Why do Dispies count Daniels 'weeks' from Artaxerxes 20th year?

[Cyberseeker]

Admittedly, the twentieth-year start point for Daniel’s 70 weeks has had its supporters. Their problem though, is that a count of 483 years (69 x 7) from 444 BC comes to AD 40, a date which arrives well after Jesus died. So, proponents of the 444 BC terminus a quo resort to various 'short-year' theories to make the prophecy fit. For example, the early church historian, Julius Africanus, proposed that Daniels ‘weeks’ were being counted on a pure lunar year of 354 days. Others wondered if the calendar found in the Book of Enoch might solve the problem? That one had 364 days.

The best-known theory is the 360-day 'prophetic year' put forward by Sir Robert Anderson in AD 1895 to bolster the then emerging ‘dispensational’ system of prophecy. He multiplied 483 years by 360 and got 173880 days. He then divided it by the number of days in a normal year (365¼ days), added it to 445 BC, and arrived at the time (he said) of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem in AD 32.

Anderson’s dates had to be adjusted by Dr. Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary to 444 BC and AD 33 (Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Harold Hoehner, 1973) where they remain the basic foundational dates for the doctrine of a future 'seventieth week' held by many prophetic teachers to this day

This is where it comes from! There is no other scriptural source for the claim that the seventieth week was unhooked from the 69 weeks and sent to the future. However, Anderson and Hoehner’s theory is seriously flawed.

Admittedly, the twentieth-year start point for Daniel’s 70 weeks has had its supporters. Their problem though, is that a count of 483 years (69 x 7) from 444 BC comes to AD 40, a date which arrives well after Jesus died. So, proponents of the 444 BC terminus a quo resort to various 'short-year' theories to make the prophecy fit. For example, the early church historian, Julius Africanus, proposed that Daniels ‘weeks’ were being counted on a pure lunar year of 354 days. Others wondered if the calendar found in the Book of Enoch might solve the problem? That one had 364 days.

The best-known theory is the 360-day 'prophetic year' put forward by Sir Robert Anderson in AD 1895 to bolster the then emerging ‘dispensational’ system of prophecy. He multiplied 483 years by 360 and got 173880 days. He then divided it by the number of days in a normal year (365¼ days), added it to 445 BC, and arrived at the time (he said) of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem in AD 32.
Anderson’s dates had to be adjusted by Dr. Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary to 444 BC and AD 33 where they remain the basic foundational dates for the doctrine of a future 'seventieth week' held by many prophetic teachers to this day. (Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Harold Hoehner, 1973)

This is where it comes from! There is no other scriptural source for the claim that the seventieth week was unhooked from the 69 weeks and sent to the future. However, Anderson and Hoehner’s theory is seriously flawed.

[ForHisglory]

There is no other scriptural source for the claim that the seventieth week was unhooked from the 69 weeks and sent to the future.

Actually the very prophecy itself splits the period into THREE periods of time.
One is for 7 weeks, one for 62 weeks and one for 1 week.
What is interesting is that IF it were a consecutive period as many claim, then we should read in verse 26 "after 69 weeks..." However we don't.
Instead what is stated is "After 62 weeks.."
This has led to some claiming the 7 weeks is concurrent with the 62, yet that leads to a loss of 7 weeks form the total.
The alternative, which makes sense is that the prophecy speaks of the beginning and end of each block of weeks.
As you read through we discover this is indeed what happens.
We have the initial 7 weeks DURING which the prayer of Daniel is answered and explained so he could understand.
He even saw the coming of the anointed one at that time. The fulfillment of Isaiah 44 & 45 and Jeremiah 29.

There is a gap here because the Jews did NOT build the city as they were supposed to.

We then have the 62 weeks start when the city is built and dedicated by Nehemiah. This ends with the coming of the anointed one.

The anointed one grows and is then cut off

There is a gap again because the Jews do NOT receive their anointed one.

We finally have 1 week which will start AFTER the Jews have declared "Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord".

Remember this prophecy is about God's dealings with the Jews.

[divaD]

Admittedly, the twentieth-year start point for Daniel’s 70 weeks has had its supporters. Their problem though, is that a count of 483 years (69 x 7) from 444 BC comes to AD 40, a date which arrives well after Jesus died. So, proponents of the 444 BC terminus a quo resort to various 'short-year' theories to make the prophecy fit. For example, the early church historian, Julius Africanus, proposed that Daniels ‘weeks’ were being counted on a pure lunar year of 354 days. Others wondered if the calendar found in the Book of Enoch might solve the problem? That one had 364 days.

The best-known theory is the 360-day 'prophetic year' put forward by Sir Robert Anderson in AD 1895 to bolster the then emerging ‘dispensational’ system of prophecy. He multiplied 483 years by 360 and got 173880 days. He then divided it by the number of days in a normal year (365¼ days), added it to 445 BC, and arrived at the time (he said) of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem in AD 32.

Anderson’s dates had to be adjusted by Dr. Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary to 444 BC and AD 33 (Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Harold Hoehner, 1973) where they remain the basic foundational dates for the doctrine of a future 'seventieth week' held by many prophetic teachers to this day

This is where it comes from! There is no other scriptural source for the claim that the seventieth week was unhooked from the 69 weeks and sent to the future. However, Anderson and Hoehner’s theory is seriously flawed.

Admittedly, the twentieth-year start point for Daniel’s 70 weeks has had its supporters. Their problem though, is that a count of 483 years (69 x 7) from 444 BC comes to AD 40, a date which arrives well after Jesus died. So, proponents of the 444 BC terminus a quo resort to various 'short-year' theories to make the prophecy fit. For example, the early church historian, Julius Africanus, proposed that Daniels ‘weeks’ were being counted on a pure lunar year of 354 days. Others wondered if the calendar found in the Book of Enoch might solve the problem? That one had 364 days.

The best-known theory is the 360-day 'prophetic year' put forward by Sir Robert Anderson in AD 1895 to bolster the then emerging ‘dispensational’ system of prophecy. He multiplied 483 years by 360 and got 173880 days. He then divided it by the number of days in a normal year (365¼ days), added it to 445 BC, and arrived at the time (he said) of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem in AD 32.
Anderson’s dates had to be adjusted by Dr. Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary to 444 BC and AD 33 where they remain the basic foundational dates for the doctrine of a future 'seventieth week' held by many prophetic teachers to this day. (Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Harold Hoehner, 1973)

This is where it comes from! There is no other scriptural source for the claim that the seventieth week was unhooked from the 69 weeks and sent to the future. However, Anderson and Hoehner’s theory is seriously flawed.

Unless I'm mistaken, it seems you and I are both members of another board we each post on. Neither one of us using the same username we use on this board. On that board there was a thread recently in regards to 2,300 evenings and mornings. In the OP there was some pretty wild calculations taking place in order to arrive at 1150. And I noticed that when I looked in the list under the OP, as to who agreed, your name was among them. Assuming that was you, why do you find it perfectly reasonable in that case, but not perfectly reasonable in this case, in regards to how Sir Robert Anderson arrived at his conclusions?

[randyk]

Admittedly, the twentieth-year start point for Daniel’s 70 weeks has had its supporters. Their problem though, is that a count of 483 years (69 x 7) from 444 BC comes to AD 40, a date which arrives well after Jesus died. So, proponents of the 444 BC terminus a quo resort to various 'short-year' theories to make the prophecy fit. For example, the early church historian, Julius Africanus, proposed that Daniels ‘weeks’ were being counted on a pure lunar year of 354 days. Others wondered if the calendar found in the Book of Enoch might solve the problem? That one had 364 days.

The best-known theory is the 360-day 'prophetic year' put forward by Sir Robert Anderson in AD 1895 to bolster the then emerging ‘dispensational’ system of prophecy. He multiplied 483 years by 360 and got 173880 days. He then divided it by the number of days in a normal year (365¼ days), added it to 445 BC, and arrived at the time (he said) of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem in AD 32.
Anderson’s dates had to be adjusted by Dr. Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary to 444 BC and AD 33 where they remain the basic foundational dates for the doctrine of a future 'seventieth week' held by many prophetic teachers to this day. (Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Harold Hoehner, 1973)

This is where it comes from! There is no other scriptural source for the claim that the seventieth week was unhooked from the 69 weeks and sent to the future. However, Anderson and Hoehner’s theory is seriously flawed.

I go by the 7th year of Artaxerxes, and utilize the standard being applied, biblically. The Scriptures speak literally of "weeks," which if converted to years would represent *7 year periods.* So it doesn't matter how one views a year, as either 365 days or 360 days--the measure is "weeks," and not "years!"

If we count from the 20th year, when Nehemiah was sent to rebuild the walls, we may add up 69 Weeks, and establish 26 AD as the starting point of Jesus' covenant, to complete the 6 items (Dan 9.24,27). That's very close to the time when Jesus likely did begin his public ministry!

However, we begin, according to the Scriptures, with Artaxerxes' decree, and not just the time he sent Nehemiah to rebuild the walls. Artaxerxes made a decree in his 7th year, which was an implied revisiting of Cyrus' original decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. That decree involved a completion of the temple worship, according to strict standards, as well as the incorporation of a city authority. This preceded the 20th year decree, indicating that the decree to Nehemiah was an addendum to the 7th year decree. If we begin the 69 weeks count at the 20 year decree of Artaxerxes, we do not end up with a likely date that Jesus began his earthly ministry.

The men you cite, who came up with the "future 70th Week" were not the originators of this position. It appears that there was in effect a partial disconnect between the 70th Week and the 69 Weeks by both Irenaeus and Hippolytus--I believe Hippolytus may have gotten it from Ir4enaeus. As such, this was not the major view of the 70 Weeks prophecy, which I believe was the historicist position. The 70 Weeks were *completely fulfilled* in the early ministry of Christ and in the 70 AD destruction immediately following.

Irenaeus may have disconnected the 70th Week by only a relatively short period, maintaining a degree of proximity between them. He may have viewed the AoD as Antichrist by believing that Antichrist was very soon to be revealed, and thus, fulfill the "desolation" not long after the 69 Weeks. This is quite different from the Gap Theory of our time, in which the 70th Week is separated from the 69 Weeks by 2000 years!
One thing is clear in the prophecy of the 70 Weeks, that whatever happens at the end of this period, it was supposed to happen in the immediate period. It was either that the 70 AD event was to happen or that Antichrist would appear and desolate the Church. But today's Gap Theory is purely illegitimate in my view--even though I held to that view in the past.

[Cyberseeker]

Why do you find it perfectly reasonable in that case, but not perfectly reasonable in this case, in regards to how Sir Robert Anderson arrived at his conclusions?

As best as I'm aware, no one uses the '360-day prophetic year' to count Daniels 2300 days. But they do use it to count his 70 weeks. The short year is a contrived idea and Id like to talk about it with 'future 70th-week' believers.

[Cyberseeker]

I go by the 7th year of Artaxerxes,

So do I, but 'future 70th-year' folk usually go by the 20th year of Artaxerxes. You'll find it in most dispensational books.

The Scriptures speak literally of "weeks," which if converted to years would represent *7 year periods.* So it doesn't matter how one views a year, as either 365 days or 360 days--the measure is "weeks," and not "years!"

If we count from the 20th year, when Nehemiah was sent to rebuild the walls, we may add up 69 Weeks, and establish 26 AD as the starting point of Jesus' covenant, to complete the 6 items (Dan 9.24,27). That's very close to the time when Jesus likely did begin his public ministry!

I don't understand what you're saying here. The measure of "weeks," are blocks of seven years in just the same way as a "decade" is a block of 10 years! So, every futurist I know (except you) counts from the 20th year and arrives at AD 33. And they use a 360-day calendar to do it.

[divaD]

As best as I'm aware, no one uses the '360-day prophetic year' to count Daniels 2300 days. But they do use it to count his 70 weeks. The short year is a contrived idea and Id like to talk about it with 'future 70th-week' believers.

1260 obviously equals 42 months. And so does a time, times, and the dividing of time, equals 1260, 42 months. The formula would be like such. a time 360, + times 720, + the dividing of time 180 = 1260


42 months at 30 days for each month = 1260. 42 times 30 = 1260.

Is not 42 months half of 7 years? Is not 42 months plus 1260 days 7 years? Doesn't this tell us that it is perfectly reasonable to use 360 day years in order to arrive at these numbers? If I am wrong, provide a formula for 1260 that also adds up to 1260 without having to use 360, twice that of 360, and half of 360, and that it also adds up to 1260. And if 360 day years are used to determine the 70th week, why can't the same be true of the entire 70 weeks, that it is being based on 360 day years?

[randyk]

So do I, but 'future 70th-year' folk usually go by the 20th year of Artaxerxes. You'll find it in most dispensational books.

I don't understand what you're saying here. The measure of "weeks," are blocks of seven years in just the same way as a "decade" is a block of 10 years! So, every futurist I know (except you) counts from the 20th year and arrives at AD 33. And they use a 360-day calendar to do it.

If one has 483 years, it doesn't matter whether you view a year as 360 days or 365 days. It *must be* 365 days, because we are talking about a literal "year," and not 360 days divided into X number of days.

A block of 7 years, as you indicate, represents 7 actual Solar Years, regardless of whether they are 360 days or 365 days as you choose to describe it. So my point is that using 360 days does not change the calculation in *years.*

I would not place much stock in the "people you know." They obviously do not represent the vast number of scholars through the ages who have interpreted this passage. Modern Interpretations can be either right or extremely shallow. What helps modern interpretation is that we see fulfillment in front of our eyes. What hurts modern interpretation is the lack of historical depth, and a tendency to revolt against historic Christianity.

My point was that a 7 year period would place the emphasis on actual Solar Years, and not on a limited characterization of a year as only 360 days. That would corrupt the prediction and the period specified.

[divaD]

. What hurts modern interpretation is the lack of historical depth, and a tendency to revolt against historic Christianity.

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.


So what do you make of something like this then....and seal the book, even to the time of the end...and knowledge shall be increased?

[randyk]

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
So what do you make of something like this then....and seal the book, even to the time of the end...and knowledge shall be increased?

Good question. I know Peter mentions that the Prophets did not always know what they were predicting, namely the exact details of Christ and who he was.

1 Peter 1.10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

I think People were prompted, in the OT, to know of the promised salvation of God's Kingdom. That "knowledge" has increased by the preaching of the Gospel.

[ForHisglory]

1260 obviously equals 42 months.

The basis of your assumption. Yet please provide a calendar where 1260 days equals 42 months.
Now the ancient Greeks did have a calendar of 30 day months, but they also had intercalary months.
So in their case they were the same thing, however this would not be 3 and a half years, which would be a longer period of time.

And so does a time, times, and the dividing of time, equals 1260, 42 months. The formula would be like such. a time 360, + times 720, + the dividing of time 180 = 1260

This is the worst of nonsense.
A time means a period of time, it does NOT mean 1 year.

Is not 42 months half of 7 years? Is not 42 months plus 1260 days 7 years? Doesn't this tell us that it is perfectly reasonable to use 360 day years in order to arrive at these numbers? If I am wrong, provide a formula for 1260 that also adds up to 1260 without having to use 360, twice that of 360, and half of 360, and that it also adds up to 1260. And if 360 day years are used to determine the 70th week, why can't the same be true of the entire 70 weeks, that it is being based on 360 day years?

42 months is roughly half of 7 years. However this depends which calendar again.
In our modern solar calendar it does. However in a Jewish one it would not be again because of intercalary months.

The problem is you are claiming there needs to be a formula, but nowhere in the bible does it say there is such a formula. Instead it is simply stated as an EXACT duration of time.
The same is true of the 42 months. It is not EXACTLY 1275 days, nor is it EXACTLY anything other than what is stated, that is 42 months. We don't even know if it is 42 completed months or that simply the 42nd month is started.

[ForHisglory]

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. So what do you make of something like this then....and seal the book, even to the time of the end...and knowledge shall be increased?

This is fairly simple, in that as the time comes close so we can KNOW the fulfilment more clearly.
However even though we may KNOW, it still requires WISDOM to apply that knowledge to the times.

[ForHisglory]

As best as I'm aware, no one uses the '360-day prophetic year' to count Daniels 2300 days. But they do use it to count his 70 weeks. The short year is a contrived idea and Id like to talk about it with 'future 70th-week' believers.

Actually it isn't 2300 days but 1150 days, and yes a Greek calendar (of 30 day months) does work for this.
However I agree with you that 70 weeks is NOT 70 x 7 x 365 x 24 x 60 x 60, so that we know the very second Jesus comes. It is instead a very inexact timing which has groups of 7 years occurring. The exactness is only to the week and not even to the year, even the final 7 which is split into two, is not exact.