did Messiah appear? No, nothing of interest happened at all.

The next decree was that of Darius in BC 520. An important story is related concerning him which is a clue to understanding the prophecy. Darius had Daniel thrown to the lions, not because he wanted to do it, but because the law of the Medes and the Persians could not be revoked. (Dan 6:12-15) This incident is vital to understanding Daniel’s Seventy Weeks. What it reminds us is that decrees did not change from one emperor to the next. It tells us that Darius’ decree was not a separate one at all; it was really Cyrus’ decree! Darius simply re-decreed it in accordance with Persian law. So it was a decree. It was a decree endorsing the previous decree.

A period of sixty years elapsed from Darius during which time the temple was completed but work to rebuild Jerusalem was spasmodic until Artaxerxes endorsed the decree again in BC 457. Please note that the decree was specified to the very day – 1st Nisan in the seventh year of the king. (Ezra 7: 1-26) Such was the 1st Nisan BC 457. Actually, I agree with you that this is the best date from which to count.

I also agree with you that, “unto Messiah the prince” it is meant “unto the manifestation of Christ as the promised One.” This happened at his baptism when, the heavens were opened and the Spirit of God descended like a dove and Gods voice declared, “This is My beloved Son.” (Matt 3:16-17)

So you ask me, what is my take on this verse?


“So the elders of the Jews built, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they built and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the command of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.”
(Ezra 6:14)
I.O.W which emperors decree is the right command? My take is that they all are. This clear statement of scripture cuts right through the endless arguments, disagreements, wrangling, books and debates claiming one decree is the ‘rightest’ and all others are wrong. etc. etc. The simple truth is they are the same decree; they are all right.

So again, where - exactly where - is the commencement point from which to count the weeks? The answer is surprisingly simple. It is BC 457 – the decree of Cyrus as articulated (re-decreed) by the emperor Artaxerxes. I hope you will consider this explanation as a better alternative to late dating Cyrus’s reign. :)

Cyberseeker

Romulus
Oct 1st 2008, 02:13 PM
Hi Romulus,

Believe it or not, I agree with you that the decree belonged to Cyrus. The scriptures you quote from Isaiah are incredible. But I have to disagree that he actually spoke it in BC 457.

The decrees were made by three Persian Emperors, Cyrus, Darius and two from Artaxerxes in the years BC 538, 520, 457 and 444 respectively. Now, the prophecy requires 69 weeks (483 years) from the decree until Messiah, but the problem with Cyrus’ decree is when we add four hundred and eighty three years to BC 538 we arrive at a year of no particular significance. Did Messiah appear? No, nothing of interest happened at all.

The next decree was that of Darius in BC 520. An important story is related concerning him which is a clue to understanding the prophecy. Darius had Daniel thrown to the lions, not because he wanted to do it, but because the law of the Medes and the Persians could not be revoked. (Dan 6:12-15) This incident is vital to understanding Daniel’s Seventy Weeks. What it reminds us is that decrees did not change from one emperor to the next. It tells us that Darius’ decree was not a separate one at all; it was really Cyrus’ decree! Darius simply re-decreed it in accordance with Persian law. So it was a decree. It was a decree endorsing the previous decree.

A period of sixty years elapsed from Darius during which time the temple was completed but work to rebuild Jerusalem was spasmodic until Artaxerxes endorsed the decree again in BC 457. Please note that the decree was specified to the very day – 1st Nisan in the seventh year of the king. (Ezra 7: 1-26) Such was the 1st Nisan BC 457. Actually, I agree with you that this is the best date from which to count.

I also agree with you that, “unto Messiah the prince” it is meant “unto the manifestation of Christ as the promised One.” This happened at his baptism when, the heavens were opened and the Spirit of God descended like a dove and Gods voice declared, “This is My beloved Son.” (Matt 3:16-17)

So you ask me, what is my take on this verse?

I.O.W which emperors decree is the right command? My take is that they all are. This clear statement of scripture cuts right through the endless arguments, disagreements, wrangling, books and debates claiming one decree is the ‘rightest’ and all others are wrong. etc. etc. The simple truth is they are the same decree; they are all right.

So again, where - exactly where - is the commencement point from which to count the weeks? The answer is surprisingly simple. It is BC 457 – the decree of Cyrus as articulated (re-decreed) by the emperor Artaxerxes. I hope you will consider this explanation as a better alternative to late dating Cyrus’s reign. :)

Cyberseeker


Hi Cyberseeker,

I actually believed the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 B.C. was the decree spoken of, but honestly what always puzzled me is why it was not Cyrus's decree, which was the first. This was until I read some historical writings from the late 19th century and the eartly 20th century questioning the validity of Ptolemy's calculations since every scholar, teacher etc. up until that point never questioned it. All who calculated the prophecy(including Amderson) did so using Ptolemy's cannon of persian kings. I also learned a valuable lesson from the writings of Philip Mauro who although a historicist had a great teaching on the 70 weeks prophecy.

Long story short, Mauro stated the exact problem you and I are discussing
that scripture states it was to be Cyrus and yet all who calculate the prophecy begin with Artaxerxes. Let me pose something to you Cyberseeker. Since scripture states it was to be Cyrus yet history states it was Artaxerxes, we now have a discrepancy between history and the Bible. The Bible states it was Cyrus and would end 483 years later at Christ's Baptism(which you and I agree on). If there is a discrepancy between the Bible and History, the Bible always wins out.

The solution you presented as Artaxerxes redecreeing cyrus's in the correct year unfortunately does not answer the audience of Daniel. Let me explain, if it truly was to be Artaxerxes in year 457 redecreeing Cyrus's command then those living at the time of Cyrus would have started the prophecy earlier and therefore would have ended up with the prophecy not being fulfilled when God really meant a redecree in 457 B.C. not the actual decree in 536 B.C.

To begin at 536 B.C. must be flawed since it does not end at Christ and a redecree I believe is what the Angel told Daniel would start off the prophecy. Here are the reasons why we can reasonably come to my conclusion:

1) Isaiah states that Cyrus was to restore Jerusalem 150 years before he even existed.

2) Daniel was given the prophecy that it would begin with the decree to restore Jerusalem.

3) The time period it would take to lead to Messiah the Prince, would be 483 years from the decree.

Since we both agree that Cyrus was the decree spoken of rather then Artaxerxes, then why not begin not at Cyrus but at Christ and go backwards. The date of Christ's baptism has never been disputed, it was between 26 A.D. and 29 A.D. and multiple sources can be researched for these dates, not just one. I believe it to be at 26 A.D. and simply minus 483 years and we end up in 457 B.C. which according to Isaiah was Cyrus.

My argument is that scripture demand it begin at the decree of Cyrus. Otherwise, why prophecy it? Anderson and others are wrong because:

1) Scripture says from Cyrus to Christ must be 483 years.

2) Ptolemy's cannon of persian kings is the only historical record noting the dates of the reign of Cyrus, Artaxerxes etc.

3) They are using the flawed historical record of a heathan astronomer(not wrong but Bible wins out any difference.)

If we use simply scripture it does force a fulfillment from Cyrus to Christ in 483 years. That is the natural flow of the prophecy and would not lead the audience of Cyrus in dissarray of fulfillment. Cyrus must have made the prophecy in 457 B.C. according to Isaiah. To begin with Artaxerxes is to bypass Isaiah.

Where it comes down to if history did not provide the date of 536 B.C. it would not lead many to ignore Isaiah's prophecy. But most scholars and teachers for thousands of years have done so clearly because they have followed Ptolemy. I did this for a long time as well but now I have no problem stating that history is wrong on this and the Bible is correct. God is a better source on timing then man ;).

Please consider the argument, we are in agreement on the year though. God Bless Brother.

Cyberseeker
Oct 1st 2008, 07:16 PM
Good reply Romulus.

Since we agree 90% I'll leave off arguing the remaining 10%

Cheers

Cyber

Cyberseeker
Oct 9th 2008, 08:07 PM
When Sir Robert Anderson published his book, ‘The Coming Prince.’ He claimed that he had calculated Daniels sixty-nine weeks as finishing in the week Christ died - AD32. Wrong; the crucifixion was April AD30.

So the theory of the ‘70th’ week getting projected into the future relied on the assumption that Andersons 69th week stopped at the cross. Realizing that Anderson had blundered, modern pretrib teachers like Tim LaHaye, Thomas Ice, Chuck Missler scrambled to adjust his calculations to AD33 instead. But this only made matters worse.

Apart from Jesus age which doesn’t fit pre-trib dates, we have this information from Luke 3:1.

"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar - when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene - during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."
(Luke 3: 1-2)


So when was the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar? If we can ascertain that, all that remains to do is add 3½ years (the period of Jesus ministry from his baptism by John) and we arrive at the date of the cross.

Tiberius became sole emperor on the death of his adoptive father, Augustus. (Aug 19, AD14) However, it is a well known fact that he had become co-regent with his ailing father two years beforehand in AD12. Roman subjects, would have considered the co-regent status of Tiberius as equality with his father. Luke would have used the term ‘reign’ to apply to Tiberius in AD12 because he was given full emperor status over the provinces in that year.

So add 15 years to AD12 and what do you get? Tack on another 3½ and you’ve got the cross, AD30.

… and so getting back to the opening post, the old ’69-week-finish-at-cross’ theory doesn’t fit!

TexasBeliever
Oct 9th 2008, 09:46 PM
I am still in study-mode as to the length of the last days. However, I find it extremely interesting that the only sign the Lord gave as the kick-off of the great tribulation was the abomination of desolation.
And the statements that (concerning the antichrist) "Power was given to him for 42 months" with is equal to 3.5 years.
Which is the same amount of time that the Lord was publicly spreading the gospel.

Merton
Oct 10th 2008, 01:44 AM
Hi,

Wouldn't it be less confusing to the novice, to teach --

Cyrus gave the decree 483 years before Christ was baptised by John, at the age of 30 years, and thus revealed to Israel, and was crucified 3.5 years afterward, leaving the remaining 3.5 years described in Dan 12 (and elsewhere therein) and Rev. to be fulfilled in the future at the end of which Christ will return and thus seal up all prophecy and anoint the most Holy who are the completed House of God in which God will dwell among mankind.

Making references to the modern calendar seems pointless.

The arguement that there is no gap of years in the prophecy has no weight because neither does Gods Word so often show any gap between Christs first coming and His second in the texts.

The gap being between the 69.5 weeks (sevens) of years and the last .5 of the 70th week.

Merton.