Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 59

Thread: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,952
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    So in Rev 11 we see a reference to a "street" in the holy city wherein the 2W will lie.

    This would have to be the same street which was rebuilt during the first 69 weeks commanded by Ezra, Cyrus or whomever some two thousand years ago? If not then the theory of the 70 weeks starting at that point fails.
    Why?
    It could as easily be a street built sometime in the future. The key is NOT WHEN the street is built but WHERE the street is built.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,932
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Why?
    It could as easily be a street built sometime in the future. The key is NOT WHEN the street is built but WHERE the street is built.
    Huh? The 70 weeks starts with a commandment to restore Jerusalem and the street is built. Most denote this by a decree some 2500 years ago. However if the street was built anytime again after let's say 70AD or in the future then the supposed commandment 2500 years ago was not pertaining to Dan 9.

    Thus again the street in Dan 9 MUST be the same street in Rev 11? Is it? Can the street in Rev 11 be the one which was built by the decree of Cyrus or whomever 2500 years ago?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,848

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Which means you have DELAYED the prophecy by 90 years.
    When was Daniel praying?
    Around 538 BC.
    I was saying that there is no delay from the decree to restore Jerusalem until the start of the 70 Weeks clock! It is completely irrelevant if there is a delay between the uttering of the prophecy and the beginning of some future prophetic fulfillment! There is a *huge delay* between prophecies of Christ's Coming and the fulfillment of that event! I'm talking only about delays that would render the 70 Weeks period as being greater than 70 Weeks!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What was he praying about?
    The 70 years which was due to finish in a couple of years - 536 BC.
    This is non-controversial!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What was the 70 x 7 about?
    The seven fold punishment for the people who have NOT returned to God.
    This was about to START.
    Yes, and the period began with a specific event--the mandate to rebuild Jerusalem. That did not take place immediately after Daniel gave the prophecy. Nobody should ever wonder that there was a gap between Daniel's prophecy and the fulfillment of this decree!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    There is NO 80 years gap between Daniel having the vision and the 70 weeks starting with Artaxerxes Longimans.
    You are INSERTING a gap CONTRARY to your claims of NO gap.
    457 BC is around 80 years later. 445 BC which is when the city wall was built was 90 years later.
    You are arguing incredibly naïve things! Nobody cares if there is a gap between Daniel's prophecy and the fulfillment of that prophecy! Why would you argue such a thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Sorry but fallacious reasoning.
    There is ZERO requirement for the 70 weeks to be continuous.
    Common Sense *requires* that the 70 Weeks be continuous! Otherwise it is not a 70 Weeks period at all!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    What is REQUIRED is that the EXPLANATION of what occurs DURING those 70 weeks MATCHES with what happens.
    Those 70 weeks are a period of time for things to come to an Anointed one and for the Jews to respond.
    A continuous period of 70 Weeks does match the events, as I showed you. The rebuilding of the city, the period before Christ comes, and the fulfillment of the 6 things Christ was to accomplish. Following that would be, in that generation, the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. Its sign would be the "abomination of desolation," earlier described as the "people of the prince to come destroying the city and the sanctuary."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So BIZARRE.
    Theatrics does not improve the quality of your arguments. And your arguments are *absurd.*

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    God NOWHERE said that the Jews religion was to be destroyed. Nor did He annul it.
    If you simply open your eyes and see that Dan 9 talked about the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, you would recognize that the sanctuary=Jewish religion. If the sanctuary is destroyed, so is Jewish religion. And quite frankly, the end of Jewish religion is what the Church Fathers emphasized in this prophecy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Nor does the 70 weeks lead to the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary.
    That is exactly what the passage says, that among the 6 things Messiah would bring to fulfillment would be the end to wickedness among the Jews. This meant the end of Jewish sins under the Law. The temple would be destroyed.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The problem with such a claim is that based on 457 BC start then you have a 34 AD time when the temple is DESTROYED. Almost everyone agrees that didn;t happen until 70 AD, so your 70 weeks STARTS 80 years TOO late and then ends 36 years TOO early.
    There is *no specific number given* for the space of time between the completion of the 70 Weeks and the time the temple is destroyed. This is simply the target of the 70 Weeks--the destruction of the temple. So the 70 Weeks was completed in the ministry of Jesus, and the generation that immediately followed would, at an indeterminate time, experience the loss of their temple and capital city.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually it does. By itself it is NOT conclusive, but it is DEFINITELY an argument for it. Otherwise there is NO reason for the splits.
    Problem for you, the city was NOT rebuilt in the 1st block.
    Second problem for you, the 2nd block doesn't end with the arrival of the Messiah. The 3rd block also has NO mention of the death of an Anointed one.
    No, these are not problems for me. The city was indeed rebuilt in the 1st block. Within 49 years after the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 BC the city walls were built by Nehemiah and the city was constructed, with magistrates, judges and their associated residences.

    And the 2nd block was to lead up to the 3rd block. I never said the Messiah's ministry took place *within the 2nd block!* I only said the 2nd block was the time clock to lead up to the 3rd block. After the 7 + 62 Weeks Messiah came and fulfilled the 6 things. And it was only after the 70 Weeks that the generation arrived that was to have their temple removed. This was indeed the end of temple worship under Jewish Law. The Sadducees had to give way to Rabbinical Judaism.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No I simply highlight that your claim that something is irrational, is simply a baseless claim.
    I do use the 70 weeks EXACTLY as the prophecy declares, and is a very accurate clock.
    Your argument that the 70 Weeks period is not a time clock and is non-continuous is absurd.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,952
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    Huh? The 70 weeks starts with a commandment to restore Jerusalem and the street is built. Most denote this by a decree some 2500 years ago. However if the street was built anytime again after let's say 70AD or in the future then the supposed commandment 2500 years ago was not pertaining to Dan 9.

    Thus again the street in Dan 9 MUST be the same street in Rev 11? Is it? Can the street in Rev 11 be the one which was built by the decree of Cyrus or whomever 2500 years ago?
    No, faulty reasoning. It is NOT speaking of a SPECIFIC street. It is speaking of streets in general. IOW for Jerusalem to be restored (which it was in the time of Cyrus) then they needed to build streets (notice it is plural).
    That Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.
    Rev is not referring to any particular street, but to the PLACE where the streets need to be built.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,952
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I was saying that there is no delay from the decree to restore Jerusalem until the start of the 70 Weeks clock! It is completely irrelevant if there is a delay between the uttering of the prophecy and the beginning of some future prophetic fulfillment! There is a *huge delay* between prophecies of Christ's Coming and the fulfillment of that event! I'm talking only about delays that would render the 70 Weeks period as being greater than 70 Weeks!
    Yes you are as you are saying the 70 weeks started in 457 BC which is a delay form when God gave His word.
    The SIMPLE point, which you are refusing to grasp is that the 70 weeks speaks of the things OF the 70 weeks and NOT about anytime OUTSIDE it. Nor is it speaking of the things BETWEEN the blocks.

    This is non-controversial!
    But it causes a problem for you.

    Yes, and the period began with a specific event--the mandate to rebuild Jerusalem. That did not take place immediately after Daniel gave the prophecy. Nobody should ever wonder that there was a gap between Daniel's prophecy and the fulfillment of this decree!
    Actually God had ALREADY sent His word through Jeremiah.
    You make a MOCKERY of Daniel's earnest prayers by having God give 80 years before His 70 weeks starts, when Daniel KNEW the 70 years was about to end with DIRE consequences for the Jews.

    You are arguing incredibly naïve things! Nobody cares if there is a gap between Daniel's prophecy and the fulfillment of that prophecy! Why would you argue such a thing?
    You mean you don't GRASP what is going on.

    Common Sense *requires* that the 70 Weeks be continuous! Otherwise it is not a 70 Weeks period at all!
    Incorrect! Common senses says that 70 weeks refers to certain events which take 70 weeks. It does NOT require them to be continuous. Especially not when they are then split apart.

    A continuous period of 70 Weeks does match the events, as I showed you. The rebuilding of the city, the period before Christ comes, and the fulfillment of the 6 things Christ was to accomplish. Following that would be, in that generation, the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. Its sign would be the "abomination of desolation," earlier described as the "people of the prince to come destroying the city and the sanctuary."
    No it doesn't. It doesn't even come close, which is why people have debated this for a long time.
    Your attempt to explain it does NOT fit history NOR scripture.
    Further there is NO FOLLOWING the 70 weeks. When the 70 weeks ENDS then those things are COMPLETED. There is NO MORE Jewish history after the 70 weeks EXCEPT with those things as being true.

    Theatrics does not improve the quality of your arguments. And your arguments are *absurd.*
    I simply note how bizarre your claims are.

    If you simply open your eyes and see that Dan 9 talked about the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, you would recognize that the sanctuary=Jewish religion. If the sanctuary is destroyed, so is Jewish religion. And quite frankly, the end of Jewish religion is what the Church Fathers emphasized in this prophecy.
    Problem which you carefully close your eyes to, is that the city and sanctuary were NOT destroyed WITHIN the 70 weeks, therefore your claim is CLEARLY wrong.

    That is exactly what the passage says, that among the 6 things Messiah would bring to fulfillment would be the end to wickedness among the Jews. This meant the end of Jewish sins under the Law. The temple would be destroyed.
    Actually it does NOT say the Messiah will do these things. It says these are the things which will BE for Daniel's PEOPLE.
    Did wickedness end among the Jews yet? Nope, then clearly either God's prophecy was FALSE our your interpretation of it is FALSE.

    There is *no specific number given* for the space of time between the completion of the 70 Weeks and the time the temple is destroyed. This is simply the target of the 70 Weeks--the destruction of the temple. So the 70 Weeks was completed in the ministry of Jesus, and the generation that immediately followed would, at an indeterminate time, experience the loss of their temple and capital city.
    Of course this is NOT the target. The TARGET is Daniel's people and them no longer being a rebellious people, but a people of righteousness.

    No, these are not problems for me. The city was indeed rebuilt in the 1st block. Within 49 years after the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 BC the city walls were built by Nehemiah and the city was constructed, with magistrates, judges and their associated residences.
    Of course these are problems for you.
    It is a ridiculous claim that the city was built within 49 years of 457 BC. It was built by 432 BC which is 25 years so why did God give a further 24 years?

    And the 2nd block was to lead up to the 3rd block. I never said the Messiah's ministry took place *within the 2nd block!* I only said the 2nd block was the time clock to lead up to the 3rd block. After the 7 + 62 Weeks Messiah came and fulfilled the 6 things. And it was only after the 70 Weeks that the generation arrived that was to have their temple removed. This was indeed the end of temple worship under Jewish Law. The Sadducees had to give way to Rabbinical Judaism.
    As the second block was to the arrival of the Messiah so this is a problem for you as the Messiah did NOT arrive in 27 AD.

    Your argument that the 70 Weeks period is not a time clock and is non-continuous is absurd.
    I haven't argued once that the 70 weeks is not a time- clock, so that argument is baseless.
    However your argument it is continuous remains absurd.
    You don't even have a correct starting time. You don't understand what the prophecy is about, and you don;t follow what scripture states about it.
    However this is not something new. You ignore what scripture says in order to have your OWN interpretation forced into something.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,848

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Yes you are as you are saying the 70 weeks started in 457 BC which is a delay form when God gave His word.
    The SIMPLE point, which you are refusing to grasp is that the 70 weeks speaks of the things OF the 70 weeks and NOT about anytime OUTSIDE it. Nor is it speaking of the things BETWEEN the blocks.
    Again, the 70 Weeks prophecy does, in fact, speak of an event *outside of* the 70 Weeks period, namely the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. That's because that event is portrayed as taking place after the 70 Weeks period is completed with the death of Messiah. And the 3 blocks of time certainly do speak of events that take place *during* the 70 Weeks. The building of the temple, the waiting period for Messiah to come, and the ministry of Messiah himself, are all things that take place *during* the 70 Weeks period.

    I don't fail to grasp what you say here. I simply disagree with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    But it causes a problem for you.
    Actually God had ALREADY sent His word through Jeremiah.
    You make a MOCKERY of Daniel's earnest prayers by having God give 80 years before His 70 weeks starts, when Daniel KNEW the 70 years was about to end with DIRE consequences for the Jews.
    No, I only find absurd your views of this. Daniel gave a prophecy of a decree. There were several decrees. Only one of these decrees actually accomplished the rebuilding of the *city.*

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You mean you don't GRASP what is going on.
    It's possible I didn't follow your argument. But the point remains. In *my system* of interpretation, there are no gaps in the 70 Weeks period at all. To say that a gap exists *before* the 70 Weeks period is not even a "gap" at all!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Incorrect! Common senses says that 70 weeks refers to certain events which take 70 weeks. It does NOT require them to be continuous. Especially not when they are then split apart.
    Again, this is an absurd argument, and no amount of rationalization will change that. A 70 Weeks period is not a 70 Weeks period plus an X amount of time. Adding an X amount of time renders it *not* a 70 Weeks period of time!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No it doesn't. It doesn't even come close, which is why people have debated this for a long time.
    Your attempt to explain it does NOT fit history NOR scripture.
    Further there is NO FOLLOWING the 70 weeks. When the 70 weeks ENDS then those things are COMPLETED. There is NO MORE Jewish history after the 70 weeks EXCEPT with those things as being true.
    As I interpret it, the "abomination of desolation," which is the "desolation of the city and the sanctuary," follows the 70 Weeks. The things that the 70 Weeks fulfill are the 6 things Messiah was to bring to pass.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I simply note how bizarre your claims are.
    I note how absurd your claims are.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Problem which you carefully close your eyes to, is that the city and sanctuary were NOT destroyed WITHIN the 70 weeks, therefore your claim is CLEARLY wrong.
    I never said the city and the sanctuary were destroyed within the 70 Weeks. You are saying this--not me! The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple took place *after* the 70 Weeks--after Christ was "cut off." And we see this in history, as well. After Jesus died, the Romans came and destroyed the temple, in 70 AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually it does NOT say the Messiah will do these things. It says these are the things which will BE for Daniel's PEOPLE.
    Did wickedness end among the Jews yet? Nope, then clearly either God's prophecy was FALSE our your interpretation of it is FALSE.
    This was indeed for Daniel's People, the Jews. But the prophecy indicates that the 70 Weeks are completed with the last week, in which Christ comes. So we know that Christ brought about the fulfillment of these 6 things.

    They did not fail to come about--you are just interpreting them wrongly. Sin was brought to maturity among the Jews in the time of Christ. They committed sins greater than Sodom and Gomorrah! And they were crushed, by the judgment of Christ against them, leading ultimately to the destruction of their religious system. That's what this prophecy was all about--the continuing failure of the Jewish People, represented by their failure under the system of temple law.

    Dan 9.24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place."

    Rom 7.13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Of course this is NOT the target. The TARGET is Daniel's people and them no longer being a rebellious people, but a people of righteousness.
    The targeting of the Jewish temple is, in fact, the targeting of Daniel's rebellious people! It is showing that their temple worship did not hold up under their particular observance of the Law. Instead, the Law magnified their sin and brought them under condemnation.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Of course these are problems for you.
    It is a ridiculous claim that the city was built within 49 years of 457 BC. It was built by 432 BC which is 25 years so why did God give a further 24 years?
    Do you even hear yourself? You think it's "ridiculous" to think the city was rebuilt within 49 years of 457 BC when it actually was? Nobody here is saying how long it took to build buildings for magistrates and judges, or what was even required to make the city function as a city. It most certainly could've taken the full 49 years!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As the second block was to the arrival of the Messiah so this is a problem for you as the Messiah did NOT arrive in 27 AD.
    I believe he arrived in that relative period of time--perhaps 26 AD. The time period is too exact to have been accidental!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    I haven't argued once that the 70 weeks is not a time- clock, so that argument is baseless.
    It is not baseless because your time clock would give a false time, if gaps were inserted into the actual time given!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    However your argument it is continuous remains absurd.
    Right. Next you're going to tell me an hour is not 60 minutes? A day is not 24 hours? And a 70 Weeks period of time is 70 Weeks + an X amount of time?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You don't even have a correct starting time. You don't understand what the prophecy is about, and you don;t follow what scripture states about it.
    However this is not something new. You ignore what scripture says in order to have your OWN interpretation forced into something.
    What is not new is that you cannot accept rational arguments if it doesn't agree with your own pet belief about a passage. I find that unfortunate. And it certainly won't get you peace of mind.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,802
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk

    Common Sense *requires* that the 70 Weeks be continuous! Otherwise it is not a 70 Weeks period at all!
    Hmmm, make sense.
    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,932
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    It is NOT speaking of a SPECIFIC street.
    Every city has a "main" street" even the city of God past and future.

    In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

    Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem within three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month; and all the people sat in the street of the house of God, trembling because of this matter, and for the great rain.

    It is speaking of streets in general.
    Really? The reference of "street" in Dan 9 should be "streets"?? Oh my.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,952
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    Every city has a "main" street" even the city of God past and future.
    And?

    In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
    So? This is NOT a street made by Man but by God and is NOT the streets of Daniel nor that of Revelation.

    Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem within three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month; and all the people sat in the street of the house of God, trembling because of this matter, and for the great rain.
    And?

    Really? The reference of "street" in Dan 9 should be "streets"?? Oh my.
    Dan 9:25* Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.*

    Where is a single street mentioned? Perhaps you are relying on the KJV?

    Dan 9:25* KnowH3045 therefore and understand,H7919 that fromH4480 the going forthH4161 of the commandmentH1697 to restoreH7725 and to buildH1129 JerusalemH3389 untoH5704 the MessiahH4899 the PrinceH5057 shall be sevenH7651 weeks,H7620 and threescoreH8346 and twoH8147 weeks:H7620 the streetH7339 shall be builtH1129 again,H7725 and the wall,H2742 even in troublousH6695 times.H6256*

    Notice the word translated as "street" in the KJV is this:
    H7339
    רחוב / רחב
    rechôb
    BDB Definition:
    1) broad or open place or plaza
    Part of Speech: noun feminine

    So could be meaning street or plaza or square or avenue etc.

    It also is tied into the rebuilding of the city so it is not about a singular street but the about the rebuilding of the city for people to live.

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    Every city has a "main" street" even the city of God past and future.
    And?

    In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
    So? This is NOT a street made by Man but by God and is NOT the streets of Daniel nor that of Revelation.

    Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem within three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month; and all the people sat in the street of the house of God, trembling because of this matter, and for the great rain.
    And?

    Really? The reference of "street" in Dan 9 should be "streets"?? Oh my.
    Dan 9:25* Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.*

    Where is a single street mentioned? Perhaps you are relying on the KJV?

    Dan 9:25* KnowH3045 therefore and understand,H7919 that fromH4480 the going forthH4161 of the commandmentH1697 to restoreH7725 and to buildH1129 JerusalemH3389 untoH5704 the MessiahH4899 the PrinceH5057 shall be sevenH7651 weeks,H7620 and threescoreH8346 and twoH8147 weeks:H7620 the streetH7339 shall be builtH1129 again,H7725 and the wall,H2742 even in troublousH6695 times.H6256*

    Notice the word translated as "street" in the KJV is this:
    H7339
    רחוב / רחב
    rechôb
    BDB Definition:
    1) broad or open place or plaza
    Part of Speech: noun feminine

    So could be meaning street or plaza or square or avenue etc.

    It also is tied into the rebuilding of the city so it is not about a singular street but the about the rebuilding of the city for people to live.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,952
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Again, the 70 Weeks prophecy does, in fact, speak of an event *outside of* the 70 Weeks period, namely the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. That's because that event is portrayed as taking place after the 70 Weeks period is completed with the death of Messiah. And the 3 blocks of time certainly do speak of events that take place *during* the 70 Weeks. The building of the temple, the waiting period for Messiah to come, and the ministry of Messiah himself, are all things that take place *during* the 70 Weeks period.
    Actually the destruction of the city and sanctuary is NOT depicted as occurring AFTER the 70 weeks, but BETWEEN the 62 weeks and the 70th week.
    It is placed in verse 26 BEFORE the 70th week is described.
    The 70 weeks is NOT depicted as ending with the death of an anointed one. Again the death of an anointed one is stated as connected with being AFTER 62 weeks.
    The SPECIFIC reference given by the angel is to the 62 weeks and NOT to the 70th week.

    No, I only find absurd your views of this. Daniel gave a prophecy of a decree. There were several decrees. Only one of these decrees actually accomplished the rebuilding of the *city.*
    No Daniel did NOT give a prophecy of a "decree" - by which you mean a declaration made by Man.
    It doesn't help that you have no clue about Hebrew, but let me highlight for you something:

    Dan 9:2* in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.

    Here we have the CONTEXT as to why Daniel is praying. It is about God's WORD as declared to Jeremiah.
    H1697
    דּבר
    dâbâr
    BDB Definition:
    1) speech, word, speaking, thing
    1a) speech
    1b) saying, utterance
    1c) word, words
    1d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner
    Part of Speech: noun masculine

    This is the word which is translated as "Word". It is "dabar" You will find it throughout the OT. It implies a CAUSE, that is a WORD brings about an effect.

    Dan 9:25* Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.*

    Something that people who follow KJV translations don't get is that the word in this verse is the SAME word as used in verse 2. In the KJV they decided to change the word from "word" to "commandment" and ever since people have looked for a decree of Man instead of looking for the "Word" of the Lord.

    A second reason ANYONE can KNOW that your claim is BASELESS is because Artaxerxes did NOT make a decree in 457 BC to rebuild Jerusalem.
    You choose that date because you count backwards and look for a possible solution.
    God did NOT give this prophecy for it ONLY to be understood in hindsight. The purpose of prophecy is so that His people can know and understand BEFOREHAND.

    Beyond this we ALSO know that the decree you are looking at does NOT do what is needed for the prophecy.

    Additionally we know that scripture TELLS us which decree of Man brings about the fulfillment of the WORD of God.

    It's possible I didn't follow your argument. But the point remains. In *my system* of interpretation, there are no gaps in the 70 Weeks period at all. To say that a gap exists *before* the 70 Weeks period is not even a "gap" at all!
    That is a gap as you have NO explanation why the fulfillment occurs 80+ years AFTER God has revealed this thing to Daniel which was pertinent to Daniel and his people AT THAT MOMENT.
    The ENTIRE point of the 70 x 7 is rooted in the Law of God.

    Again, this is an absurd argument, and no amount of rationalization will change that. A 70 Weeks period is not a 70 Weeks period plus an X amount of time. Adding an X amount of time renders it *not* a 70 Weeks period of time!
    So you have OUT means IN and you CANNOT see the MASSIVE hole in this claim.
    A 70 weeks period is of course a 70 week period.
    No one has said that 70 weeks does NOT last 70 weeks.
    What has been noted though is that the 70 weeks has been SPLIT UP into 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week.
    These STILL total 70 weeks
    Further you were given a concrete example which shows how there is no rational nor logical problem in noting that you can have periods of time in between these three blocks. Those periods in between do not effect the length of each block and it is the blocks which equal 70.

    Do you even hear yourself? You think it's "ridiculous" to think the city was rebuilt within 49 years of 457 BC when it actually was? Nobody here is saying how long it took to build buildings for magistrates and judges, or what was even required to make the city function as a city. It most certainly could've taken the full 49 years!
    As scripture shows it was LESS than 49 years, I think I will go with scripture.

    I believe he arrived in that relative period of time--perhaps 26 AD. The time period is too exact to have been accidental!
    As Jesus didn't arrive until late 29 AD so it isn't exact.
    Luke makes it IMPOSSIBLE to be 26 AD. However you can ignore scripture AGAIN if you want.

    It is not baseless because your time clock would give a false time, if gaps were inserted into the actual time given!
    No my time clock does NOT give a false time. You should note that the blocks STATE when they start. This is why you have your 70 weeks start in 457 BC because you look at what is stated for the start of the first block. This is a logical thing to do, even if it ignores the CONTEXT of what is happening with Daniel and why the prophecy is given.
    We are told the start of the 62 weeks and the start of the 1 week.

    Right. Next you're going to tell me an hour is not 60 minutes? A day is not 24 hours? And a 70 Weeks period of time is 70 Weeks + an X amount of time?
    If I say that the job will take me an hour to do, that doesn't mean I will complete it in 60 minutes from now. You even acknowledge this by starting the 60 minutes late.
    However IF I say the job will take 70 weeks, which will be 7 weeks of preparation, then once the parts come another 62 weeks, and then after the thing dries it will be 1 week, then you would find that there is a gap in between the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks, which is while the parts are shipped. Then once the work of the 62 weeks is completed there is then an indeterminate length of time
    while tings dry and then 1 final week to finish things off. So the total time of my work is 70 weeks, but the total time for the job is longer.
    This is the picture we are presented with in the vision.

    What is not new is that you cannot accept rational arguments if it doesn't agree with your own pet belief about a passage. I find that unfortunate. And it certainly won't get you peace of mind.
    IF you were to present a RATIONAL argument, then I would accept it.
    The things you have presented as being of a certain nature I have rationally dealt with and shown how that view is incomplete.
    It is possible that the 70 weeks are continuous based simply on the point that they are noted as 70 weeks, but it is NOT correct to state that it is irrational to note that they do not have to be.
    It is actually yourself who seems to struggle with rational arguments. I find it hard to deal with irrational ones.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,952
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker View Post
    Hmmm, make sense.
    No Common Sense doesn't require it, though it does make sense as a real possibility.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,848

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually the destruction of the city and sanctuary is NOT depicted as occurring AFTER the 70 weeks, but BETWEEN the 62 weeks and the 70th week.
    It is placed in verse 26 BEFORE the 70th week is described.
    This is inaccurate. Yes, mention of the city's destruction takes place before *detail* of the 70th Week is given. But that is not important. The order is given 1st, and then the detail.

    Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.

    What this says is that Messiah will die, and although we are not yet told it will be in the 70th Week, we are given that detail later. So it is after Messiah dies in the 70th Week that the city will be destroyed.

    Here we are given the details that Messiah dies in the 70th Week:

    Dan 9.27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.

    We are not here told that Messiah dies in the middle of the 70th Week, but inasmuch as we are told he "confirms a covenant" in the 70th Week, we know that he also dies in that Week.

    And so, it is following the death of Christ in the 70th Week that the city is destroyed. It is *after* the 70th Week that the city and the temple are destroyed.

    Not only so, but after detail is given that Christ will live and die in the 70th Week we are again told that the city and the temple will be destroyed. But this is described as the "abomination of desolation" set against the holy place, or the temple.

    Dan 9.27 And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The 70 weeks is NOT depicted as ending with the death of an anointed one. Again the death of an anointed one is stated as connected with being AFTER 62 weeks.
    The SPECIFIC reference given by the angel is to the 62 weeks and NOT to the 70th week.
    The Messiah does come after 62 weeks, but also after an initial 7 weeks. This means he comes after 69 weeks, in the 70th Week. The 62 weeks is given as a period of time, following the rebuilding of Jerusalem, in which Israel had to wait until the coming of Messiah. They were focused on the building of Jerusalem during the 1st 7 weeks. Then 62 weeks is given as a period of waiting following the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No Daniel did NOT give a prophecy of a "decree" - by which you mean a declaration made by Man.
    It doesn't help that you have no clue about Hebrew, but let me highlight for you something:

    Dan 9:2* in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.

    Here we have the CONTEXT as to why Daniel is praying. It is about God's WORD as declared to Jeremiah.
    H1697
    דּבר
    dâbâr
    BDB Definition:
    1) speech, word, speaking, thing
    1a) speech
    1b) saying, utterance
    1c) word, words
    1d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner
    Part of Speech: noun masculine

    This is the word which is translated as "Word". It is "dabar" You will find it throughout the OT. It implies a CAUSE, that is a WORD brings about an effect.

    Dan 9:25* Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.*

    Something that people who follow KJV translations don't get is that the word in this verse is the SAME word as used in verse 2. In the KJV they decided to change the word from "word" to "commandment" and ever since people have looked for a decree of Man instead of looking for the "Word" of the Lord.
    You prove absolutely nothing here! If the word "dabar" is ubiquitous, it can hardly be used in a specialized way as a proof! Even worse, to say that word in 2 different places have to refer to the same decree is about as much proof as saying the water in my back yard is the same water in your neighborhood because in both places I use the exact same spelling for "water!" How the KJV translates the word has absolutely no bearing on the subject. Determining what decree is being referred to is the matter. And Artaxerxes' decree comes closer to the actual work of the construction than Cyrus' initial decree.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    A second reason ANYONE can KNOW that your claim is BASELESS is because Artaxerxes did NOT make a decree in 457 BC to rebuild Jerusalem.
    You choose that date because you count backwards and look for a possible solution.
    God did NOT give this prophecy for it ONLY to be understood in hindsight. The purpose of prophecy is so that His people can know and understand BEFOREHAND.
    No, not only does it make sense in hindsight, but it also fits the actual time of construction. Artaxerxes did indeed give a word that involves a continued application of Cyrus' original decree, including refining the temple worship and building the city organization, walls, etc.

    Ezra 7.12 Artaxerxes, king of kings,
    To Ezra the priest, teacher of the Law of the God of heaven:
    Greetings.
    13 Now I decree that any of the Israelites in my kingdom, including priests and Levites, who volunteer to go to Jerusalem with you, may go. 14 You are sent by the king and his seven advisers to inquire about Judah and Jerusalem with regard to the Law of your God, which is in your hand. 15 Moreover, you are to take with you the silver and gold that the king and his advisers have freely given to the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem, 16 together with all the silver and gold you may obtain from the province of Babylon, as well as the freewill offerings of the people and priests for the temple of their God in Jerusalem. 17 With this money be sure to buy bulls, rams and male lambs, together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and sacrifice them on the altar of the temple of your God in Jerusalem.
    ...25 And you, Ezra, in accordance with the wisdom of your God, which you possess, appoint magistrates and judges to administer justice to all the people of Trans-Euphrates—all who know the laws of your God.

    This was all about the state of affairs in Jerusalem, to allow that city to preserve proper worship of God by the Jewish People. This is when the mandate was given, and it was not long after that the walls of Jerusalem were built, and the city government was initiated. This was the actual restoration of Jerusalem. It did not happen immediately after Cyrus' decree. The temple was built long before this, but at this time the temple worship was refined and the city was secured as the protective community for the temple worship.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Beyond this we ALSO know that the decree you are looking at does NOT do what is needed for the prophecy.
    Additionally we know that scripture TELLS us which decree of Man brings about the fulfillment of the WORD of God.

    That is a gap as you have NO explanation why the fulfillment occurs 80+ years AFTER God has revealed this thing to Daniel which was pertinent to Daniel and his people AT THAT MOMENT.
    The ENTIRE point of the 70 x 7 is rooted in the Law of God.
    You have a *huge gap* between the decree of Cyrus and the actual building of the city! But I'm not even concerned about any so-called "gap" that may have existed *before* the 70 Weeks period. I'm arguing against supposed "gaps" within the 70 Weeks period, which would make it not a 70 Weeks period at all! If any time is added to a 70 Weeks period it become a 71 week period, or a 72 week period, or even a 2,490 year period. A 70 Weeks period is *not* a 2,490 year period!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So you have OUT means IN and you CANNOT see the MASSIVE hole in this claim.
    No, brother, I don't see how you can be so obtuse when I've explained this to you pretty clearly? Again, it depends on the context. You are mixing 2 different contexts, and then claiming they do not fit together!

    Here is the context of a broader territory *around the temple*: The Roman Army is *in* the holy place, ie within the territory around the temple.
    Here is your more limited context of an area *within the temple*: The Roman Army is *in the holy place, ie within the temple itself.

    If you apply your more narrow definition of a "holy area," yes, the Roman Army was outside of the temple in 66 AD. But if you apply my more expansive application of a "holy area," yes, the Roman Army was indeed inside the "holy place" in 66 AD.

    It is far different to say the Roman Army was outside the walls of Jerusalem than to say the Roman Army was not inside the "holy place." The Roman Army could, as I said, be in the "holy place" if that term encompassed the general region in which the temple was located, and not strictly the temple itself.

    It's like saying I'm at home in my neighborhood, and yet still outside of my house. This is not a contradiction. I'm *in* my neighborhood, and *outside of* my house. In the same way, the Roman Army was *in* the neighborhood of the temple, and yet *outside of* the temple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    A 70 weeks period is of course a 70 week period.
    No one has said that 70 weeks does NOT last 70 weeks.
    What has been noted though is that the 70 weeks has been SPLIT UP into 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week.
    These STILL total 70 weeks
    Not the point, brother! The point is these are *continuous* weeks, or they do not define a period of time at all. They may add up to 70 Weeks, but unless they are continuous weeks they do not constitute a time period in the sense of a clock. Either Israel was to wait for 70 Weeks, or it was an entirely different period of time!

    Can you imagine my telling you that in one week you'll get an award as a Hebrew scholar, but when one week passes I insist that one week has not passed yet, because the 7 days are actually going to take place over the next 70 days--we just have to identify which days represent the week?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Further you were given a concrete example which shows how there is no rational nor logical problem in noting that you can have periods of time in between these three blocks. Those periods in between do not effect the length of each block and it is the blocks which equal 70.

    As scripture shows it was LESS than 49 years, I think I will go with scripture.

    As Jesus didn't arrive until late 29 AD so it isn't exact.
    Luke makes it IMPOSSIBLE to be 26 AD. However you can ignore scripture AGAIN if you want.
    All this is debatable.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    No my time clock does NOT give a false time. You should note that the blocks STATE when they start. This is why you have your 70 weeks start in 457 BC because you look at what is stated for the start of the first block. This is a logical thing to do, even if it ignores the CONTEXT of what is happening with Daniel and why the prophecy is given.
    We are told the start of the 62 weeks and the start of the 1 week.
    So now you're saying that it's the individual blocks that are important, and not the overall period of 70 Weeks? So, in your view, the 70 Weeks is just the sum of all these 3 blocks? Absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If I say that the job will take me an hour to do, that doesn't mean I will complete it in 60 minutes from now. You even acknowledge this by starting the 60 minutes late.
    However IF I say the job will take 70 weeks, which will be 7 weeks of preparation, then once the parts come another 62 weeks, and then after the thing dries it will be 1 week, then you would find that there is a gap in between the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks, which is while the parts are shipped. Then once the work of the 62 weeks is completed there is then an indeterminate length of time
    while tings dry and then 1 final week to finish things off. So the total time of my work is 70 weeks, but the total time for the job is longer.
    This is the picture we are presented with in the vision.
    No that is the very strange way you're looking at it, which in my view is not sensible.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    IF you were to present a RATIONAL argument, then I would accept it.
    The things you have presented as being of a certain nature I have rationally dealt with and shown how that view is incomplete.
    It is possible that the 70 weeks are continuous based simply on the point that they are noted as 70 weeks, but it is NOT correct to state that it is irrational to note that they do not have to be.
    It is actually yourself who seems to struggle with rational arguments. I find it hard to deal with irrational ones.
    No, your view is irrational and absurd. Sorry. You're a smart guy. Work it out!

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,952
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    This is inaccurate. Yes, mention of the city's destruction takes place before *detail* of the 70th Week is given. But that is not important. The order is given 1st, and then the detail.
    Not inaccurate in the slightest:
    And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

    Very clearly it states the 62 weeks end and then mentions the destruction of the city and sanctuary, with NO mention of the 70th week.

    Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.

    What this says is that Messiah will die, and although we are not yet told it will be in the 70th Week, we are given that detail later. So it is after Messiah dies in the 70th Week that the city will be destroyed.
    Nope we are NOT told an anointed one dies in the 70th week. That is you making things up.

    Here we are given the details that Messiah dies in the 70th Week:

    Dan 9.27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.

    We are not here told that Messiah dies in the middle of the 70th Week, but inasmuch as we are told he "confirms a covenant" in the 70th Week, we know that he also dies in that Week
    This does NOT say an anointed one makes a covenant. It says He, and the He therefore refers back to the previous mentioned person who is the one whose people destroy the city and sanctuary.
    So are you claiming the Jews destroy the city and sanctuary - in which case you are at least being consistent, but if not then it means this is NOT saying what you claim.

    And so, it is following the death of Christ in the 70th Week that the city is destroyed. It is *after* the 70th Week that the city and the temple are destroyed.
    Actually no it is NOT. We don;t have a death of an anointed one in the 70th week. Instead we have the death of the desolator at the end of the 70th week.

    The Messiah does come after 62 weeks, but also after an initial 7 weeks. This means he comes after 69 weeks, in the 70th Week. The 62 weeks is given as a period of time, following the rebuilding of Jerusalem, in which Israel had to wait until the coming of Messiah. They were focused on the building of Jerusalem during the 1st 7 weeks. Then 62 weeks is given as a period of waiting following the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
    Now it means there are TWO anointed ones.
    There is NO 69 weeks mentioned. They are separated, and as you agree that each week is a week of years then there is a MINIMUM difference of 434 years between the end of the 7 weeks and the end of the 62 weeks.

    You prove absolutely nothing here! If the word "dabar" is ubiquitous, it can hardly be used in a specialized way as a proof! Even worse, to say that word in 2 different places have to refer to the same decree is about as much proof as saying the water in my back yard is the same water in your neighborhood because in both places I use the exact same spelling for "water!" How the KJV translates the word has absolutely no bearing on the subject. Determining what decree is being referred to is the matter. And Artaxerxes' decree comes closer to the actual work of the construction than Cyrus' initial decree.
    It isn't ubiquitous, there is a different word used in scripture for a decree.
    The word "dabar" is used for the "Word" of the Lord as I showed you in verse 2.
    The point is (in your example) that water IS water and to claim water is NOT water is the error which you are making.
    I have NOT said the "word" to Jeremiah mentioned in verse 2 is the SAME SPECIFIC "word", I have simply noted that it is NOT referring to a decree of Man, but the "Word" of God.
    How the KJV does have a DIRECT bearing, because people look for a commandment - and that of Man, such as by Artaxerxes.
    Determining what "Word" is what matters, NOT some decree of Man.
    However IF you want to consider the decree of Man which is made in RESPONSE to the Word of God then that may hep you.

    No, not only does it make sense in hindsight, but it also fits the actual time of construction. Artaxerxes did indeed give a word that involves a continued application of Cyrus' original decree, including refining the temple worship and building the city organization, walls, etc.
    Actually it does NOT make proper sense in hindsight either for it certainly does NOT fit the actual time of construction.

    Ezra 7.12 Artaxerxes, king of kings,
    To Ezra the priest, teacher of the Law of the God of heaven:
    Greetings.
    13 Now I decree that any of the Israelites in my kingdom, including priests and Levites, who volunteer to go to Jerusalem with you, may go. 14 You are sent by the king and his seven advisers to inquire about Judah and Jerusalem with regard to the Law of your God, which is in your hand. 15 Moreover, you are to take with you the silver and gold that the king and his advisers have freely given to the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem, 16 together with all the silver and gold you may obtain from the province of Babylon, as well as the freewill offerings of the people and priests for the temple of their God in Jerusalem. 17 With this money be sure to buy bulls, rams and male lambs, together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and sacrifice them on the altar of the temple of your God in Jerusalem.
    ...25 And you, Ezra, in accordance with the wisdom of your God, which you possess, appoint magistrates and judges to administer justice to all the people of Trans-Euphrates—all who know the laws of your God.

    This was all about the state of affairs in Jerusalem, to allow that city to preserve proper worship of God by the Jewish People. This is when the mandate was given, and it was not long after that the walls of Jerusalem were built, and the city government was initiated. This was the actual restoration of Jerusalem. It did not happen immediately after Cyrus' decree. The temple was built long before this, but at this time the temple worship was refined and the city was secured as the protective community for the temple worship.
    This is NOT about the state of affairs in Jerusalem. It is about worship in the Temple and about the Law of God for the Jews.

    You have a *huge gap* between the decree of Cyrus and the actual building of the city! But I'm not even concerned about any so-called "gap" that may have existed *before* the 70 Weeks period. I'm arguing against supposed "gaps" within the 70 Weeks period, which would make it not a 70 Weeks period at all! If any time is added to a 70 Weeks period it become a 71 week period, or a 72 week period, or even a 2,490 year period. A 70 Weeks period is *not* a 2,490 year period!
    Not actually, but the work keeps getting stopped as noted in Ezra.
    However there is NO gap between God's first prophecy to Jeremiah regarding the 70 years and God's then dealing with the restoration.

    Not the point, brother! The point is these are *continuous* weeks, or they do not define a period of time at all. They may add up to 70 Weeks, but unless they are continuous weeks they do not constitute a time period in the sense of a clock. Either Israel was to wait for 70 Weeks, or it was an entirely different period of time!
    Incorrect, they simply have to be blocks of weeks, there is NO requirement for all 70 to be one continuous whole.

    Can you imagine my telling you that in one week you'll get an award as a Hebrew scholar, but when one week passes I insist that one week has not passed yet, because the 7 days are actually going to take place over the next 70 days--we just have to identify which days represent the week?
    If you said it would take 7 working days then I would NOT expect it to take a week, and if there was a holiday in the middle, such as Thanksgiving, then I would expect it to take longer.

    All this is debatable.
    People debate all sorts of things when we KNOW certain things as FACT.
    It is SIMPLE FACT that Jesus did NOT come in 26 AD.

    So now you're saying that it's the individual blocks that are important, and not the overall period of 70 Weeks? So, in your view, the 70 Weeks is just the sum of all these 3 blocks? Absurd.
    The individual blocks ARE what constitute the 70 weeks THEREFORE they are what are important. What happens DURING them is also clearly stated. What should tell you to look for things are what is IMPORTANT.
    When the final one is completed, then also it means the 70 are completed and so we find the fulfillment of the things stated about the 70 weeks at that point as well.
    There is NOTHING absurd in that.

    No that is the very strange way you're looking at it, which in my view is not sensible.
    It is a very plausible and RATIONAL way to look at it. You may disagree, but that doesn't stop it being RATIONAL, whilst you were claiming ONLY your approach is RATIONAL.
    I haven't said your view isn't rational. The question is whether your view fits the prophecy and what we KNOW has happened.

    No, your view is irrational and absurd. Sorry. You're a smart guy. Work it out!
    As NOTHING I have presented is irrational nor absurd, it simply shows a lack of understanding on your side.
    I don't expect you to accept anything I present as fitting scripture because you have a predetermined dogma which prevents you from considering what is ACTUALLY stated.
    However I do expect you to recognise that your view is NOT the sole rational way of understanding things.
    When you recognise that various views are RATIONAL, then you can start getting into the detail of the view and whether it works or not.
    Whilst you reject anything else as being rational then of course you can't actually do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    This is inaccurate. Yes, mention of the city's destruction takes place before *detail* of the 70th Week is given. But that is not important. The order is given 1st, and then the detail.
    Not inaccurate in the slightest:
    And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

    Very clearly it states the 62 weeks end and then mentions the destruction of the city and sanctuary, with NO mention of the 70th week.

    Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.

    What this says is that Messiah will die, and although we are not yet told it will be in the 70th Week, we are given that detail later. So it is after Messiah dies in the 70th Week that the city will be destroyed.
    Nope we are NOT told an anointed one dies in the 70th week. That is you making things up.

    Here we are given the details that Messiah dies in the 70th Week:

    Dan 9.27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.

    We are not here told that Messiah dies in the middle of the 70th Week, but inasmuch as we are told he "confirms a covenant" in the 70th Week, we know that he also dies in that Week
    This does NOT say an anointed one makes a covenant. It says He, and the He therefore refers back to the previous mentioned person who is the one whose people destroy the city and sanctuary.
    So are you claiming the Jews destroy the city and sanctuary - in which case you are at least being consistent, but if not then it means this is NOT saying what you claim.

    And so, it is following the death of Christ in the 70th Week that the city is destroyed. It is *after* the 70th Week that the city and the temple are destroyed.
    Actually no it is NOT. We don;t have a death of an anointed one in the 70th week. Instead we have the death of the desolator at the end of the 70th week.

    The Messiah does come after 62 weeks, but also after an initial 7 weeks. This means he comes after 69 weeks, in the 70th Week. The 62 weeks is given as a period of time, following the rebuilding of Jerusalem, in which Israel had to wait until the coming of Messiah. They were focused on the building of Jerusalem during the 1st 7 weeks. Then 62 weeks is given as a period of waiting following the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
    Now it means there are TWO anointed ones.
    There is NO 69 weeks mentioned. They are separated, and as you agree that each week is a week of years then there is a MINIMUM difference of 434 years between the end of the 7 weeks and the end of the 62 weeks.

    You prove absolutely nothing here! If the word "dabar" is ubiquitous, it can hardly be used in a specialized way as a proof! Even worse, to say that word in 2 different places have to refer to the same decree is about as much proof as saying the water in my back yard is the same water in your neighborhood because in both places I use the exact same spelling for "water!" How the KJV translates the word has absolutely no bearing on the subject. Determining what decree is being referred to is the matter. And Artaxerxes' decree comes closer to the actual work of the construction than Cyrus' initial decree.
    It isn't ubiquitous, there is a different word used in scripture for a decree.
    The word "dabar" is used for the "Word" of the Lord as I showed you in verse 2.
    The point is (in your example) that water IS water and to claim water is NOT water is the error which you are making.
    I have NOT said the "word" to Jeremiah mentioned in verse 2 is the SAME SPECIFIC "word", I have simply noted that it is NOT referring to a decree of Man, but the "Word" of God.
    How the KJV does have a DIRECT bearing, because people look for a commandment - and that of Man, such as by Artaxerxes.
    Determining what "Word" is what matters, NOT some decree of Man.
    However IF you want to consider the decree of Man which is made in RESPONSE to the Word of God then that may hep you.

    No, not only does it make sense in hindsight, but it also fits the actual time of construction. Artaxerxes did indeed give a word that involves a continued application of Cyrus' original decree, including refining the temple worship and building the city organization, walls, etc.
    Actually it does NOT make proper sense in hindsight either for it certainly does NOT fit the actual time of construction.

    Ezra 7.12 Artaxerxes, king of kings,
    To Ezra the priest, teacher of the Law of the God of heaven:
    Greetings.
    13 Now I decree that any of the Israelites in my kingdom, including priests and Levites, who volunteer to go to Jerusalem with you, may go. 14 You are sent by the king and his seven advisers to inquire about Judah and Jerusalem with regard to the Law of your God, which is in your hand. 15 Moreover, you are to take with you the silver and gold that the king and his advisers have freely given to the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem, 16 together with all the silver and gold you may obtain from the province of Babylon, as well as the freewill offerings of the people and priests for the temple of their God in Jerusalem. 17 With this money be sure to buy bulls, rams and male lambs, together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and sacrifice them on the altar of the temple of your God in Jerusalem.
    ...25 And you, Ezra, in accordance with the wisdom of your God, which you possess, appoint magistrates and judges to administer justice to all the people of Trans-Euphrates—all who know the laws of your God.

    This was all about the state of affairs in Jerusalem, to allow that city to preserve proper worship of God by the Jewish People. This is when the mandate was given, and it was not long after that the walls of Jerusalem were built, and the city government was initiated. This was the actual restoration of Jerusalem. It did not happen immediately after Cyrus' decree. The temple was built long before this, but at this time the temple worship was refined and the city was secured as the protective community for the temple worship.
    This is NOT about the state of affairs in Jerusalem. It is about worship in the Temple and about the Law of God for the Jews.

    You have a *huge gap* between the decree of Cyrus and the actual building of the city! But I'm not even concerned about any so-called "gap" that may have existed *before* the 70 Weeks period. I'm arguing against supposed "gaps" within the 70 Weeks period, which would make it not a 70 Weeks period at all! If any time is added to a 70 Weeks period it become a 71 week period, or a 72 week period, or even a 2,490 year period. A 70 Weeks period is *not* a 2,490 year period!
    Not actually, but the work keeps getting stopped as noted in Ezra.
    However there is NO gap between God's first prophecy to Jeremiah regarding the 70 years and God's then dealing with the restoration.

    Not the point, brother! The point is these are *continuous* weeks, or they do not define a period of time at all. They may add up to 70 Weeks, but unless they are continuous weeks they do not constitute a time period in the sense of a clock. Either Israel was to wait for 70 Weeks, or it was an entirely different period of time!
    Incorrect, they simply have to be blocks of weeks, there is NO requirement for all 70 to be one continuous whole.

    Can you imagine my telling you that in one week you'll get an award as a Hebrew scholar, but when one week passes I insist that one week has not passed yet, because the 7 days are actually going to take place over the next 70 days--we just have to identify which days represent the week?
    If you said it would take 7 working days then I would NOT expect it to take a week, and if there was a holiday in the middle, such as Thanksgiving, then I would expect it to take longer.

    All this is debatable.
    People debate all sorts of things when we KNOW certain things as FACT.
    It is SIMPLE FACT that Jesus did NOT come in 26 AD.

    So now you're saying that it's the individual blocks that are important, and not the overall period of 70 Weeks? So, in your view, the 70 Weeks is just the sum of all these 3 blocks? Absurd.
    The individual blocks ARE what constitute the 70 weeks THEREFORE they are what are important. What happens DURING them is also clearly stated. What should tell you to look for things are what is IMPORTANT.
    When the final one is completed, then also it means the 70 are completed and so we find the fulfillment of the things stated about the 70 weeks at that point as well.
    There is NOTHING absurd in that.

    No that is the very strange way you're looking at it, which in my view is not sensible.
    It is a very plausible and RATIONAL way to look at it. You may disagree, but that doesn't stop it being RATIONAL, whilst you were claiming ONLY your approach is RATIONAL.
    I haven't said your view isn't rational. The question is whether your view fits the prophecy and what we KNOW has happened.

    No, your view is irrational and absurd. Sorry. You're a smart guy. Work it out!
    As NOTHING I have presented is irrational nor absurd, it simply shows a lack of understanding on your side.
    I don't expect you to accept anything I present as fitting scripture because you have a predetermined dogma which prevents you from considering what is ACTUALLY stated.
    However I do expect you to recognise that your view is NOT the sole rational way of understanding things.
    When you recognise that various views are RATIONAL, then you can start getting into the detail of the view and whether it works or not.
    Whilst you reject anything else as being rational then of course you can't actually do that.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    10,848

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Not inaccurate in the slightest:
    And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

    Very clearly it states the 62 weeks end and then mentions the destruction of the city and sanctuary, with NO mention of the 70th week.
    The mention of the 70th Week follows. The Messiah confirms a covenant in the 70th Week. Obviously, he dies in the 70th Week. And the city's destruction follows that. The city is destroyed *after* the 70 Weeks!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.
    Nope we are NOT told an anointed one dies in the 70th week. That is you making things up.

    Dan 9.27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’


    This does NOT say an anointed one makes a covenant. It says He, and the He therefore refers back to the previous mentioned person who is the one whose people destroy the city and sanctuary.
    The emphasis is on the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary. Reference to the one whose people it is do this awaits explanation in vs. 27. This "he," therefore, is the Messiah, who is mentioned in vss 25 and 26. He is the focus of this confirmation of a covenant. The prince whose people destroy the city and the sanctuary has nothing to do with a covenant. The purpose is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. On the other hand, the purpose of the Messiah is to bring to pass the 6 things mentioned in vs 24.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    So are you claiming the Jews destroy the city and sanctuary - in which case you are at least being consistent, but if not then it means this is NOT saying what you claim.
    No, I'm claiming the one whose people destroy the city is the Roman general. It's the Roman Army that destroys the city and the sanctuary.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually no it is NOT. We don;t have a death of an anointed one in the 70th week. Instead we have the death of the desolator at the end of the 70th week.
    No, we have the death of the Messiah in the 70th Week. The one whose people destroy the city is referenced later, together with his people, as the "abomination of desolation," which is a pagan army set upon the temple at the gates of Jerusalem.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Now it means there are TWO anointed ones.
    There is NO 69 weeks mentioned. They are separated, and as you agree that each week is a week of years then there is a MINIMUM difference of 434 years between the end of the 7 weeks and the end of the 62 weeks.

    It isn't ubiquitous, there is a different word used in scripture for a decree.
    We were talking about "dabar!"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The word "dabar" is used for the "Word" of the Lord as I showed you in verse 2.
    The point is (in your example) that water IS water and to claim water is NOT water is the error which you are making.
    I have NOT said the "word" to Jeremiah mentioned in verse 2 is the SAME SPECIFIC "word", I have simply noted that it is NOT referring to a decree of Man, but the "Word" of God.
    The word of a king is the same as a decree. They are interchangeable terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    How the KJV does have a DIRECT bearing, because people look for a commandment - and that of Man, such as by Artaxerxes.
    Determining what "Word" is what matters, NOT some decree of Man.
    However IF you want to consider the decree of Man which is made in RESPONSE to the Word of God then that may hep you.
    I don't have a problem with a "word" meaning a "decree."

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Actually it does NOT make proper sense in hindsight either for it certainly does NOT fit the actual time of construction.
    I already showed you it does. Nehemiah followed soon after Artaxerxes' decree. Wtihin 49 years after this decree in 457 BC the walls of Jerusalem were built, and the city was set up and functioning.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    This is NOT about the state of affairs in Jerusalem. It is about worship in the Temple and about the Law of God for the Jews.
    As I quoted to you, King Artaxerxes viewed Jerusalem and the temple synonymously. The city provided the necessary support for the temple worship. That's why Artaxerxes was concerned to set up magistrates and judges, to maintain order in the city and to ensure the temple worship had proper support.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Not actually, but the work keeps getting stopped as noted in Ezra.
    However there is NO gap between God's first prophecy to Jeremiah regarding the 70 years and God's then dealing with the restoration.
    What matters is that within 49 years the physical reconstitution of the city gets accomplished. Jeremiah's prophecy has nothing to do with a mandate to reconstitute the city and the temple. His prophecy only anticipated the mandate of Artaxerxes. Cyrus 1st mandated this, but only succeeded in starting work on the temple. It was Artaxerxes who succeeded in revisiting this process and actually accomplishing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Incorrect, they simply have to be blocks of weeks, there is NO requirement for all 70 to be one continuous whole.
    That's what I call absurd, brother. It isn't a 70 Weeks period of time at all, unless it runs consecutively. It's like saying my mail will arrive in a week, but I actually mean a "month!"

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    If you said it would take 7 working days then I would NOT expect it to take a week, and if there was a holiday in the middle, such as Thanksgiving, then I would expect it to take longer.
    Doesn't work for me. It's consecutive, or the term "70 Weeks" needs to change.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    People debate all sorts of things when we KNOW certain things as FACT.
    It is SIMPLE FACT that Jesus did NOT come in 26 AD.
    A lot of people have their own set of facts. Many people believe Jesus came in 26 AD. We will not complicate this issue further by going into that debate. This is the general time in which the 69 consecutive weeks would terminate.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    The individual blocks ARE what constitute the 70 weeks THEREFORE they are what are important. What happens DURING them is also clearly stated. What should tell you to look for things are what is IMPORTANT.
    When the final one is completed, then also it means the 70 are completed and so we find the fulfillment of the things stated about the 70 weeks at that point as well.
    There is NOTHING absurd in that.

    It is a very plausible and RATIONAL way to look at it. You may disagree, but that doesn't stop it being RATIONAL, whilst you were claiming ONLY your approach is RATIONAL.
    I haven't said your view isn't rational. The question is whether your view fits the prophecy and what we KNOW has happened.
    Your view is irrational because it's like saying your mail is coming in a Week when Week really means a Month!

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As NOTHING I have presented is irrational nor absurd, it simply shows a lack of understanding on your side.
    I don't expect you to accept anything I present as fitting scripture because you have a predetermined dogma which prevents you from considering what is ACTUALLY stated.
    However I do expect you to recognise that your view is NOT the sole rational way of understanding things.
    When you recognise that various views are RATIONAL, then you can start getting into the detail of the view and whether it works or not.
    Whilst you reject anything else as being rational then of course you can't actually do that.
    No, I can't say something makes sense when it doesn't. It certainly does to you. But it doesn't to me. You're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,952
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The 70 non-continous weeks of Daniel - new information

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The mention of the 70th Week follows. The Messiah confirms a covenant in the 70th Week. Obviously, he dies in the 70th Week. And the city's destruction follows that. The city is destroyed *after* the 70 Weeks!
    Follows, IOW it is NOT part of the 70th week.
    Also it does NOT say an anointed one makes or confirms a covenant, it says "he", and the "he" is referring to the previous "he" mentioned in verse 26, which is the prince of the people.
    So WHOEVER you understand to be the "prince of the people to come" is the SAME "he" who confirms the covenant.

    The emphasis is on the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary. Reference to the one whose people it is do this awaits explanation in vs. 27. This "he," therefore, is the Messiah, who is mentioned in vss 25 and 26. He is the focus of this confirmation of a covenant. The prince whose people destroy the city and the sanctuary has nothing to do with a covenant. The purpose is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. On the other hand, the purpose of the Messiah is to bring to pass the 6 things mentioned in vs 24.
    Indeed the emphasis is on the people, but the "he" is NOT the people, but is the "prince of those people".
    It CANNOT be an anointed one, as an anointed one does NOT destroy the city and sanctuary.

    No, I'm claiming the one whose people destroy the city is the Roman general. It's the Roman Army that destroys the city and the sanctuary.
    In which case then it is the Roman General who is confirming the covenant.

    No, we have the death of the Messiah in the 70th Week. The one whose people destroy the city is referenced later, together with his people, as the "abomination of desolation," which is a pagan army set upon the temple at the gates of Jerusalem.
    There is NO death of an anointed one mentioned in the 70th week.
    The one whose people destroys the city is referenced BEFORE the 70th week is mentioned.

    We were talking about "dabar!"
    Yes. And? "dabar" is translated in this SAME passage to mean "word", as in the WORD of the Lord.

    The word of a king is the same as a decree. They are interchangeable terms.
    Actually they aren't.
    The word of a king might lead to a decree, but a decree is WRITTEN, whilst a WORD is SPOKEN.

    I don't have a problem with a "word" meaning a "decree."
    Of course not as you don;t actually care what words mean. Anytime a word means something other than what you want it to mean, you then change it.

    I already showed you it does. Nehemiah followed soon after Artaxerxes' decree. Wtihin 49 years after this decree in 457 BC the walls of Jerusalem were built, and the city was set up and functioning.
    No you haven't.
    Artaxerxes Longiman gave a letter to Nehemiah in 445 BC and the wall was built in less than 1 year and the city inhabited and dedicated in less than 12.
    This is what SCRIPTURE tells us.
    Now it is true that 12 years is less than 49, however YOUR interpretation require the city to be finsihed ONLY AFTER 49 years, not within 12 years.

    As I quoted to you, King Artaxerxes viewed Jerusalem and the temple synonymously. The city provided the necessary support for the temple worship. That's why Artaxerxes was concerned to set up magistrates and judges, to maintain order in the city and to ensure the temple worship had proper support.
    No he didn't. Your quote did NOT support that claim.
    Cambyses II already had people running the region, but he gave to Ezra the role of teaching the Jews about the Law of God.

    What matters is that within 49 years the physical reconstitution of the city gets accomplished. Jeremiah's prophecy has nothing to do with a mandate to reconstitute the city and the temple. His prophecy only anticipated the mandate of Artaxerxes. Cyrus 1st mandated this, but only succeeded in starting work on the temple. It was Artaxerxes who succeeded in revisiting this process and actually accomplishing it.
    Incorrect. What matters is that an anointed one comes 7 weeks AFTER the word goes forth, as this is what is STATED in the prophecy.
    Jeremiah's prophecy that Daniel was reading was NOT about restoration. However God gave Jeremiah ANOTHER prophecy which WAS about restoration.
    Cyrus made the decree without which neither Cambyses II nor Darius nor Artaxerxes Longimans would have made their decrees.
    It was NOT A.L. who revisited this process, but Nehemiah.

    That's what I call absurd, brother. It isn't a 70 Weeks period of time at all, unless it runs consecutively. It's like saying my mail will arrive in a week, but I actually mean a "month!"
    Again a FALSE comparison.
    If you are told a letter will take 7 days to travel from the UK to the US, then you would NOT expect to receive a letter EXACTLY 7 days later.
    Instead you would expect there is a period of time for the letter to be written (you acknowledge this idea because you have 80 years BEFORE the 70 weeks starts), and then we have the period of time for the letter to travel from where in the US it arrived, to your local sorting office, and then you would expect a further period of time for your postman to deliver.
    Furthermore IF the mail office messed up, then though it SHOULD take a week, it may take a lot longer due to their error in delivery.
    There is NOTHING absurd in the FACT that doing something may take 70 weeks, but there are other factors which also need to be accounted for.
    In fact it is MORE absurd not to take those factors into account.

    Doesn't work for me. It's consecutive, or the term "70 Weeks" needs to change.
    It doesn't really matter whether it "works" for you or not. It is a SIMPLE FACT of language and how it is used. Further the 70 weeks IS CLARIFIED for people who struggle to comprehend by EXPLAINING it is a set of 3 blocks of weeks.

    A lot of people have their own set of facts. Many people believe Jesus came in 26 AD. We will not complicate this issue further by going into that debate. This is the general time in which the 69 consecutive weeks would terminate.
    People can believe anything, but that doesn't mean their belief is in line with FACTS.

    No, I can't say something makes sense when it doesn't. It certainly does to you. But it doesn't to me. You're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
    Can't help when you are claiming it to be a round peg, when it isn't.
    The SIMPLE TRUTH is that it is NOT irrational to say the 70 weeks are NOT continuous. This is the first TRUTH you need to grasp.
    After that you can say you believe what you do because you see it fits FACTS better, which is then debatable.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The mention of the 70th Week follows. The Messiah confirms a covenant in the 70th Week. Obviously, he dies in the 70th Week. And the city's destruction follows that. The city is destroyed *after* the 70 Weeks!
    Follows, IOW it is NOT part of the 70th week.
    Also it does NOT say an anointed one makes or confirms a covenant, it says "he", and the "he" is referring to the previous "he" mentioned in verse 26, which is the prince of the people.
    So WHOEVER you understand to be the "prince of the people to come" is the SAME "he" who confirms the covenant.

    The emphasis is on the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary. Reference to the one whose people it is do this awaits explanation in vs. 27. This "he," therefore, is the Messiah, who is mentioned in vss 25 and 26. He is the focus of this confirmation of a covenant. The prince whose people destroy the city and the sanctuary has nothing to do with a covenant. The purpose is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. On the other hand, the purpose of the Messiah is to bring to pass the 6 things mentioned in vs 24.
    Indeed the emphasis is on the people, but the "he" is NOT the people, but is the "prince of those people".
    It CANNOT be an anointed one, as an anointed one does NOT destroy the city and sanctuary.

    No, I'm claiming the one whose people destroy the city is the Roman general. It's the Roman Army that destroys the city and the sanctuary.
    In which case then it is the Roman General who is confirming the covenant.

    No, we have the death of the Messiah in the 70th Week. The one whose people destroy the city is referenced later, together with his people, as the "abomination of desolation," which is a pagan army set upon the temple at the gates of Jerusalem.
    There is NO death of an anointed one mentioned in the 70th week.
    The one whose people destroys the city is referenced BEFORE the 70th week is mentioned.

    We were talking about "dabar!"
    Yes. And? "dabar" is translated in this SAME passage to mean "word", as in the WORD of the Lord.

    The word of a king is the same as a decree. They are interchangeable terms.
    Actually they aren't.
    The word of a king might lead to a decree, but a decree is WRITTEN, whilst a WORD is SPOKEN.

    I don't have a problem with a "word" meaning a "decree."
    Of course not as you don;t actually care what words mean. Anytime a word means something other than what you want it to mean, you then change it.

    I already showed you it does. Nehemiah followed soon after Artaxerxes' decree. Wtihin 49 years after this decree in 457 BC the walls of Jerusalem were built, and the city was set up and functioning.
    No you haven't.
    Artaxerxes Longiman gave a letter to Nehemiah in 445 BC and the wall was built in less than 1 year and the city inhabited and dedicated in less than 12.
    This is what SCRIPTURE tells us.
    Now it is true that 12 years is less than 49, however YOUR interpretation require the city to be finsihed ONLY AFTER 49 years, not within 12 years.

    As I quoted to you, King Artaxerxes viewed Jerusalem and the temple synonymously. The city provided the necessary support for the temple worship. That's why Artaxerxes was concerned to set up magistrates and judges, to maintain order in the city and to ensure the temple worship had proper support.
    No he didn't. Your quote did NOT support that claim.
    Cambyses II already had people running the region, but he gave to Ezra the role of teaching the Jews about the Law of God.

    What matters is that within 49 years the physical reconstitution of the city gets accomplished. Jeremiah's prophecy has nothing to do with a mandate to reconstitute the city and the temple. His prophecy only anticipated the mandate of Artaxerxes. Cyrus 1st mandated this, but only succeeded in starting work on the temple. It was Artaxerxes who succeeded in revisiting this process and actually accomplishing it.
    Incorrect. What matters is that an anointed one comes 7 weeks AFTER the word goes forth, as this is what is STATED in the prophecy.
    Jeremiah's prophecy that Daniel was reading was NOT about restoration. However God gave Jeremiah ANOTHER prophecy which WAS about restoration.
    Cyrus made the decree without which neither Cambyses II nor Darius nor Artaxerxes Longimans would have made their decrees.
    It was NOT A.L. who revisited this process, but Nehemiah.

    That's what I call absurd, brother. It isn't a 70 Weeks period of time at all, unless it runs consecutively. It's like saying my mail will arrive in a week, but I actually mean a "month!"
    Again a FALSE comparison.
    If you are told a letter will take 7 days to travel from the UK to the US, then you would NOT expect to receive a letter EXACTLY 7 days later.
    Instead you would expect there is a period of time for the letter to be written (you acknowledge this idea because you have 80 years BEFORE the 70 weeks starts), and then we have the period of time for the letter to travel from where in the US it arrived, to your local sorting office, and then you would expect a further period of time for your postman to deliver.
    Furthermore IF the mail office messed up, then though it SHOULD take a week, it may take a lot longer due to their error in delivery.
    There is NOTHING absurd in the FACT that doing something may take 70 weeks, but there are other factors which also need to be accounted for.
    In fact it is MORE absurd not to take those factors into account.

    Doesn't work for me. It's consecutive, or the term "70 Weeks" needs to change.
    It doesn't really matter whether it "works" for you or not. It is a SIMPLE FACT of language and how it is used. Further the 70 weeks IS CLARIFIED for people who struggle to comprehend by EXPLAINING it is a set of 3 blocks of weeks.

    A lot of people have their own set of facts. Many people believe Jesus came in 26 AD. We will not complicate this issue further by going into that debate. This is the general time in which the 69 consecutive weeks would terminate.
    People can believe anything, but that doesn't mean their belief is in line with FACTS.

    No, I can't say something makes sense when it doesn't. It certainly does to you. But it doesn't to me. You're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
    Can't help when you are claiming it to be a round peg, when it isn't.
    The SIMPLE TRUTH is that it is NOT irrational to say the 70 weeks are NOT continuous. This is the first TRUTH you need to grasp.
    After that you can say you believe what you do because you see it fits FACTS better, which is then debatable.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Discussion The 7 weeks and 62 weeks of Daniel's 70 weeks
    By Vakeros in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 177
    Last Post: May 14th 2018, 09:54 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: Sep 29th 2017, 08:34 AM
  3. Information 70 weeks prophesy- Daniel
    By Moose in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: Oct 14th 2015, 01:48 PM
  4. The 70 LITERAL weeks of Daniel
    By ross3421 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: Apr 23rd 2011, 06:47 PM
  5. 70 Weeks of Daniel
    By MacGyver in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: Dec 31st 2008, 10:41 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •